Re: [fellows discuss] Mendeleev

[Jack Ring]

On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:14 AM, <jac...@burnhamsystems.net> <jac...@burnhamsystems.net> wrote:

Regarding pattern recognition, the great master of pattern recognition was Mendeleev.   

 

and a similar (four-factor) rationale for mathematics by Prof. Rao

and the recent four-factor rationale for systems thinking by Prof. Cabrera, Cornell

Is there a four-factor pattern here?

[Steve Wallis]

Making progress in that direction. We have two factors for measuring conceptual systems (plans, models, theories, policy models, program theories). One factor is the "simple" Complexity (number of concepts within the conceptual system). Another factor is the Systemicity (a ratio describing the causal interconnectedness of those concepts - from I.P.A.).

A simplified version relating to strategic plans is here on p. 5: http://meaningfulevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/Strategic-Knowledge-Mapping-Oct-271.pdf

Another is here, relating to economic policy models (conceptual systems) on p. 8 (for increased ease of reading by lay persons, we refer to Complexity and Systemicity as Breadth and Depth, respectively): http://scipolicy.org/uploads/3/4/7/6/34767628/using_integrative_propositional_analysis.pdf

And, more formally, in the recently published paper in Foundations of Science, on p. 17 showing theories (conceptual systems) of entrepreneurship. Here, conceptual systems of physics would be in the upper left hand quadrant - having a Systemicity of 1.0 (amenable to algebraic manipulation) but a typically low Complexity (certainly useful for understanding and predicting change in the world of physics, but probably not sufficiently complex for use in the social sciences: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwji16bO_eTQAhVHJCYKHRL1AYIQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffile.PostFileLoader.html%3Fid%3D568e91646307d9c19e8b457b%26assetKey%3DAS%253A315296320032770%25401452183908913&usg=AFQjCNEOzS0ETwQJAXdLgNu30LRlETLU5Q&sig2=0zI_aRXaz0sho7CpTOh5zw

Hmm.. perhaps "usefulness" (or effectiveness in practical application for reaching goals) might be a third factor?  Could you suggest what a fourth factor might be?

Thanks,

Steve