Re: BioTheory launch

[John M <***>]

Tim,
wanna go into a new quagmire, to identify (RR) paradigm?
(this is the first time I read this definition). Do you think the outsider
innocent bystanders (ie. the targetted scientists) will know what it is
about?
"Blickfang" does not work in marketing new science publications. Topics do.
Known topics.
Paradigm is going to be just as overused and mixed up as cxity. Except for
it rhymes with "(a) pair a dime" ((sorry)).

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: BioTheory launch


> Judith,
>
> I like your title, except that I might shorten it to:
> "BioTheory: A Journal of Rosennean Paradigm Science"
>
> Aside from brevity, my reasoning is as follows. 'Complexity' is already
such
> an over-used and confusing term that I think it muddles the point of the
> journal to the broader audience. I also think that "A Journal of Rosennean
> Paradigm Science" places front and center the mindset that this is about
an
> entirely different epistemological paradigm of science and is not just a
> journal about some niche within the existing paradigm; nor is it about
only
> one aspect of the Rosennean paradigm, such as 'complexity' or 'relational
> modeling'.
>
> The term "BioTheory" will mystify some newcomers to the journal ("why
> 'Bio-'??"). Perhaps it might be helpful if the cover included the quote
from
> Essays (or a similar remark):
> "Perhaps the first lesson to be learned from biology is that there are
> lessons to be learned from biology." (p. 275)
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> --snip--
> >
> > 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