更改

人工系统有个先天的重大缺陷: 它们必须以一个或多个基本假设为前提，而这些基本假设又是额外知识的基础。{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator.  What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}}这些基本假设本无害，但是它们必须被定义为真，而如果它们实际是假，那么该系统在结构上并不如假设那般完备。例如在[[几何学 geometry]]中，这种缺陷在[[定理 theorem]]的基础假设和定理外推的证明中是非常明显的。

人工系统有个先天的重大缺陷: 它们必须以一个或多个基本假设为前提，而这些基本假设又是额外知识的基础。{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator.  What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}}这些基本假设本无害，但是它们必须被定义为真，而如果它们实际是假，那么该系统在结构上并不如假设那般完备。例如在[[几何学 geometry]]中，这种缺陷在[[定理 theorem]]的基础假设和定理外推的证明中是非常明显的。

Artificial systems inherently have a major defect: they must be premised on one or more fundamental assumptions upon which additional knowledge is built.{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator.  What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}} These fundamental assumptions are not inherently deleterious, but they must by definition be assumed as true, and if they are actually false then the system is not as structurally integral as is assumed. For example, in [[geometry]] this is very evident in the postulation of [[theorem]]s and extrapolation of proofs from them.

Artificial systems inherently have a major defect: they must be premised on one or more fundamental assumptions upon which additional knowledge is built.{{clarify|date=June 2019|reason = Needs clearer explanation. e.g., what are the fundamental assumptions involved in a hammer, or a refrigerator.  What makes a man-made dam system different from a beaver dam in this context?}}{{citation needed|date = June 2019}} These fundamental assumptions are not inherently deleterious, but they must by definition be assumed as true, and if they are actually false then the system is not as structurally integral as is assumed. For example, in [[geometry]] this is very evident in the postulation of [[theorem]]s and extrapolation of proofs from them.

[[乔治 J.克莱尔 George J. Klir]]<ref>Klir, 1969, pp. 69–72</ref>认为无论如何都不存在“完备和完美的分类” ，并将系统定义为抽象的、[[真实 The Real|真实的 real]]和[[概念性系统 conceptual system|概念的 conceptual]][[物理系统 physical systems]]、有界的和[[无界的系统 unbounded system]]、离散的到连续的系统、脉冲的到[[混合系统 hybrid system|混合的系统 hybrid system]]等。系统与其环境之间的交互可分为相对封闭系统和[[开放系统（系统论））|开放系统 open systems]]。绝对封闭的系统似乎不太可能存在，即使存在，也不大可能为人所知。在“硬”系统和“软”系统之间也有重要的区别<ref>Checkland, 1997; Flood, 1999.</ref> ，“硬”系统在自然界是技术性的，可以适应诸如[[系统工程 systems engineering]]、[[运筹学]]和定量系统分析等方法，“软”系统涉及人和组织，通常与[[彼得·契克兰 Peter Checkland]]和 [[布莱恩·威尔逊 Brian Wilson (系统科学家)|布莱恩·威尔逊 Brian Wilson]]通过[[软体系统方法论]]（SSM）开发的概念相关，包括诸如[[行动研究 action research]]和强调参与式设计等方法。在硬系统可能被认为更“科学”的领域，两者的区别往往是暧昧的。

[[乔治 J.克莱尔 George J. Klir]]<ref>Klir, 1969, pp. 69–72</ref>认为无论如何都不存在“完备和完美的分类” ，并将系统定义为抽象的、[[真实 The Real|真实的 real]]和[[概念性系统 conceptual system|概念的 conceptual]][[物理系统 physical systems]]、有界的和[[无界的系统 unbounded system]]、离散的到连续的系统、脉冲的到[[混合系统 hybrid system|混合的系统 hybrid system]]等。系统与其环境之间的交互可分为相对封闭系统和[[开放系统（系统论））|开放系统 open systems]]。绝对封闭的系统似乎不太可能存在，即使存在，也不大可能为人所知。在“硬”系统和“软”系统之间也有重要的区别<ref>Checkland, 1997; Flood, 1999.</ref> ，“硬”系统在自然界是技术性的，可以适应诸如[[系统工程 systems engineering]]、[[运筹学]]和定量系统分析等方法，“软”系统涉及人和组织，通常与[[彼得·契克兰 Peter Checkland]]和 [[布莱恩·威尔逊 Brian Wilson (系统科学家)|布莱恩·威尔逊 Brian Wilson]]通过[[软体系统方法论]]（SSM）开发的概念相关，包括诸如[[行动研究 action research]]和强调参与式设计等方法。在硬系统可能被认为更“科学”的领域，两者的区别往往是暧昧的。

[[George J. Klir]]<ref>Klir, 1969, pp. 69–72</ref> maintained that no "classification is complete and perfect for all purposes", and defined systems as abstract, [[The Real|real]], and [[conceptual system|conceptual]] [[physical systems]], bounded and [[unbounded system]]s, discrete to continuous, pulse to [[hybrid system]]s, etc. The interactions between systems and their environments are categorized as relatively closed and [[open system (systems theory)|open systems]]. It seems most unlikely that an absolutely closed system can exist or, if it did, that it could be known by man. Important distinctions have also been made<ref>Checkland, 1997; Flood, 1999.</ref> between ''hard'' systems – technical in nature and amenable to methods such as [[systems engineering]], operations research, and quantitative systems analysis – and ''soft'' systems that involve people and organisations, commonly associated with concepts developed by [[Peter Checkland]] and [[Brian Wilson (systems scientist)|Brian Wilson]] through [[Soft systems methodology|Soft Systems Methodology]] (SSM) involving methods such as [[action research]] and emphasis of participatory designs. Where hard systems might be identified as more "scientific", the distinction between them is often elusive.

[[George J. Klir]]<ref>Klir, 1969, pp. 69–72</ref> maintained that no "classification is complete and perfect for all purposes", and defined systems as abstract, [[The Real|real]], and [[conceptual system|conceptual]] [[physical systems]], bounded and [[unbounded system]]s, discrete to continuous, pulse to [[hybrid system]]s, etc. The interactions between systems and their environments are categorized as relatively closed and [[open system (systems theory)|open systems]]. It seems most unlikely that an absolutely closed system can exist or, if it did, that it could be known by man. Important distinctions have also been made<ref>Checkland, 1997; Flood, 1999.</ref> between ''hard'' systems – technical in nature and amenable to methods such as [[systems engineering]], operations research, and quantitative systems analysis – and ''soft'' systems that involve people and organisations, commonly associated with concepts developed by [[Peter Checkland]] and [[Brian Wilson (systems scientist)|Brian Wilson]] through [[Soft systems methodology|Soft Systems Methodology]] (SSM) involving methods such as [[action research]] and emphasis of participatory designs. Where hard systems might be identified as more "scientific", the distinction between them is often elusive.