Re: Reductionist philosophy

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

I suggest Howard and Jack coming back if they prefer. 
I am whom I am, not what other say.  There should be
freedom of speech in academic as long as no personal
attack.  Less name calling will be it. I recommand Tim
give it a try and see what happens.  This list should
be more fun without lossing anybody.

Jerry


--- Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

> Jack,
> So be it.
> Tim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum
> [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jack
> > Park
> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 10:23 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
> >
> >
> > I have thought about this for a while now.
> Everybody knows that.
> >
> > When Judith quotes her father as below:
> <quote>*"It's all in there," he
> > said.</quote>
> > I am profoundly reminded of the bible, koran, and
> talmud thumpers out
> > there who are all saying "It's all in there."
> > Game over. Please unsubscribe me.
> > Jack
> >
> > *Judith Rosen wrote:
> >
> > > *I was away from the list for most of yesterday,
> and so missed the
> > > explosion. I have to say, I think Tim is
> entirely justified in his
> > > decision, especially on the basis of one
> sentence:*
> > > **
> > > Howard Pattee wrote: Why does the machine
> metaphor have to go?
> > > **
> > >
> > > *All of Robert Rosen's work was generated
> because the scientific tools
> > > he needed to answer his own questions in Biology
> did not exist. He
> > > tried using the tools "on the shelf"
> > > (physics/mathematics/chemistry/etc), making sure
> he educated himself
> > > as to what they had been used for and what they
> COULD be used for...
> > > and it was not possible. Once he ascertained
> that it was not possible
> > > to deal with foundational questions in Biology
> with current scientific
> > > methodology and approach, it was time to turn to
> the foundations of
> > > that scientific methodology and approach and
> examine IT; looking for
> > > the reasons why Biological systems should
> present such an impervious
> > > territory to science, at anything deeper than a
> superficial level. *
> > > **
> > > *He documented all that he discovered, including
> his thought process,
> > > his conclusions, and his proofs. He then used
> the tools he created to
> > > answer not only his own foundational questions,
> but achieved a great
> > > deal more than that, into the bargain. *
> > > **
> > > *Before he died, my father said to me that the
> written body of work
> > > had, within it, all that anybody needed to
> continue the work. "It's
> > > all in there," he said. Clearly, his mode of
> writing can be difficult
> > > to follow. However, I have discovered that using
> a different mode
> > > doesn't help with that and I think Howard's post
> is a case in point.
> > > All of Robert Rosen's work /answers that very
> question./*
> > > **
> > > *How many times have I rephrased these same
> ideas??? Just in the last
> > > couple weeks I found a new way to depict what is
> lacking in the
> > > entailment patterns of machines.... sheesh! I'm
> done! I remember once
> > > having a discussion with my Dad about his
> response to attacks on his
> > > work. He was so unafraid-- and he never got mad.
> He said, "I'm not out
> > > to convince anybody of anything. This isn't a
> religion. I'm not an
> > > apostle. I don't care whether people believe it
> or not; that's not
> > > what I'm here for. I'm doing what I want to do
> and I'm fulfilling a
> > > duty to report what I find. End of story." He
> said that there comes a
> > > time, after you say things once, then say them
> twice, when you have to
> > > recognize that someone does not want to see it,
> does not want to hear
> > > or let the ideas in. Howard is one of those who
> cannot let go of long
> > > standing belief structures. I don't understand
> why he would subscribe
> > > to this list! If my father, himself, couldn't
> get Howard to see what
> > > he was talking about, what chance do I have???*
> > > **
> > > *After the Center at SUNY Buffalo was
> dismantled, and Dad went to
> > > Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, he
> wrote Anticipatory
> > > Systems and Fundamentals of Measurement, in that
> order, although they
> > > were published the other way around. This was a
> major breakthrough,
> > > and was the culmination of the insights that
> began two years prior to
> > > the move, during that sabbatical year he spent
> in Santa Barbara, at
> > > the Center for the Study of Democratic
> Institutions. In retrospect, it
> > > appears that most of Dad's work at Buffalo was
> just a prelude to the
> > > really huge breakthroughs, and those
> breakthroughs led Robert Rosen in
> > > a direction that old friends and colleagues
> could not always follow. I
> > > find it rather sad and I'm relieved that my
> father is not here to know
> > > this. It would hurt him. He considered Pattee a
> /friend/. *
> > > **
> > > *"I come, not to praise Caesar, but to damn
> him."*
> > > **
> > > *"Et tu, Brute?"*
> > > **
> > > *Robert Rosen would say, "Hey, guess what, old
> /friend... /I'm not
> > > Caesar. And what do you think you're going to
> achieve now, with that
> > > knife? I'm already dead! You can't kill the
> work. "*
> > >
> > > *Judith Rosen*
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > >     *From:* Howard Pattee
> <mailto:***>
> > >     *To:* ***
> <mailto:***>
> > >     *Sent:* Thursday, February 03, 2005 5:52 PM
> > >     *Subject:* Re: [ROSEN] Reductionist
> philosophy
> > >
> > >     Judith and Tim,
> > >
> > >     As I said in my post beginning, I was
> expressing irritation at
> > >     Rosen's labeling entire fields of science,
> whole classes of
> > >     scientists as well as individual scientists
> as "reductionists" and
> > >     criticizing their research strategies. My
> only point was to
> > >     suggest that such labeling should not be
> propagated on Tim's list.
> > >     I was agreeing with John that this blanket
> labeling is not fair. I
> > >     don't like to be labeled as a reductionist
> or be told I have a
> > >     "mindset" and I don't know anybody who does.
> > >
> > >     Rosen: "But above all, the machine metaphor
> (supported of course
> > >     by the corpus of modern physics) is what
> drives, and justifies,
> > >     the reductionism so characteristic of modern
> biology" [LI p. 21].
> > >
> > >     Judith: This is turning around what he
> actually said.
> > >
> > >     HP: What do you mean? This */is/* what he
> actually said. As you say:
> > >
> > >     Judith: He attributes the huge explosion of
> molecular biology
> > >     development to a reductionist frame of
> reference. He's calling it
> > >     like he sees it. You apparently don't agree,
> which is fine.
> > >
> > >     HP: What is wrong with molecular biology?
> Try to understand that
> > >     doing detailed experiments is not
> necessarily the result of what
> 
=== message truncated ===



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page ? Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com