Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

World Theories as Analytic-Deductive, Dispersive-Integrative

Philosophy underlies the distinction in the three volumes of the Tavistock Anthology:  founded on the World Hypotheses of Stephen C. Pepper, the Socio-Psychological Systems Perspective and the Socio-Technical Systems Perspectives are based on Organicism, while the Socio-Ecological Systems Perspective is based on Contextualism.

This thread on contextualism can be traced from the association between E.C. Tolman and Pepper in 1934, through the publication by Emery & Trist in 1965.

Fred Emery, in the edited paperback on Systems Thinking: Selected Readings (1969), cites World Hypotheses (1942) as a precedent to systems theory.  Stephen C. Pepper described the four Relatively Adequate World Hypotheses as two treatments with polarities, that can be structured into a 2-by-2 matrix, shown in Table 1.

Table 1:
Four relatively adequate world hypotheses
World Hypothesis Dispersive Integrative
Root metaphor:
Similarity, as a recurrence of recognizable features
Root metaphor:
Machine, where exerting force or energy produces predictable outcomes
Root metaphor:
Situation, as a historic event in its living actuality
Root metaphor:
Constructive development, with orderliness of changes from stage to stage

Pepper named four distinct world hypotheses with unfamiliar names, and coupled them loosely with prior philosophical schools. With each world theory, a root metaphor is induced.

  • Formism is associated with realism, and the idealism of Plato and Aristotle. Its root metaphor is similarity.
  • Mechanism is associated with naturalism or materialism, with philosophers such as Rene Descartes, John Locke, and David Hume. Its root metaphor is a machine.
  • Contextualism is associated with pragmatism, and philosophers such as Charles S. Peirce, William James, Henri Bergson and John Dewey. Its root metaphor is a situation (described by Pepper as a historic event, or an act within a setting).
  • Organicism is associated with absolute idealism, and philosophers such as George F. H. Hegel and Frances H. Bradley.  Its root metaphor is constructive development (described by Pepper as integration, refinement towards an ideal).

Let’s try a concrete example of mammalian births (and human infants, in particular) to get a feel for how the world hypotheses are different.

  • With formism, each instance of a birth may be unique, but births have a similarity (e.g. a baby emerges from the mother).
  • With mechanism, birth is a process where the mother goes through labour, and (like a machine) pushes out an infant.
  • With contextualism, a birth is an situation (or historic event) where an baby can conventionally be traced back with lineage to past ancestors, and forward to future descendants.
  • With organicism, a birth is a stage in constructive development of a new being, entering infancy on the way to becoming an adult.

Is there one world hypothesis, on the way to a world theory, that is “right”?  From a philosophical standpoint, that depends on the question you’re asking. If we see science as a pursuit of better answers, then we can see philosophy as the pursuit of better questions.

The polarities of the two treatments raise the bar on understanding the metaphilosophy.  With authentic systems thinking, “synthesis precedes analysis” [Ackoff 1981, p. 16] is more familiar.   The dispersive – integrative polarities are treatments that deserve more attention, when scientific pluralism is ascribed.

The two dimensions from the Table 1 above can be more specifically labelled as “theoretical modes of reasoning” and “theoretical manner for organizing evidence” (following Daley (2000), Table 4).  Expanding the cells in Table 1 above:

Table 2: Four world hypotheses by (i) mode of reasoning, and (ii) manner for organizing evidence
manner for organizing evidence
manner for organizing evidence
  • Analytic:
    parts in relations are presumed;
    each whole comes inferred;
  • Dispersive:
    unpredictability (non-determinism) is presumed;
    determinate order is denied.
  • Analytic:
    parts in relations are presumed;
    each whole comes inferred;
  • Integrative:
    determinate order is presumed;
    unpredictability (non-determinism) is denied.
  • Synthetic:
    wholes are presumed;
    parts in relations come inferred;
  • Dispersive:
    unpredictability (non-determinism) is presumed;
    determinate order is denied.
  • Synthetic:
    wholes are presumed;
    parts in relations come inferred;
  • Integrative:
    determinate order is presumed;
    unpredictability (non-determinism) is denied.

Along the analytic – synthetic polarities for theoretical modes of reasoning; …

  • with an analytic world hypothesis,
    • parts in relations are presumed;
    • each whole comes inferred;
      • e.g. a world theory is reasoned by taking evidence apart; and
  • with a synthetic world hypothesis,
    • wholes are presumed;
    • parts in relations come inferred;
      • e.g. a world theory is reasoned by putting evidence together.

