Re: Rosenean theory, Nature article

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Dan, you can count me in if you think it would be of value. I'm a writer,
but in a world where credentials are considered as important as (or more
important than) intelligence, new ideas, or even talent... being "the
daughter" may not be worth much.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosenean theory, Nature article


> Tim,
>
> Re: this:
>
> Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
> > The idea of creating an article - either in response to this one or on
its
> > own - sounds intriguing. I wonder if they'd even consider it?
>
> I think a response might have a better chance, and since they printed
> the one by Ottini they have essentially invited rebuttal or comment and
> so it seems they'd consider articles on this topic.
>
> I think this is an opening or opportunity and we should go for it. I'd be
> willing to help write it. What have we got to lose?
>
> Maybe responding to the engineering angle/field/focus of the Ottini
> piece might not be that useful. Not sure. But the foundational concepts
> he haphazardly tosses out seem a perfect seque to mention Rosennean
> complexity as a coherent framework that is needed now if we are to
> get past dabbling in complexity and really deal with it in systematic
> and robust first-principled fashion.
>
> The stuff you have on your website would be a good start - a table that
> compares two frameworks or bodies of theory in which Rosen complexity
> is larger than, less constrained than, mechanistic/algorithmic/Newtonian
> complicatedness, for example, could be a central aspect of the article.
> I think you also have existing and great text that lays out the major
> concepts and compares them to the Newtonian/reactionary paradigm.
> Probably the hardest part will be choosing a subset and keeping it
> short.
>
> If you want to give it a try, let me know and I'll help any way I can. If
> you want me to try the first draft or outline, I could do that too.
>
> Any others interested in co-writing a letter/article for Nature on
> Rosennean complexity?
>
> Dan
>