Re: BioTheory launch

[John Kineman <***>]

Judith,

Ah, thanks for bringing me back to the subject at hand. Its really a
separate issue in my mind. Has nothing to do with whether Rosen is right or
physics is wrong or if iRosen invented a new paradigm of science, etc. To
me it has to do with conventional labeling and attracting contributions of
the right kind. The (humble) point I wanted to make, so it was not
overlooked in the discussion, was that most science journals name
themselves after the new field, not the inventor or founder of that field,
even though there have certainly been some paradigm shifts and geniuses
behind them. I think its sort of a literary and scientific convention
combined. Anyway, if this impression is right, it seems that "BioTheory"
fits the mold OK and its boundaries can be explained in the usual sort of
editor's preambles and instructions to contributors. But the qualification
after that which invokes the personal legacy, which I think is more
associated with biographical and historical journals. Were it not for the
fact that your father himself chose "BioTheory" -- a very strong reason for
using it -- I would have thought "Relational Biology" was the better focus.
"The Journal of Relational Biology" seems to me quite attractive, and
always in such matters the founders and the founding principles are
remembered and referred to in future papers. Perhaps the middle ground
would be "The Journal of Relational Biotheory."  I think that "relational"
should be in there to identify what is unique and new about it, distinguish
it from all the computational and mechanistic stuff, and to avoid covering
"too much" as JM noted. The "biotheory" in this case further narrows it
from all of biology to theoretical biology.

These are not strong views, just suggestions.

JK

At 10:46 PM 9/3/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> Dear Judith, we have a saying in the old country: "the bartender speaks into
> it" my tuppence is that of an outsider (no bio-connection), but as a former
> European and editor-in-chief - 5-6 decades of reading professional
> literature:
> I find the title "BioTheory: A Journal of General Science Based on the
> Rosennean Complexity Paradigm"
> too much. Would you plan to handle a "Bio Theory"? do you suggest a 'new'
> biology? If a title sais too much, many readers just put it aside saying:
> Madison Avenue. A 'flatter' title would (IMO) attract more readers and more
> distinguished contributors. "Application of" would please me more than
> "Based on".
> Howgh
> John M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: BioTheory launch
>
>
> > > John K. wrote: As usual, we are in complete agreement, but focused on
> >
> > different parts of the problem.
> > > 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?
> >
> > You're right: we agree!
> >
> > So where are we on the subject of my chosen name for the BioTheory
> journal?
> > Do you still have the same qualms about "BioTheory: A Journal of General
> > Science Based on the Rosennean Complexity Paradigm"?
> >
> > Judith