Re: Problems for solutions

[Jack Park <***>]

Tim Gwinn wrote:

>  
> I am of the mind that clearly thought-out approaches and 
> solutions require clearly thought-out and stated problems. No science, 
> and certainly not this list, can solve an ill-defined or vague problem.
>  
> I agree that it is not useful to simply bash the inadequacies of 
> reductionist paradigm modalities. Likewise, it is not useful to bash 
> the Rosennean paradigm for not solving vague or general problems. The 
> precision and detail that is expected when posing a problem in 
> contemporary science is no less required when posing a problem in the 
> Rosennean paradigm.
>  
> Regards,
> Tim
>  

I completely agree with this post. I appologize for soundling like a 
stuck record, but I think that the "cookbook" idea has a lot to do with 
setting up problems as it does with solving them. Thus, the notions of 
precision and detail, when cast over a range of problems, is a useful 
contribution to such a cookbook. Problems, no matter how vague or 
specific, entail definition of initial conditions, among other things.

Jack