GS Chandy had posted Jul 2, 2013 7:51 AM: > <snip> > > It (i.e., working towards a Mission using 'systems thinking') could possibly be done for a Mission like: "To > clearly say what 'mathematics' and 'logic' are". > This will, like the above, demand the active > e participation of those who wish to go further on > the Mission than they have done thus far (through use > of the conventional 'formalisms'). > > (I personally have not worked on this Mission at all > as I am ENTIRELY satisfied simply to use 'math' and > 'logic' as I have understood these subjects. There > do seem to be some doubts in the current schools of > thought on the subjects - my questions in the title > of this thread reflect some of these doubts. I do > believe some progress may be possible. As noted > earlier, I do not have empirical studies available to > confirm my belief). > <snip> No claim is made that using 'systems thinking' via a tool like the 'One Page Management System (OPMS) WILL 'fully resolve' the problem (/'fully accomplish' the identified Mission). The claim IS made that the 'stakeholders' in the issue will definitely arrive at a better understanding of the issue than they would by the conventional means they employ to tackle the issue (presumed to be 'academic scholarship and convivial discussion'.
As they (the stakeholders in some specific issue) work on their chosen 'Mission', they may come to the understanding that the issue cannot, at a particular time, be 'further resolved' than it is. Further developments (in technology/in understanding how we think) may be required for 'better resolution'.
For an example of a similar situation in quite another field, Charles Babbage had developed the concepts underlying the programmable computer way back in early 1800s, I believe. However, the computer per se became possible (as a usable tool) only much later, after electronic valves and then transistors became available. It is said that Babbage was unable to construct his 'difference engine' because of lack of funding: I believe that he would have been unable to construct one (for general public use) even if he had had a fair amount of funding - because of lack of required technologies.