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

Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

Between Tim's, JohnM's, and Judith's comments, I have a sense that there is an attractor basin forming. This is valuable. Nobody has to have all the conferred wisdom right now; we just need ideas which are contextually related to a central notion, and that notion, I think, is a cookbook for "doing science" with a particular world view. Possibly the wrong notion, but you've got to start somewhere if you want to get past worrying about the details.

In the participatory sport called Dialog Mapping (see http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/), you start with a question. Mine was: what would a cookbook for doing science from the Rosennean point of view look like?

You then follow that question with questions which focus the original question, or with answers, called "ideas." You can follow an idea with more questions about the idea or with ideas which specialize the first offering, or with arguments (focussed!) called "pro" or "con".

What happens, in dialog mapping, is that, on rare occasions, you get way out in the tree that is the entirety of the dialog and you suddenly realize that the first question was the wrong question to ask.

Thus far, my question has been followed by refinement questions, and by several ideas. Houston, we have lift off :)

Thanks
Jack
ps: you can read some slides of a talk I gave that amplifies these thoughts at http://www.nexist.org/nsc2004/

John M wrote:

See interposed, please!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"



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.



A M E N , Tim. That was in the back os my mind postulating sort of a
glossary: to clarify particulars (especially: as used by RR) first for
ourselves then to the not-so-benevolent scientific public.
Do you think the next par of yours (below) is specific enough? I feel it is
still in the clouds of generalities, which has no place in a cookbook:

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.



Pose the 'specific problem' (one at least as an example how you would handle
it - no generalities, please) and tell what 'tools' are to be devised
and use them as an example.
Otherwise this list still has the option of a personalized understanding.
Then we can argue about unmatching details of different meanings.

We plunged (since summer?) into arguing about model-details of the specific
limited models (= conventional sciences) and this way can not lead to the
RR-comlexity's total view. No upwards enrichment into the territory (and
beyond) *from* the map! We may approach (sort-of: devise?) the "view of the
total" from which we can apply the relations for cutting models (sciences or
else), bearing always in mind that we are REDUCING the total into aspects.
Jack's Quali Physics may be very helpful? It does not limit the concepts to
the quantitative treatment of the (untrue?) cutoff values of  the 'named'
models in an applied math equationism. (The "Aris-Total" which is "more than
the sum" - of the model (ie. the material parts only) what Aristotle
analyzed. No matter how successful results have been achieved in
reductionism.

Maybe you did not intend to be so pragmatic...

Regards,
Tim



Regards
John M

PS. Jack remarked:

Recall that Rashevsky was really interested in modeling traffic >>flows.<< 

I think this is the 'other' type of modeling: substituting an observation by
the solutions of an already better known similar phenomeon. The available
results could help in the problem on hand. This is different from a RR-type
(M.R.) modeling - to limit from the total view an aspect's details cut off
within the boundaries of the chosen topic.
Here we go again with identifying meanings. J

-----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