>As to Systems thinking being a "descriptive science," I believe we can
>distinguish descriptive models (such as Kepler's "laws" which describe
>planetary motion) from structural models which contain a reasonably
>sufficient explanation of how and why (e.g. Newton "proved" Keplers laws,
>needing only the assumption that gravity follows an inverse square law).
Describing the "forces" is still a description - how things happen(and that
level, the "why") are not a true explanation - they don't have "meaning"
>Most Systems Thinking models try to be a structural explanation, not just
>a description of the trends and patterns observed.
klakhani@aztec.co.za (Ketan Lakhani)