Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Steve,
Thank you for your detached evaluation. Judith and I are obviously not 
communicating productively. She attributes my criticism of Rosen to basic 
scientific disagreement or personal antagonism, which is not the case. I am 
really trying to criticizing the strategy of Tim and Judith in promoting 
his ideas. It sounds like a promotional confrontational strategy (you are 
either with us or against us) which is not a persuasive strategy. Even if 
Rosen is right and all physicist and biologists are wrong, I do not believe 
this is an effective way to present his ideas.

If I look at the history of physics and biology I can't think of a case 
where an abstract idea like Rosen's without concrete empirical support has 
replaced the established paradigms. I think established models and 
paradigms fall only after they don't fit the empirical facts. They do not 
change because their philosophical underpinnings have been challenged. Few 
scientist believe a new theory, no matter how logically sound, until it is 
empirically tested.  Am I wrong on this. Can anyone give a counterexample.

Anyway, if this is the usual case, then all this talk about reductionist 
models being "wrong," the machine metaphor being "discarded" and physics 
"shirking its duty," whether it is right or wrong, is simply useless. In my 
opinion it is counterproductive.

Howard