Re: BioTheory launch

[Judith Rosen <***>]

The problem I have with limiting the name of the new journal to biological
stuff is that it ignores what my father achieved in terms of the foundations
of science as a whole. It also limits who would consider publishing in it or
reading it. One of the biggest problems with scientific advances like my
father's is the lack of cross-pollination between disciplines. Doctors read
"medical" journals, physicists read physics journals, biologists read
biology journals, and it gets even further specialized such that, for
example, cardiologists read cardiology journals.

My thoughts were that if it is called a "general" science publication and
specifically mentions a new paradigm, I think a vast cross-section of
disciplines might take a look at it, if they happen to stumble across it,
just out of curiosity. They might even be more likely to read it if the
title pisses them off a little.

The reason the name had to get longer has to do with something peculiar to
the internet: Keywords. This is going to be, until whenever, an electronic
internet-based science journal. So, with the "BioTheory" part a given just
because it was my father's name for it... I asked myself what other words
should be part of the title such that a search on certain keywords would
bring it up in the search.results. The answers to that set of questions
combined with my concerns mentioned in the previous paragraph all added up
to the current long name:

BioTheory:
A Journal of General Science
Based On the Rosennean Complexity Paradigm

Frankly, if it were up to me (meaning if my father hadn't come up with a
name for it), and copyright issues weren't in the way, I'd want to name it,
simply: "SCIENCE". That one really says it all, as far as I'm concerned. But
that name is taken already.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] BioTheory launch


> The more I think about it the more I like "Relational BioTheory"  -- I
> think its starting to actually say something,
> aside from being a label that has to be explained.
>
> It says the journal is about biological theory constructed from a
> relational foundation - which is the shift Rosen developed and is famous
> for, plus tracking back to beginnings with Rashevsky. There is a real need
> in the scientific community for such a journal. It is the reason I'm
> introducing a seminar at CU, because that whole field is missing and
really
> needs to be developed. The title, however, would not so much encourage
> applied science, like ecosystem management, etc. but there are plenty of
> journals for that and Rosennean approaches can be published in them much
> more easily is there is a theoretical community developing the core.
> JK
>