Note to Forum:
I originally sent this to Tim off-list, but as it is relevant to a
point I am making in a subsequent email to the list, I have decided
to forward it to the list for information. I will send my other
email to the list after this one is posted. The reference (review)
I tried to review (at
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658(195710)38%3A4%3C666%3AGS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Jis:)
was listed thus:
The article you requested is:
General Systems
Reviewed Work(s):
* General Systems: Yearbook for the Society for the Advancement
of General Systems Theory by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Anatol Rapoport
Review author[s]: L. B. Slobodkin
Ecology, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1957), p. 666
No doubt there are more current treatments, but this one was
published during my first year of college. One might think it (the
review) would be available on open source if available at all . . .
especially after almost fifty years, but not even an abstract was available.
In suggesting (General) Systems Theory to Tim, it is not my intention
to suggest that any particular "doctrine" be followed (which would be
at odds with the fundamental concept itself), but that the principle
of relationships and influences between what we recognize as "parts"
be considered rather than particular applications such as
"predator/prey relationships." The concept of "doctrine" is
antithetical to the principle, which is a state of to continuous
adjustment, as in thinking rather than believing, in enquiry rather
than "answers."
This, of course, requires some discussion, but mostly, I believe, for
clarity of communication. It will be interesting to see what course
the discussion takes.
Whatever route Tim decides to take, I hope that he prevails in the
face of those persistent obstacles he cites. The doctrinaire will,
as it has always been, ironically within academic institutions.
WT
>Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:01:43 -0800
>To: "Baker, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Ecology as a General Education requirement
>
>I agree with you on both counts. Better to propose a course in
>General Systems Theory, using ecosystems as a model. Something like
>using a hawk to design an airplane. Everything IS ecology, but even
>many ecologists do not understand the fundamentals. While you and I
>find predator-prey relationships fascinating, how many accountants would?
>
>WT
>
>
>At 06:30 PM 11/4/2006, you wrote:
>> I'm working on a committee at our college to do program review of Gen. Ed.=
>> which includes writing a new mission statement for the program, program an=
>>d area SLO's, etc.. One of the things I've been pushing, and getting broad =
>>support for, is to include some understanding of ecology and environmental =
>>sustainability as an major objective of the program. In reviewing other col=
>>lege's Gen. Ed. statements, I see all the usual mix of things like cultural=
>> awareness, communication, critical thinking, etc.. but very few statements=
>> that relate to an understanding of how ecosystems function and how we fit =
>>into them.
>>
>>The problem I'm running into is how to phrase the objectives in a way that =
>>gets it incorporated without essentially requiring an Intro to Ecology cour=
>>se for every degree. While I think that such a requirement would be a great=
>> thing, I know it won't fly past the committee or the Academic Senate. Heck=
>>, I think a basic understanding of food webs, predator-prey relations and r=
>>eproductive strategies is at least as important as multi-cultural awareness=
>> or speech, both generally required everywhere. The general idea (no pun in=
>>tended) is that even a major in French Literature or Accounting ought to ha=
>>ve this kind of knowledge in order to be considered college educated. Given=
>> both our population and the rate of impact we are having, I think the evid=
>>ence suggests Academia has been failing somewhat in this regard .=20
>>
>>Do any of you have experience with the Gen. Ed. program at your school and =
>>this kind of objective? If so, how has your college dealt with the idea?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Tim
