Biology

[Steve Johnson <***>]

Re point#4: Another example is biology, and whether
biology is simply a
subset of modern physics or if biology has some
uniqueness that would
require physics to be altered (enlarged) in order to
accomodate biology.

I did not mention Biology only because no one in their
right mind would suggest that the Cartesian/Newtonian
paradigm has done anything for Biology. It is in
Biology where it fails most spectacularly and where
Rosen's ideas find most receptive ground. 

The question was about why Physics as a discipline
refuses to recognize the limitations elaborated by
Rosen. My point was that  the reason for it is that
unlike the case of Biology, existing Newtonian
paradigm actually works well in many areas of physics
according to the criteria that Physicists use to
measure the effectiveness of a paradigm (again
catch-22). On top of that Physics can boast that their
existing paradigm has produced a long list of
practical achievements:  electricity, transistors,
computers, TVs, cell phones etc. (And lots of nasty
things too).

Mainstream Biologists till now have not produced
produced anything except naming animals with Latin
names and categorizing them. Nowdays they are busy
naming parts of the chicken genome. Thus the challenge
of the Rosennean paradigm is more formidable since the
edifice being challenged is erected on borrowed
foundations. 

When Rosen's ideas find acceptance it will probably
not be through challenging Physics edifice head on but
by producing spectacular achievements in the realm of
Biology. 


- Steve





--- Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> Re point#3: ...what happened to #3? :)
> 
> Re point#4: Another example is biology, and whether
> biology is simply a
> subset of modern physics or if biology has some
> uniqueness that would
> require physics to be altered (enlarged) in order to
> accomodate biology. The
> biologist Ernst Mayr's latest book "What Makes
> Biology Unique?" (Cambridge
> Univ. Press 2004) attempts to delineate biology as
> an autonomous science,
> not reducible to modern physics; as well as
> discussions of teleology and
> final causes, the historical conflation of analysis
> and reductionism, etc
> The structure of his arguments are not identical to
> Rosen's but I find it
> interesting that these are arguments that continue
> to be made in biology.
> 
> Re point #5: It is also something of a catch-22
> situation: who will develop
> further the Rosennean paradigm into this "trusty
> toolbox" if many of those
> best-equipped to do so are first awaiting the
> existence of that trusty
> toolbox prior to utilizing the paradigm?
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum
> [mailto:*** Behalf Of Steve
> > Johnson
> > Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:34 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Fundamental problems in Physics
> >
> >
> > I'm not qualified to wade in to this heated debate
> but
> > I felt compelled to make a couple of comments.
> >
> > 1. I think Howard is definitely one of the top
> > contributors to the quality of the discussion on
> this
> > list and he clearly respects Rosen immensely as he
> > seemingly knows all of his writings by heart.
> Based on
> > several of Howard's papers I read on his site it's
> > obvious that he is not a devotee of the machine
> > metaphor. I can also certainly believe that
> physicists
> > that Howard knows and communicates with are well
> aware
> > of the limitations of the machine metaphor and as
> > Howard put it "honestly strive to escape the
> > limitations of the whatever abstractions happen to
> be
> > popular" (quoting from memory). One would
> certainly
> > expect this to be true if only due to (a)
> > self-selection, and (b) due to education by Howard
> > including references to Rosen, Hertz, his own and
> > others' work.
> >
> > 2. However, from personal experience I can affirm
> that
> > Physics as a discipline is definitely cartesian
> > through and through if the way it teaches its
> young
> > generation is any indicator. I'm not a scientist
> now
> > so I cannot speak for how it is at the cutting
> edge
> > but the way Physics (even Quantum Mechanics) is
> taught
> > in the top academic institutions is definitely
> > confined to the state-based  paradigm in the sense
> > that Rosen criticized. Morever, epistimological
> > critiques of the paradigm are never prominently
> > offered (maybe as a study of Thomas Kuhn if you're
> > lucky). I still have several friends in the PhD
> > programs in Physics and Chemistry and what they do
> > most of the time is measure observables and crunch
> > various forms of differential rate equations on
> > computers.
> >
> > 4. Physics is actually a mild case of this
> because, as
> > Howard noted, in Physics there many areas where
> > "traditional approach" is actually extremely
> effective
> > in terms of commutativity of the modelling
> relation.
> > It gets far more rediculous in Social Sciences and
> > Econmics where people put themselves through
> bizzare
> > contortions to apply the 19th century physcis
> toolbox
> > of differential rate equations and various
> constraint
> > optimization techniques to everything under the
> sun
> > regardless of how much sense it makes.
> >
> > 5. I suspect that this is less due to a conspiracy
> to
> > keep the Rosennean view out by vested interests
> but
> > more due to the fact that regular working
> scientists
> > (number crunching brains of burden) do not see
> > immediate application of the Rosennean view to
> their
> > daily lives even if they took the considerable
> effort
> > to understand it. For those who did, I suspect, it
> is
> > like a beautiful dream. After thinking about these
> > matters a physicist may agree with Rosen and then
> sigh
> > and think to himself: "Oh well, that's nice, but
> now I
> > have to go and type my differential equation into
> > Mathematica because I have this paper due and so
> on."
> > The Rosennean philosophy will have to be developed
> by
> > others to come up with a trusty toolbox before the
> > regular Joe scientist will see its value.
> >
> > - Steve
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com