Re: The Goal of this List

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim,
You define the goal of your list as: the discussion and advancement of the concepts and 
work of theoretical biologist Robert Rosen.

HP: That is worthy goal to which I would like to contribute, and I have suggested some 
current research areas where Bob?s ideas might be advanced as well as offered criticism. 
The subject is profound and requires many approaches. To me advancing Bob?s ideas does 
not mean just interpreting everything Bob has written as the final word. History makes 
clear that advancement of profound concepts requires more than hermeneutics. In science 
at least, ideas are highly competitive and without actively engaging in dialog with 
critics and without comparison with alternative approaches, any concept will become 
extinct simply by default.

Can anyone think of any accepted scientific concept or theory that was born perfect or 
expressed ideally? Does anyone know a theory that did not go through years of severe 
critical disputes? Either the theory died or, in the end, come out the better for these 
disputes.

Keep in mind that Bob has himself engaged in severe (some would say inflammatory) 
criticism of the entire fields of physics and biology and specific areas of research as 
well as ideas of individuals. This is all very well and part of the game, but one would 
be delusional if one expected Bob to get a free pass exempt from response from the 
scientific community. Failure to engage in such critical response by excluding it from 
this list would not in my view contribute to the advancement of Bob?s ideas.

Of course if you disagree, it is your list and your choice. Would you prefer that I limit 
my posts to the points of agreement I have with Bob?

Howard



>
> From: Tim Gwinn <***>
> Date: 2004/04/21 Wed PM 05:52:27 EDT
> To: ***
> Subject: The Goal of this List
>
> JJK wrote:
> > We have to ask first and foremost why we converse at all, I mean what is
> > the goal? The desired outcome?
>
> The goal on this list is: the discussion and advancement of the concepts and
> work of theoretical biologist Robert Rosen.
>
> I remind everyone that this forum is not intended as a general complexity or
> systems discussion list. Hence it will have a significant prima facie
> philosophical bias toward Rosen's views of science, epistemology, life and
> biology. If anyone considers that focus and bias to be unacceptable, then
> their time is not well-spent on this list.
>
> I think some of this recent discussion has shown that perhaps there is the
> need for a more broadly-based complexity-and-biology discussion list on the
> internet. It is not my intention nor my interest to host such a list. If
> some wants to start one, I'll offer them what help I can.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>