I think you're projecting unintended meaning onto the word 'purpose'. The point is exactly the one you're making: systems do not have a metaphysical purpose. The only thing that we can say for certain about a system's purpose is that it generates the results it generates. It is what it does. Anything else is ideology.
Regardless that kind of clarification is still useful. If you can make an explanation more precise, its good to do so. Not everyone will need it. But, never underestimate how varied people's interpretations are. Besides, expanding the scope of discussion to biological systems is interesting anyway.
It's not clarifying, though. What Beer is referring to isn't utility, because utility is relative and implies that we're ascribing normative value to the outputs of a system, not to mention that utility doesn't account for all of the results that a system generates. The point of the exercise is to view a system purely in descriptive, material terms. Once we properly describe the system, we can then apply a normative lens and judge on those terms whether or not the system is working as intended or expected.
Utility does account for all the outputs of a system. Thinking about this in terms of utility is essential. Only by assessing what a system does from the perspective of the people it effects can we gauge it. There is no way to judge a system without some concept of utility.
Sure, there is a brief moment where we need to look at a system in simple terms like taking in X resource and outputting Y service and Z externality. But we don't know what any of those things actually do until we asses how they effect people.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. No human system operates without effecting humans. Judging something without considering utility is like judging a house by looking at the blueprint instead of visiting the house for tea and speaking to the residents.
The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID) is a systems thinking heuristic coined by Stafford Beer,[1] who observed that there is "no point in claiming that the purpose of a system is to do what it constantly fails to do."[2] The term is widely used by systems theorists, and is generally invoked to counter the notion that the purpose of a system can be read from the intentions of those who design, operate, or promote it. When a system's side effects or unintended consequences reveal that its behavior is poorly understood, then the POSIWID perspective can balance political understandings of system behavior with a more straightforwardly descriptive view.
The point of POSIWID is to properly evaluate utility, by pointing out that the intended purpose for something is irrelevant to its actual effect. We’re not disagreeing, but utility simply is not synonymous with purpose, because the phrase is meant to counter the assertion that the intended purpose of a system is relevant to its effects in the real world. If you replace it with “utility” then you’re basically saying “the utility of a system is what it does”, which is true, but also redundant and not the point of the phrase.
I think you're projecting unintended meaning onto the word 'purpose'. The point is exactly the one you're making: systems do not have a metaphysical purpose. The only thing that we can say for certain about a system's purpose is that it generates the results it generates. It is what it does. Anything else is ideology.
Regardless that kind of clarification is still useful. If you can make an explanation more precise, its good to do so. Not everyone will need it. But, never underestimate how varied people's interpretations are. Besides, expanding the scope of discussion to biological systems is interesting anyway.
It's not clarifying, though. What Beer is referring to isn't utility, because utility is relative and implies that we're ascribing normative value to the outputs of a system, not to mention that utility doesn't account for all of the results that a system generates. The point of the exercise is to view a system purely in descriptive, material terms. Once we properly describe the system, we can then apply a normative lens and judge on those terms whether or not the system is working as intended or expected.
Utility does account for all the outputs of a system. Thinking about this in terms of utility is essential. Only by assessing what a system does from the perspective of the people it effects can we gauge it. There is no way to judge a system without some concept of utility.
Sure, there is a brief moment where we need to look at a system in simple terms like taking in X resource and outputting Y service and Z externality. But we don't know what any of those things actually do until we asses how they effect people.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. No human system operates without effecting humans. Judging something without considering utility is like judging a house by looking at the blueprint instead of visiting the house for tea and speaking to the residents.
The point of POSIWID is to properly evaluate utility, by pointing out that the intended purpose for something is irrelevant to its actual effect. We’re not disagreeing, but utility simply is not synonymous with purpose, because the phrase is meant to counter the assertion that the intended purpose of a system is relevant to its effects in the real world. If you replace it with “utility” then you’re basically saying “the utility of a system is what it does”, which is true, but also redundant and not the point of the phrase.
I wouldn't replace purpose with utility. I would replace does with utility.
A system is what it does. The purpose of a system is its utility.
This is what we're discussing in this thread.