|
Tim G. wrote: I really wonder whether Rosen's arguments 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. Interesting-- you have a point. I confess, I always thought the breakthrough would come by way of medical applications because he did so much work on the side in human physiology and pharmacology, etc. For instance, Jonas Salk became a lifelong friend of his when someone was trying to sue Jonas; blaming his vaccine for causing a case of polio. Salk's lawyers contacted my father, asking if he thought there was a way to prove, scientifically, that this case of polio could have been caused some other way. So, Dad went to court and showed how the chances of catching the virus from Salk's killed-virus vaccine (as opposed to Saben's weakened-virus vaccine) were even lower than the chances of catching polio from pure happenstance in the natural environment. The lawsuit ended rather quickly, in Salk's favor. The fact that Robert Rosen was adept at applying reductionist techniques to biological phenomena gave him, one should think, more credibility in saying that those same techniques, along with the whole reductionistic approach, when applied inappropriately, can kill people. But very few MDs read BioPhysics journals and a book with the title "Anticipatory Systems" isn't likely to come up in a medical research literature search. Judith
|