The system-theoretical approach to causality has created much confusion and rejection. Understandably, it is not so easy to understand that causality is supposed to be a phenomenon dependent upon the observer. Here, the scientific orientation of our culture comes into play, the basic assumption being that the world (and not only nature) is organised according to causal laws. That nature has such aspects, which allow it to be described according to laws is not disputed in system theory. However, that these aspects manage without the selection of an observation (=experiment) is regarded as wrong.
In system theory, with system-environmental couplings, many causes as well as many effects are at play. The system chooses: someone tips a glass off the table – accidentally, with intent, consciously, unconsciously? It shatters on the floor into pieces which are unpredictable and not repeatable. It can trigger much in the ‘person responsible’: guilt, anger, grief, self-accusation, shame, pleasure etc.. However, is the broken glass the only trigger? No, many further possible causes could be involved. From this small example one can already see how strongly a cause-effect chain is dependent upon simplification and masking.
In experiments and research, one usually investigates one or a few factors and ignores the rest of the world as apparently stable (ceteris paribus). The results are, therefore, always findings that come about through the selection of the observation. And they are repeatable, if these conditions can be made stable. Thus, causal observations always mask causes and overlook effects so that they can say, “Because of this, that happened!”. And because one can always see it differently as well, there are many disputes about causal explanations.
This one ought to know.