|
Jack,
There was no intention to "flame" anyone whatsoever in my post. I
was astonished that it was perceieved that way. Indeed, I was attempting to show
that my father was not "knocking the reductionists" and was interested in
DE-segregation of the sciences! Further, I was attempting to support
your contention that reductionism can be useful in both medicine and
science, not shoot it down.
As to the challenge that "Either we know how to apply Rosennean
Complexity to urgent problems facing humanity, or we do not," This
whole discussion is about the fact that we do not.
Here's the thing: My father was not interested in creating
applications, he was interested in creating a framework that would allow him to
find the answers to his own question, namely "Why are living things alive?"
Anything else he was doing was part of the preliminary steps of being able to
finally answer his own question. He acknowledged a duty to "report" so he wrote
these things down, but he wasn't about to be diverted from his "imperative" in
order to get bogged down in the side issues. One can spend a lifetime just
developing modelling protocols. One can spend another lifetime researching the
human immune system (or subsystems within the human immune system). Every side
issue he talked about could generate endless full time careers. He wanted to
know why living things were alive, so he had to finish the foundational stuff.
He did that. And then he died.
It is up to YOU and the rest of science/medicine/computer science,
etc to develop applications if you want applications. He is giving people a
glimpse of why all attempts to date have been only partly successful at best. He
is making suggestions on avenues of approach that could prove fruitful. To
expect him to come up with what you want as well is unfair.
Judith
|