Along the dispersive – integrative polarities for theoretical manners for organizing evidence …

  • with a dispersive world hypothesis,
    • unpredictability (non-determinism) is presumed;
    • determinate order is denied;
      • e.g. a world theory is organized through evidence that comes as scattered (fused through interpretation); and
  • with a integrative world hypothesis,
    • determinate order is presumed;
    • unpredictability (non-determinism) is denied;
      • e.g. a world theory is organized through evidence that fits properly (casting aside “unreal” facts).

Systems thinkers often critical against reductionism, as too analytic, promoting the methodologies with synthesis.  Less attention is paid to any implicit premise of (i) unpredictabilty and non-determinism (a dispersive theory), or (ii) determinate order (an integrative theory).

These descriptions raise the bar on understanding basic systems concepts.

  • An analytic presumption on part-whole relations doesn’t presume a whole (e.g. a census has an ideal for counting everyone born in a country, yet those who aren’t in the census aren’t excluded as citizens).
  • A synthetic presumption on wholes exclusively recognizes parts within (e.g. a teenager who shows up without a birth certificate or any knowledge of birth date won’t be fully identified for most government services, and might be conformed by being assigned an arbitrary birth date).
  • A dispersive presumption of unpredictability (non-determinism) takes confluences as novel situations that are unlikely to recur (e.g. pregnant mothers may have an expected due date, but the baby in a natural birth emerges on his or her own schedule).
  • A integrative presumption of determinate order takes confluences as predictable, with uncertainties portrayed through probability (e.g. babies normally progress through primary school and secondary school to be considered adults, depending on jurisdiction, somewhere between 16 and 21 years of age).

The World Hypotheses metaphilosophy builds a theory of knowledge based on doubt.  For a World Hypothesis to become a World Theory, cognitive refinement improves reliability.  Evidence becomes more convincing through increasing scope and precision.

  • Improving the scope of a world hypothesis extends the range of circumstances through the collection of more facts.
  • Improving the precision of a world hypothesis discriminates more carefully how the collection of facts support each other.

Evidence is rarely observed or experienced directly, so facts as data is less common than danda that is relayed socially.

  • Data is “something given, and purely given, entirely free from interpretation”.
  • Danda “are not pure observations, but loaded with interpretation” [Pepper 1942, Chapter III, p. 51]

Root metaphor theory builds on maxims, that can be taken as principles or rules on which knowledge is built.  Each of the maxims outlined in 1942 are extended with post hoc inferences based on a contemporary appreciation of systems theories.

  • Maxim I: A world hypothesis is determined by its root metaphor.  In application, several systems theories could be based on a shared root metaphor.
  • Maxim II: Each world hypothesis is autonomous.  A systems theory should be independently judged on adequacy by the reliability in its corroboration of evidence within.  A systems theory should stands on  its on evidence, and not on the shortcomings of an alternative theory.
  • Maxim III: Eclecticism is confusing.  Systems theories are mutually exclusive from each other, based on different root metaphors.  Mixing metaphors can introduce conflicting facts, leading to contradiction and a reduction of reliability.
  • Maxim, IV: Concepts which have lost contact with their root metaphors are empty abstractions.  A systems theory can grow old, so that associated abstractions get taken for granted.  Rejuvenation comes through tracing evidence back to the root metaphor.

In essence, each world hypothesis is itself a system of knowledge, with a root metaphor at its core.  Improving the reliability of multiple systems theories without contradiction is practical only if they share the same root metaphor.

In the industrial age, organicism can be seen as a primary interest, where an organizational whole is to be formed from parts that are (i) human employees and (ii) machines acquired as capital investments (i.e. socio-technical systems).

In an information age of inter-organizational relations, contextualism can be seen as a primary interest, where incorporated parties (from multinationals to single-person operations) come together in projects that are contracted (and sub-contracted) in non-exclusive agreements for limited durations (i.e. socio-ecological systems).

The question of whether organisicm or contextualism is at play depends on the primary system of interest.  The system of interest for one inquiry may be different from the system of interest in another inquiry.


As a resource for scholars who would prefer the original words as published, here’s an excerpt from Pepper 1942, Chapter VII describing the content explicated in the tables above.

 These four hypotheses arrange themselves in two groups of two each.

  • The first two are analytical world theories; the second two, synthetic.

