[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

Yabut...

I don't want to sound like a complainer, but, dammit Tim, this field is *never* going to mature to the point of the kind of toolkit of approaches I asked for unless some people who have used it begin to explain how they used it. Right now, this list is focussing on the nity-grity of this or that aspect of some or other detail of this or that facet of ..., and few contributors, if any, are suggesting, per your own request, how the sayings of Doctor Rosen apply to this or that... (sorry for the outburst -- my keyboard made me do it).

I fully agree that the threads on this list are enormously valuable. At the same time, I salute your quest to have contributors tie the science they discuss to relational modeling.

Consider this. Google mereotopology. I don't know what you get when you scan the hits there, but I get that the remnants of the AI camp, those who use ontologies to model various universes of discourse, are creeping in the back door to relational modeling. Barry Smith, one of the prime contributors to that literature, is applying the edges of relational modeling to medical informatics. To what extent can that literature serve as a kind of "tie that binds" Rosennean thinking to existing practicioners in parallel fields?

Consider this. You have a small tribe right here. To what extent can the interactions and other relations associated with this tribe be modeled with Rosennean thinking? Articulate a recipe for doing that and you've got an enormously useful first cut at a cookbook.

Last EURO for the day.
Cheers,
Jack
Tim Gwinn wrote:

Jack,

I agree: I don't think you are alone in hoping for a cookbook. I'm not sure
what Judith's view is, but speaking for myself, I feel the field is not yet
close to being developed to the point of the kind of toolkit of approaches
for engineers that you mention. I wonder whether we even have enough
knowledge to have a taxonomy of complex systems that could be used for
sorting out what kinds of tools work best for some particular class of
complex systems for some particular kind of problems. I feel like its all
largely still pioneer territory.

At this point, I think its a matter of posing the specific problem or
question, seeing if any the existing tools are adequate or appropriate, and
if not, then having to do the pioneer work of devising new tools and
approaches.

Regards,
Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jack
Park
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:51 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"


Tim,

It seems to me that there are several aspects to a good cookbook that
need articulation. One is the tutorial side that shows where various
kinds of analytics are valuable. The next is the "recipes" for
application.

But, I think, it is larger than that. Any systems modeling in the large
calls for some sort of framework that guides entry into the analytics
themselves. Engineers were trained: "when you see this problem class,
apply that methodology."  Sure, doing science is bound to be more
complex and unyielding to simplification, and I'm not asking for that.
But, Judith and others have mentioned, here and elsewhere, a Rosennean
way of "doing science." A proper cookbook would include such guidance.

At the same time, I repeat my "where's the beef" sentiment. Aging,
excitation and inhibition, enzyme-substrate recognition, those sorts of
things are all important. But, there are large problems that I suspect
this methodology can be applied to, and those are the kinds of problems
that large segments of the population would best be served by bringing
Rosennean analytics to rather soon. Recall that Rashevsky was really
interested in modeling traffic flows. Sounds lame? I don't think so.
That's a whole class of problems that would serve, by way of analogy, to
other problems.

Just a few thoughts for the time being.
I'm sure I'm not alone in a quest for a cookbook.

Jack