There is an enormous difference between cybernetics and systems theory (in its various forms). I do not believe this is the place to go into it, unless we are prepared to seriously consider the relationship between design and cybernetics, and design and systems. However, generally the difference is seen by those who call themselves cyberneticians, and not seen by those who call themselves systems scientists. We, in the cybernetics camp, would probably say this is a form of blindness, though I'd rather not speak for others.
I consider cybernetics to be much more abstract, much more philosophical, much more questioning—a questioning that comes out of considering the deeper implications of cybernetic understandings. Much of modern cybernetics is less concerned with application and more concerned with matters of epistemology, the included observer (the view from within) and so on.
Charles François, compiler and editor of the International Encyclopaedia of Systems and Cybernetics, says “Cybernetics is obviously the dynamic complement of systemics.” I'm not in complete agreement, but it's a good starting point. Ross Ashby told us that cybernetics is the abstract study of all possible machines. The Macy Conferences, where Wiener honed his ideas that he "felt obliged to find a name for" had, as its mission statement, "Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems." Etc.
Ranulph
|