Not that the analytical theories do not recognize and interpret synthesis, and the synthetic theories analysis; but the basic facts or danda of the analytical theories are mainly in the nature of elements or factors, so that synthesis becomes a derivative and not a basic fact, while the basic facts or danda of the synthetic theories are complexes or contexts, so that analysis becomes derivative. There is thus a polarity between these two pairs of hypotheses.

There is also a polarity between the members of each pair, and the polarity is of the same sort in each pair.

  • Formism and contextualism are dispersive theories;
  • mechanism and organicism, integrative theories.

So, analysis, is treated dispersively by formism and integratively by mechanism, and synthesis is treated dispersively by contextualism and integratively by organicism. [p. 142, editorial paragraphing added]

That is to say, the categories of formism and contextualism are such that, on the whole, facts are taken one by one from whatever source they come and are interpreted as they come and so are left. The universe has for these theories the general effect of multitudes of facts rather loosely scattered about and not necessarily determining one another to any considerable degree. The cosmos for these theories is not in the end highly systematic — the very word “cosmos” is not exactly appropriate. They regard system as something imposed upon parts of the world by other parts, so that there is an inherent cosmic resistance to determinate order in the world as well as a cosmic trend to impose it. Pure cosmic chance, or unpredictability, is thus a concept consistent with these theories even if not resorted to or emphasized by this or that particular writer. [pp. 142-143]

For the categories of mechanism and organicism, however, a concept of cosmic chance is inherently inconsistent and is veiled or explained away on every occasion that it threatens to emerge. If nothing better can be done with it, it is corraled in certain restricted areas of the world where the unpredictable is declared predictable, possibly in accordance with a law of probability. For these two theories the world appears literally as a cosmos where facts occur in a determinate order, and where, if enough were known, they could be predicted, or at least described, as being necessarily just what they are to the minutest detail.

From this parallelism another follows: that the type of inadequacy with which the dispersive theories are chiefly threatened is indeterminateness or lack of precision, whereas the type of inadequacy with which the integrative theories are chiefly threatened is lack of scope. [p. 143]

The intricacies of philosophical language require some extra effort!


Ackoff, Russell L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future: Plan or Be Planned For. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Daley, Michael C. 2000. “An Image of Enduring Plurality in Economic Theory: The Root -Metaphor Theory of Stephen C Pepper.” Doctoral dissertation, Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.

Emery, Fred E., and Eric L. Trist. 1965. “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments.” Human Relations 18 (1): 21–32.

Hayes, Steven C., Linda J. Hayes, and Hayne W. Reese. 1988. “Finding the Philosophical Core: A Review of Stephen C. Pepper’s World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 50 (1): 97., cached at

Pepper, Stephen C. 1942. “A General View of the Hypotheses.” In World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence, 141–50. Berkeley: University of California Press. .

Pepper, Stephen C. 1942. “Evidence and Corroboration.” In World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence, 39–70. Berkeley: University of California Press. .

World Hypothesis: Analytic-Synthetic, Dispersive-Integrative

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

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

  • RSS (Mastodon)

