Judith and all,
On my (Ayten) last two queries, Judith said:
"1. 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.
2. "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.
Now I hope the circle is closed. We are more informed than
before thanks to deep reflections on various similar looking theories and
clarifications provided in due course. We should then go ahead exploring the
territory, keeping in mind that the nature does not allow inconsistencies,
without closing our eyes to other similar looking territories in the
process.
All the best,
Ayten
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:01
PM
Subject: Re: Rosen cf. Kauffman
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