Re: Biology

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Steve,

I have two comments re your remarks.

First, I think it is unjustified to say things like: "no one in their right
mind would suggest that the Cartesian/Newtonian paradigm has done anything
for Biology" and "Mainstream Biologists till now have not produced produced
anything except naming animals with Latin names and categorizing them".
Clearly, alot has been accomplished in biology, using this paradigm. The
question is whether its accomplishments to date are prima facie evidence
that this paradigm is adequate for all the possible questions of biology,
and if not, then what paradigm(s) are required.

Second, I really wonder whether Rosen's argments will find its greatest
acceptance first via biology or via physics. There is something powerful
about logico-mathematical arguments which might persuade more physicists to
investigate the consequences of the Rosennean paradigm, rather than the
persuasive power of relational models of organisms per se. Just a musing.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Steve
> Johnson
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:40 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Biology
>
>
> 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