Re: BioTheory launch

[John Kineman <***>]

Judith,

As usual, we are in complete agreement, but focused on different parts
of the problem. You are saying that mechanistic thinking is wrong as a
foundation (a world view), which I fully agree with, whereas I was
saying that as a theory, it is fully commensurable with Rosennean
complexity (in fact derivable from it and not replaced by it as a theory
of mechanisms). This can be true if and only if it (theory of mechanism)
sits on the foundation of the broader conception, which is the Rosennean
view. The resolution of the perceived difference in our views is to
recognize the difference between a theory and a world view -- that these
represent different contexts in which the exact same statement can have
different meanings --  and the ordering of which should be considered
the foundational viwe - a matter that we are in total agreement on.. OK?

A short Post Script on style:

I understand that in according me some skill in diplomacy it does not
mean that you necessarily agree with my views or that they will always
be understood. I also realize that in giving me the label of the dancer
it was indeed a couples dance! :) --  but I take it in good spirit while
hoping that you will consider my arguments at face value, not as if they
are intended as some kind of salve or forced amalgamation of vews. It is
very important, because if we we are really engaged in advancing
knowledge, we must take opposite views seriously and consider their
context. We can then disagree, learn, agree, change our positions when
appropriate, and generally be free to express our views without worries
of violating some basic statements that are held sacred for all
contexts. I strongly believe, not as a paliative, that the road to
knowledge is by synthesis of ideas to ever larger and inclusive views,
as Robert Rosen has done in this case, and as Einstein did in
synthesizing the incompatibilities of the Newtonian view to form his
relativity view. Einstein forever changed our basic concept of reality,
and likewise a full understanding of Rosen will do the same - someday.
Theories, on the other hand, are empirical fits to facts. They can thus
be refined by competitive selection, whereas our concepts of reality
(world views) expand as a result of resolving apparent paradoxes between
theoretical points. The paradoxes appear becaue the empirical
approximation was built on a limited foundation. Changing the foundation
resolves the contradiction.  In the interplay of ideas, there are rarely
any statements that can be taken as syntactically true irrespective of
context. So that is my case -- that the meaning of these statements
about commensurability is a function of context, and that is why I can
at times agree and at times not, with the exact same statement! I am
discussing the context, not the statement alone, and not at all
intending diplomacy. I fully believe in the synthesis and expansion of
world views. But if that expansion is exclusive of a valid theory, it is
flawed and itself incomplete. Rosennean complexity would be horribly
incomplete without a rigorous theory of mechanisms - but they are a
special case of Rosennean complexity, just as Newtonain mechanics is not
wrong, but a special case in relativity where all the details of the
relativistic mechanics can be ignored. If the principle of synthesis
(not diplomacy) can be seen in what I am writing, then I think it is
possible to see that I am not being wishy-washy, and yet I understand
and deeply respect what has been said here.

So, please retain all my previous remarks and place them in the light of
what Judith wrote in the previoius response, and which I fully agree with:

JR:

> There is no way to enlarge from simplicity to complexity. There is no way to
> reach complexity from simplicity. That was part of the logic that led my
> father to make the conclusions he made. Therefore, it is, indeed, a
> replacement from a limited foundation to an unlimited one which is called
> for. Complexity allows the existence of simplicity. Simplicity cannot
> conceive of complexity and cannot be remade to answer complex questions.
> What I am suggesting will keep the aspects of science that, as you say "are
> handled adequately in the mechanistic view". But that mechanistic view will
> not be the foundation that all scientific analysis and exploration is based
> on. The foundation is what needs to change.