    • daviding: “Pre-announcing April 30 Dialogic Drinks session I'm leading …” April 23, 2024
      Pre-announcing April 30 Dialogic Drinks session I'm leading on "#Yinyang and Daojia into #SystemsThinking through Changes", online 18:30 Singapore, 11:30 London, 6:30am Toronto. Repeating May 2, 8:00pm ET. Official #EQLab notifications
    • daviding: “Diachrony (or diachronic shifts) resurrects a word from 1857…” April 10, 2024
      Diachrony (or diachronic shifts) resurrects a word from 1857, better expressing *changes through time*. A social practice publication in 1998 contrasts synchronic with diachronic.
    • daviding: “Web video introduction of 15 minutes for 1-hour Lunch and Le…” March 22, 2024
      Web video introduction of 15 minutes for 1-hour Lunch and Learn #CentreForSocialInnovationToronto on "Systems Changes Dialogues for Social Innovation" invites practitioners for upcoming monthly meetings. Evocative animated images, details deferred to conversations with mentors.
    • daviding: “Web video of slides from "From Unfreezing-Refreezing, to Sys…” March 21, 2024
      Web video of slides from "From Unfreezing-Refreezing, to Systems Changes Learning" for Dialogic Drinks of #EQLab represents only 1/5 of the time compared to peer-led discussions. Concise hosting called for brevity, and richer presentations. #SystemsThinking
    • daviding: “Hosting multiple Dialogic Drinks on "From Unfreezing-Refreez…” March 8, 2024
      Hosting multiple Dialogic Drinks on "From Unfreezing-Refreezing, to Systems Changes Learning" online, March 12 (Europe), March 14 (Americas), March 15 (Australia). #Leadership meets #SystemsThinking . Short presentations, longer discussions
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • The Nature and Application of the Daodejing | Ames and Hall (2003)
      Ames and Hall (2003) provide some tips for those studyng the DaoDeJing.
    • Diachronic, diachrony
      Finding proper words to express system(s) change(s) can be a challenge. One alternative could be diachrony. The Oxford English dictionary provides two definitions for diachronic, the first one most generally related to time. (The second is linguistic method) diachronic ADJECTIVE Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “diachronic (adj.), sense 1,” July 2023, For completeness, prochronic relates “to […]
    • Introduction, “Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, volume 2”, edited by F. E. Emery (1981)
      The selection of readings in the “Introduction” to Systems Thinking: Selected Readings, volume 2, Penguin (1981), edited by Fred E. Emery, reflects a turn from 1969 when a general systems theory was more fully entertained, towards an urgency towards changes in the world that were present in 1981. Systems thinking was again emphasized in contrast […]
    • Introduction, “Systems Thinking: Selected Readings”, edited by F. E. Emery (1969)
      In reviewing the original introduction for Systems Thinking: Selected Readings in the 1969 Penguin paperback, there’s a few threads that I only recognize, many years later. The tables of contents (disambiguating various editions) were previously listed as 1969, 1981 Emery, System Thinking: Selected Readings. — begin paste — Introduction In the selection of papers for this […]
    • Concerns with the way systems thinking is used in evaluation | Michael C. Jackson, OBE | 2023-02-27
      In a recording of the debate between Michael Quinn Patton and Michael C. Jackson on “Systems Concepts in Evaluation”, Patton referenced four concepts published in the “Principles for effective use of systems thinking in evaluation” (2018) by the Systems in Evaluation Topical Interest Group (SETIG) of the American Evaluation Society. The four concepts are: (i) […]
    • Quality Criteria for Action Research | Herr, Anderson (2015)
      How might the quality of an action research initiative be evaluated? — begin paste — We have linked our five validity criteria (outcome, process, democratic, catalytic, and dialogic) to the goals of action research. Most traditions of action research agree on the following goals: (a) the generation of new knowledge, (b) the achievement of action-oriented […]
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on

  • RSS on Media Queue

    • What to Do When It’s Too Late | David L. Hawk | 2024
      David L. Hawk (American management theorist, architect, and systems scientist) has been hosting a weekly television show broadcast on Bold Brave Tv from the New York area on Wednesdays 6pm ET, remotely from his home in Iowa. Live, callers can join…Read more ›
    • 2021/06/17 Keekok Lee | Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 2
      Following the first day lecture on Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 1 for the Global University for Sustainability, Keekok Lee continued on a second day on some topics: * Anatomy as structure; physiology as function (and process); * Process ontology, and thing ontology; * Qi ju as qi-in-concentrating mode, and qi san as qi-in-dissipsating mode; and […]
    • 2021/06/16 Keekok Lee | Philosophy of Chinese Medicine 1
      The philosophy of science underlying Classical Chinese Medicine, in this lecture by Keekok Lee, provides insights into ways in which systems change may be approached, in a process ontology in contrast to the thing ontology underlying Western BioMedicine. Read more ›
    • 2021/02/02 To Understand This Era, You Need to Think in Systems | Zeynep Tufekci with Ezra Klein | New York Times
      In conversation, @zeynep with @ezraklein reveal authentic #SystemsThinking in (i) appreciating that “science” is constructed by human collectives, (ii) the west orients towards individual outcomes rather than population levels; and (iii) there’s an over-emphasis on problems of the moment, and…Read more ›
    • 2019/04/09 Art as a discipline of inquiry | Tim Ingold (web video)
      In the question-answer period after the lecture, #TimIngold proposes art as a discipline of inquiry, rather than ethnography. This refers to his thinking On Human Correspondence. — begin paste — [75m26s question] I am curious to know what art, or…Read more ›
    • 2019/10/16 | “Bubbles, Golden Ages, and Tech Revolutions” | Carlota Perez
      How might our society show value for the long term, over the short term? Could we think about taxation over time, asks @carlotaprzperez in an interview: 92% for 1 day; 80% within 1 month; 50%-60% tax for 1 year; zero tax for 10 years.Read more ›
  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal