Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"

[John M <***>]

Jack,
what kind of "model" do you want to call "Rosennean"?
A "maximum model" it can't be, a 'limited model" is stuff
for reductionist un-wholly (excuse the pun) views.
I don't call a "Rosennean model" an oximoron, but close.
Maybe, if you craft according to the MR, you may end up
with a "model" that refers to more than a reductionistic
cut-off, I mean: a topical view within set boundaries, but
aren't we playing with the word "model" just to please(!)
the general audience (= average hostile scientists)?

I may have misunderstood the problem and assign your
"Rosennean" to imply "R. complexity" - impredicative
and 'Turing non-computable'? IMO RR wrote his books with such length and
circumlocution to make his ideas compatible to those who are on a different
track. I am more pragmatic and don't care for understanding by those in the
opposite camp.

Then again, I am neither a biologist nor a mathematician.
Cheers
John Mikes


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Park" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"


> My response would be a simple question:
>
> What steps must I take to craft a Rosennean model using their data and
> anything else I might need, such that I gain the ability to study their
> results with a different model than the one(s) they presumably applied
> to get those results?
>
> Jack
>