A escola é a rede
PARTE 8 | NETWORK APPROACH AND SYSTEMS APPROACH
ATENÇÃO: NÃO É PARA DISCUTIR E SIM PARA TRADUZIR. MENCIONE O PEDAÇO (OU OS PEDAÇOS) QUE VOCÊ TRADUZIU E PUBLIQUE A TRADUÇÃO NO CAMPO DE COMENTÁRIOS.
Pedaço 1
FP — What's the difference between a network approach and a system approach? You use both terms. One may be older than the other…
FC — The systems approach is older, and it means an approach that focuses on relationships rather than separate objects. And it focuses on processes rather than structures. Exactly what you just said. The network approach grew out of the systems approach when people focused specifically on the network pattern.
Actually, come to think of it, it's not really true that the network approach came later. Ecologists introduced the term ecosystem, which was a major advance in making the systems terminology acceptable and publicizing it. And they also introduced the food web and the network approach. From ecology, network modeling and network thinking went into biology and into various other fields. This happened in the 1920s and ’30s. So, you could say that systems theory and network thinking really arose together.
In the ’30s and ’40s, there was the school of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, which was called general systems theory. He was a biologist and worked on theoretical biology, and he focused on open systems. He was a predecessor of Prigogine, but he did not have the mathematical tools to describe nonlinear systems. The cyberneticists did not focus on the physiochemical processes but on the patterns, and they very much dealt with networks.
Pedaço 2
FP — It would be interesting to do a history of network thinking…
FC — Yes, that would be interesting. This is the kind of study that would be great for a graduate student.
FP — What allowed you to move from one level to another, from one science to another, from biology to cognition to social networks? Why can something that works at one level be applied at another? What gives you the right to use the same metaphors at those three levels?
FC — My firm belief is that life is a unified whole, that we don't have biological life, and social life, and mental life or psychological life, and spiritual life. I think this is all part of the whole process of life, which has evolved on this planet for the last 3.5 billion years. It has evolved, as I said before, by using the same patterns over and over again. I make somewhat of a leap of faith here by saying that, since life has used the same patterns over and over again, I believe that, when I talk about networks of communication and compare them to biological networks, I can find similarities in the patterns. I have done this to quite some extent, and I have tried to push the parallels as far as I can. In particular, I have put together a whole list of similarities between networks of communications and networks of biological processes.
FP — You are talking about "belief," a "leap of faith"…
FC — Yes. The justification is a belief. But what I actually say about similarities comes from observations. And I think this is typical of science. When you start with a theory or a hypothesis, it's always a leap of faith.
Pedaço 1
FP — What's the difference between a network approach and a system approach? You use both terms. One may be older than the other…
FC — The systems approach is older, and it means an approach that focuses on relationships rather than separate objects. And it focuses on processes rather than structures. Exactly what you just said. The network approach grew out of the systems approach when people focused specifically on the network pattern.
Actually, come to think of it, it's not really true that the network approach came later. Ecologists introduced the term ecosystem, which was a major advance in making the systems terminology acceptable and publicizing it. And they also introduced the food web and the network approach. From ecology, network modeling and network thinking went into biology and into various other fields. This happened in the 1920s and ’30s. So, you could say that systems theory and network thinking really arose together.
In the ’30s and ’40s, there was the school of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, which was called general systems theory. He was a biologist and worked on theoretical biology, and he focused on open systems. He was a predecessor of Prigogine, but he did not have the mathematical tools to describe nonlinear systems. The cyberneticists did not focus on the physiochemical processes but on the patterns, and they very much dealt with networks.
Pedaço 2
FP — It would be interesting to do a history of network thinking…
FC — Yes, that would be interesting. This is the kind of study that would be great for a graduate student.
FP — What allowed you to move from one level to another, from one science to another, from biology to cognition to social networks? Why can something that works at one level be applied at another? What gives you the right to use the same metaphors at those three levels?
