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

[John M <***>]

Judith,
let me insert one question and one remark into your text
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"


> The steps necessary to craft a model or set of models based on Rosennean
> Complexity would be the very same ones most list subscribers have already
> taken, namely to widen scientific vision to see that there is a contextual
> aspect to all matter that becomes absolutely crucial in biological
systems...

<<[JM]:
"widen"? how far? limited to the topical cut we call "biological
systems"? (that would not be a natural system approach).<<

> ...The trouble seems to be generated by the fact that science can easily
ignore
> such realities when studying biological systems, but the realities of
> biological systems don't "ignore" science when science starts tinkering
with
> them.
>
> This is what my father was referring to when he said things like "It's
> important to start from a sound theoretical base." He felt that
experimental
> science (and often the general public, as well) tends to confuse "theory"
> with "speculation" but that's only if it's done poorly. He felt that a
> better synonym for theory would be "thought". In other words, we have to
> think before we start doing.
>
> Judith

<<[JM] remark:
Lately 'theory' started to be understood as 'a formalistic, quanti setup'. I
wonder if  RR's phrase:
"It's important to start from a sound theoretical base."  refers to a well
established "thought" or a formal, scientifically established (reductionist)
'theory', in which case it seems obvious to me that
RR was 'teaching' his (science) audience. I paraphrase: "Guys, just start
from what you know (and believe) and I will lead you to a better way of
thinking".
Extracted phrases always make me suspicious.

Regards

John Mikes