Re: Entailment, causality, and "why?" questions

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hmmmmmm.....

(Most of what I want to say is inappropriate as a post opener: Bloody 'ell!;
For f*&#s sakes!; Perhaps some Monty Python would work?)

A totally new concept for me: Academic Disputation. So THAT'S what you were
doing? Exasperation wars with disbelief.

My first reaction is that "Academic Disputation" sounds extremely
uncivilized. I think we (as a species) can do better than that. More, I
think we MUST do better than that.

Secondly, while I fully concur about my lack of experience with this
"academic disputation", I think a couple points need to be made. One is:
This is not an academic venue. Two is: Even if this were an academic venue,
I would flatly refuse to continue a tradition that amounts to
emotional/intellectual hazing. It's counterproductive.

I would also dispute that "controversy" will further my father's work more
than plain education would. This is not politics; it's science. I think we
need to get the politics OUT of politics (which ought to be, simply,
"government"), and out of science as well. My belief is that if people are
made aware of the existence of Rosennean Complexity Theory in totality, they
will put these ideas to use. Frankly, I think that's all that's required.
The ideas are sound. They make far more sense than the current scientific
paradigm. A good idea is a good idea: The relevance is built in.

You're quite right about my emotional attachment to my father, but the work
is not him. In any case, my goal is to make his work accessible, not to
"promote" it. Sometimes in the initial stages they may look alike, but
they're really not. Promotion has to do with fiction and art. My Dad used to
joke that some people accused him of writing fiction... But the proof is all
right there, in the work.

Judith Rosen
PS: You know... a few nagging inconsistencies remain...
I could swear that, in the whole Von Neumann discussion, you suggested I NOT
promote my father's rejection of Von Neumann-- and your argument was that my
father's attitude might offend some people which would not help in
furthering these ideas. How does "controversy helps" fit in? Incidentally,
in your anger at my father for his rejection of Von Neumann's ideas, why
doesn't my father get the "academic disputation" get-out-of-jail-free card?
He was more even-handed to Von Neumann in his work than you have been to
HIM, on this discussion list-- and they weren't even friends.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Pattee" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Entailment, causality, and "why?" questions


> Dear Judith,
>
> I think your confusion is largely because of your lack of experience with
so-called "academic disputation" and in particular the hard-nosed culture of
physics and mathematics. Beginning with the defense of the PhD dissertation
one learns to expect a no-holds-barred nit-picking skepticism of every word
you speak. It began with Descartes' test for truth by extreme doubt of every
thought. If you let it get to you as a personal rebuke you will surely fail.
Furthermore, discussions are not limited to rational disputation, but often
include expression of instinctive feelings that may sound insulting if not
understood.
>
> For example, Schroedinger and Heisenberg each developed mathematical
models of quantum mechanics that turned out to be equivalent in essential
aspects. Yet they argued long and hard about which is better. Schroedinger
said he "was discouraged, if not repelled, by the methods of [Heisenberg's]
transcendental algebra." The feeling was mutual. Heisenberg said, "The more
I reflect on the physical portion of Schroedinger's theory the more
disgusting I find it."
>
> You would interpret being repelled and disgusted as disrespectful at best.
The point is that it is only because of such strong feelings and expressive
discourse that quantum theory or any science progresses. Such deep emotional
motivation is crucial. Seeking truth above all personal emotions is not
easy, and even the toughest minds can be worn down by criticism.
>
> You say, "The Howard Pattee I have been seeing on the list until now does
something quite different: He belittles, he casts aspersions, he nitpicks
and makes bitter criticisms of all things up to and including the very basis
of my father's body of work (and then provides a link to his own work)-- as
if there is nothing of value in what Robert Rosen developed."
>
> That is your interpretation. I see it as a natural emotional response. You
are entirely wrong with respect to any intention to belittle, cast
aspersions, express bitterness, or devalue Bob's work. I am indeed critical
of some aspects of Bob's work, or more "softly" I could say I think there
are other, possibly more effective ways to get across the basic ideas. That
is why I refer to other papers including my own.
>
> Your goal is to promote your father's work, and I understand your strong
emotional involvement with this goal as well as your resentment with what
you perceive as interference. On the other hand, in my opinion, you are
wrong to think that strong differences of opinion will prevent the spread of
Bob's ideas. Just the opposite I think is the case. The lack of such
intellectual engagement will lead to isolation and loss of relevance.
>
> You may also be relieved that I will not add more to this discussion for
some time, or until I finish a paper that has a deadline. Incidentally, in
my last paper and the one I am writing I reference Rosen in an entirely
relevant and uncritical context.
>
> I hope this leaves you less confused.
>
> Howard
>