FC — My firm belief is that life is a unified whole, that we don't have biological life, and social life, and mental life or psychological life, and spiritual life. I think this is all part of the whole process of life, which has evolved on this planet for the last 3.5 billion years. It has evolved, as I said before, by using the same patterns over and over again. I make somewhat of a leap of faith here by saying that, since life has used the same patterns over and over again, I believe that, when I talk about networks of communication and compare them to biological networks, I can find similarities in the patterns. I have done this to quite some extent, and I have tried to push the parallels as far as I can. In particular, I have put together a whole list of similarities between networks of communications and networks of biological processes.
FP — You are talking about "belief," a "leap of faith"…
FC — Yes. The justification is a belief. But what I actually say about similarities comes from observations. And I think this is typical of science. When you start with a theory or a hypothesis, it's always a leap of faith.
Respostas a este tópico
-
Permalink Responder até Omar Rocha em
-
Posso me encarregar da tradução da Parte 8, pedaços 1 e 2.
-
Permalink Responder até Omar Rocha em
-
PARTE 8 | ABORDAGEM DE REDE E ABORDAGEM DE SISTEMAS
Pedaço 1
FP - Qual é a diferença entre uma abordagem de ‘rede’ e uma abordagem de ‘sistemas’? Você usa os dois termos. Um pode ser mais antigo do que o outro...
FC – A abordagem de sistemas, a mais antiga, se foca nas ‘relações’, em vez de em objetos distintos; e em ‘processos’, ao invés de ‘estruturas’. A abordagem de rede surgiu daí, quando as pessoas se focaram especificamente no padrão de redes.
Mas, de fato, não é inteiramente certo que a abordagem de rede veio depois. Os ecologistas introduziram o conceito de ‘ecossistema’, que foi um grande avanço no sentido de tornar aceitável e divulgar a terminologia de sistemas. Como também introduziram a abordagem de cadeia alimentar e da rede. Da Ecologia, os conceitos ‘modelagem de redes’ e ‘pensamento em rede’ migraram para a Biologia e para diversos outros campos. Isto aconteceu nas décadas de 1920 e 30. Então, poderíamos dizer que a teoria de sistemas e o pensamento em redes realmente surgiram juntos.
Nas décadas de 30 e 40, surgiu a escola de Ludwig von Bertalanffy, chamada de teoria geral de sistemas. Ele foi um biólogo e trabalhou em biologia teórica, com foco em sistemas abertos. Ele foi um antecessor de Prigogine, mas não dominava as ferramentas matemáticas para descrever sistemas não-lineares. Os ciberneticistas não se focaram nos processos fisioquímicos, mas nos padrões, e eles lidaram um bocado com redes.
Pedaço 2
FP - Seria interessante fazer uma história do pensamento em rede...
FC - Sim, seria bem interessante. Este é o tipo de ótimo estudo para um aluno de pós-graduação.
FP - O que lhe permitiu passar de um nível para outro, de uma ciência para outra, da Biologia para a cognição e para as redes sociais? Porque algo que funciona em um nível pode ser aplicada em outro? O que lhe dá o direito de usar a mesma metáfora nesses três níveis?
FC - Minha convicção é que a vida é um todo unificado, que não temos ‘vidas’ biológica, social, psicológica, mental, espiritual. Penso que tudo isto é parte do processo total da Vida, que tem evoluído neste planeta durante os últimos 3,5 bilhões de anos. Ela tem evoluído, como eu disse antes, usando os mesmos padrões repetidamente. Eu faço um pouco de um salto de fé, aqui, dizendo que, uma vez que a vida tem os mesmos padrões utilizados uma e outra vez, penso que, quando eu falar sobre redes de comunicação e compará-las com redes biológicas, posso encontrar semelhanças nos padrões. Eu tenho feito isso em grande extensão, e tenho tentado identificar os paralelos no máximo que posso. Em particular, tenho estabelecido uma lista das semelhanças entre as redes de comunicações e as redes de processos biológicos.
FP - Você está falando em "crença", em um "salto de fé" ...
FC - Sim. A justificação é uma crença. Mas o que eu digo sobre semelhanças provém realmente de observações. E eu acho que isto é típico da ciência. Quando você começa com uma teoria ou uma hipótese, é sempre um salto de fé.
Bem-vindo a
Escola de Redes
Sobre
© 2009 Criado por Augusto de Franco
Badges | Relatar um incidente | Privacidade | Termos de serviço
