Re: The Goal of this List

[Arno Goudsmit <***>]

Tim, Howard and others,
I feel very much ashamed by the mere idea that this might be the way in which this list 
deals with dissident ideas and their owners. Is this a sect?
Arno Goudsmit, PhD

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn <***>
Date:         Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:34:19 -0400
To: ***
Subject: Re: The Goal of this List

> Howard,
>
> If you have issues with Rosen's paradigm and writings, I suggest you
> unsubscribe from the list. The premise of the list is based on the paradigm
> he presents therein. Since he continued to promote these views in spite of
> your contact with him as a colleague, then I do not see that it is fruitful
> to try to raise such criticisms now - at least within this list.
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> > Pattee
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:20 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: The Goal of this List
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >