Skip to Main Content
Much criticism of the system sciences has been directed at the disparity between the claims we have made about the resolution power of our procedures and instruments, and what we have actually accomplished in the field. The extent to which such a disparity actually exists is discussed, and two strategies are posed for its reduction: a) increasing obedience to the set of procedural dictates under which system philosophy was initially formulated; b) bringing the rates of development of system theory and system methodology into better balance, such that system ontology becomes in part responsive to system epistemology. To the extent that these strategies are employed, the results of system-based research and development exercises should become clearly differentiated from the types of exercises conducted by nonsystem scientists. System science would then be moved further toward fulfilling the unique scientific role to which its philosophical and procedural predicates would appear to assign it.