@eepu Thanks for the thoughts on day one. You’ve raised an interesting issue of “systems thinking” and “systems science” … which are actually two different things, although related.
Science can be described as a “pursuit of knowledge”, so human beings observe patterns, develop hypotheses or conjectures, and then prove or disprove the validity of the inferred patterns. If things work out, we have theory. Kurt Lewin said “there’s nothing so practical as a good theory”.
Systems thinking can be more intuitive in how we use patterns. In particular, when we don’t have enough data, or the world has changed — I cite the Internet as a phenomenon that the systems thinkers of the 1970s could not have experienced — we’ve having to make decisions about system designs in which we haven’t established “scientific proof”. Over time, it may be possible to establish that proof, but we should have to wait for 99.9% certainty before taking action.
The major benefit of a systems approach is that it’s cross-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary. When we can solve a problem using disciplinary knowledge, the challenge is simple.
Of course, there needs to be a way to develop knowledge about systems that is repeatable … which is where the systems sciences come in.