Systems Theory Is Necessary Science for Skeptics to Know

Systems Theory Is Necessary Science for Skeptics to Know

Key components of Receptive Skepticism come from systems theory.  Practitioners of skeptical inquiry must know systems theory, so they don’t neglect scientific evidence on how to interact with our society.   And they can not justifiably evaluate the actions of others, while neglecting systems theory.

When Receptive Skepticism promotes using systems theory, it is promoting: [1]. the foundation of couple and family psychology research and practice. Systems theory provides a set of principles and concepts that inform our understanding of human behavior…”

The above link is a resource to help both demonstrate the centrality of systems theory in the behavioral sciences, and to demonstrate that any social system is scientifically defined as a type of open system,  meaning that it is governed by the same systemic laws for open systems anywhere else in science.  Receptive Skepticism acknowledges this science, and Receptive Skepticism is about respecting and adapting to the ramifications of this being the case.  And Receptive Skepticism is built around the case that the ramifications are enormous.

It is time to enter systemic thinking when we see how the faulty and dangerous behavior of others elicits feelings in us, no matter how personal they feel.

It is time to enter systemic thinking when we look at barriers to science advocacy

It is time to enter systemic thinking, when we ask, what is the systemic role of scorn, and how worthwhile is it to keep it?

Receptive Skepticism is a call for incorporating some vital scientific knowledge, among practitioners of skeptical inquiry.  Receptive Skepticism promotes systemic thinking, because science says it is necessary for understanding social behavior, and social change.  It is time for a change.


[1].  Stanton, M., & Welsh, R. (2012). Systemic thinking in couple and family psychology research and practice. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(1), 14.  doi: : 10.1037/a0027461

Source: te

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *