Re: Rosenean theory catch-22's

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Tim's got it right, in the excerpt below:

> The Rosennean framework does comfortably subsume the
> mechanistic/Newtonian/reductionistic realm. The beauty of the the Rosennean
> approach is that it enlarges physics and science in a way that leaves intact
> mechanistic models and reductionistic approaches. Simple (mechanistic)
> systems become a subset of the now-larger universe of systems that we can
> model.

 

So there really isn't a conflict except the ones we keep making for ourselves, as a species.

 

I once asked my father why there was so much hostility between different groups of "science". He said there IS NO hostility between the sciences, the hostility is between the scientists... He said politics enters the picture as soon as a third person enters any discussion. Politics quickly becomes a religious fervor. It doesn't take long before human beings are ready to kill or die for their point of view. It's almost as if killing or dying for it strengthens the point of view, as in "it must be right, if he feels that strongly about it..."

 

If you know what the truth is, and you don't care if anybody else knows that you know... you can walk away. That's freedom. But it's hard to come by in the modern daily life of your average working folk. My father managed by being a chameleon of sorts. Maybe that's part of the reason his work is hard to find-- no one was really sure "what" he was. He was lucky to have tenure, though, and that is increasingly rare now. I have no idea what he would have done if he was just coming up at this point in time. He'd have to make his own luck, I suppose, like all of you are doing. So the trick becomes: How to be a chameleon while you are making your own luck... This takes us back to the phrasing issue that Pete mentioned. The way a grant is applied for is the place to match one's appearance to the surroundings. Whatever the pattern of the gatekeeper of the grant, that's what you shoot for.

 

Judith