Re: BioTheory launch

[John M <***>]

Dear Judith,
I hope this is not a broken record...
"General Science" is meaningless. Does not say anthing. -
The specification  (based on -) "Rosennean Complexity Paradigm" may say
something to those who are already happily practicing converts.
You want to get to the barbaarians.

If I try (unsuccessfully, I could say) to think with the mind of an
accomplished reductionist biologist I would frown on "Somebody seems to come
up with a new Bio-Theory? I had enough of those in the past".

The 'scientific'  literature is out of hand. I would not go to a
cardiologist who does not read cardiological literature. My specialty
(really a sideline both in chemistry, polymer science, pollution control,
hydrology, separation science and liquid handling t4echnology) had
professional literature which was absolutely impossible to even glance at. I
had excellen librarieS to help and got the reference-periodicals as well,
the 25 hours a day I stole from my practical work and personal life for
reading was by far not enough. Since I fretired the situation got worse:
more and more 'unmissable' mags are coming out. Even SOME select ones
(Nature etc.) are hard to keep up with.

I might positivize my stance (if it is of any worth) if you could list those
topics
which (by keywords, or beyond) you hope to appear in the journal. I had a
decade once as editor of the "Polymers" section of the "Hungarian Chemical
Journal":  the total was too "general" a title - it had to be specificised.

I don't want to 'strawmanize' (te 3rd such word-monster in one post) my
remarks, so I leave the rest to you. (What is the 'bio-theory''?)

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: BioTheory launch


> 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
> >