Promoting Rosennean concepts

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
>
--snip--
> I am beginning to think what's required are little guides to Rosennean
> Theory, defining the terms and pointing out the cross-applicability
> potential in the parlance of each discipline, such that there will be "The
> Ecologist's Guide", "The Medical Doctor's Guide", "The Physicist's
> Guide".... etc.
>
> Judith

Why are his works so unknown? Here are some of my thoughts, in no particular
order. Looking at these, I am not sure that having guides for each
discipline would (or could) resolve or circumvent most of these issues:

* Heavily technical style is both its strength and an obstruction to its
acceptance.

* The very idea that there are physical systems outside the grasp of
mathematical (algorithmic) models is almost totally disbelieved.

* The very idea that there are physical systems not amenable to
epistemological reductionism is almost totally disbelieved.

* Rosennean complexity has no "killer app" (or, as Jeff Pridaux described it
in a post some time ago, 'the elusive "practical application"').

* Institutionally, teaching, asserting or promoting Rosennean complexity
appears to be discouraged at every level.

* "Of what use are models that can't give me a numeric answer!!??"

* Of what use are papers submitted to peer-review journals that can't show
numeric answers?

* Historically has been difficult to physically access writings - both
books, and papers published in journals that are not easily found.


I was just reading the article on string theory in the Nov 2003 issue of
"Scientific American". Here is a theory about which many books, articles and
papers have been written, and yet, this theory has so apparently far not
produced any real testable predictions!! But it continues to garner
interest, institutional support, and "public awareness". Why is this?
Certainly, string theory is compatible with, and seeks to further, the
crusade of reductionism. It also does not deeply threaten the paradigmatic
limits of any of the current QM and macroscopic physics. Physicists commonly
expect the next "Einsteinian breakthough" can only come from either the
ultra-microscopic or the cosmological frontier. The proponents of string
theory also appear to actively promote it from within the institutional
setting.

String theory at least holds out the promise of providing science with
testable (numeric?) predictions at some point in the future of its
development. Whether it will eventually fulfill those promises is a moot
point right now. (Speaking from my highly unqualified vantage point, I am
extremely dubious of the entire program.) But at least it makes such
promises to science, the institutions, and the public. And it gets
recognition.

On the other hand, what promises of testable predictions does Rosennean
complexity hold?? I can think of none, at the moment.The only predictions I
can think of are predictions of what _cannot_ be done, such as predicting an
inability to solve certain physical problems in purely algorithmic form. But
the endeavor of science is perpetually fraught with inabilities and
difficulties, many of which are eventually overcome. So these negative
predictions may be less than compelling, and do not thereby lend adequate
support to Rosennean complexity. In effect, if we view Rosennean complexity
itself as a model sitting on one side of a modeling relation, it needs to
make positive predictions about what the science on the other side of that
modeling relation will encounter; otherwise, that modeling relation between
complexity and science may never commute.

It is midnite now, so I pause here. I hope this will still make sense to me
in the morning. :)

Regards,
Tim