Re: The Goal of this List

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Is it really productive to stir this stuff all up again? The dissident ideas
are always welcome, in my own personal opinion-- it's the personal attacks
that are not welcome. I think Tim Gwinn, the list owner, would likely agree
with that, in general.

There are times, though, when "dissidents" get mad that there are dissidents
besides themselves, or that a group of people are still believing what they
believed before each dissident voiced his dissenting opinions. Some of those
cranky dissidents may then launch personal attacks against actual people
rather than ideas, which is when I get mad. Paticularly when the person
being attacked is my father, who is dead and can't be here to defend his own
character. He shouldn't HAVE TO defend his character on a scientific
discussion list, where it is supposed to be ideas that are being discussed.

What is the context for the ideas that are being discussed? The name on the
list is a hint. The fact that there is a bias in the underlying context is
no secret. On the other hand, please dissent all you like. Just keep it
about the ideas, please. I don't get upset when people disagree with my
father's ideas. I only get upset if someone starts sniping at him
personally.

Judith Rosen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arno Goudsmit" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The Goal of this List


> 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
> > > >