|
Ayten Aydin wrote:
would it not be better if we did concentrate our work on the missing (incomplete) part of RR's work not only to complete it but to bring his theory into the wide open territory (then it will be easily understood) and to prove its superiority, if it is so. I personally feel that applications is the thing to do. I agree completely! In fact, I think this is the only way to
further develop any of it. Robert Rosen didn't set out to recreate the
foundations of science-- he was trying to answer "a question". In other words,
he was trying to use various applications of science to "do biology". Only when
it was clear that this would not work, did he delve into the foundations of
science. He did so, because he needed to create applications, and the
applications couldn't be created from the current foundations. It struck him
that if science is supposed to help us answer questions about the universe, then
some basic inapplicability needs to be fixed; the inapplicability is a symptom
that there's something wrong with our tool kit.
Incidentally, I would say it's not quite accurate to say the work
is incomplete-- he did arrive at his answers, using it. So his own work was
completed. He wasn't trying to create a new paradigm for science-- that was not
his plan or his ambition. It just sort of "fell out of" his investigations. And
nobody could be more suprised than he was!
I also feel that Judith was cotinously looking for this kind of inputs from the group. The real aim of the E-Journal could as well be that. Yes, indeed! It's my way of saying "Just DO IT!" and trying to help
in ways I feel I'm good at.
Shall we not then draw a new framework for future collaboration around the missing territory of RR's theory: specific emprical models? Is it a no-entry area? Are we not equipped to conquer it? I'm sure this group is equipped, and there is no such thing
as a "no-entry area" where science is concerned. I'm game for
collaboration, too. One nitpick: It's not so much "missing" territory as
"unexplored" territory. So, let's explore.
Judith
|