Re: Reductionist philosophy

[Arno Goudsmit <***>]

Tim, I remember your step to start with this list, after you apparently did not feel too 
well treated in another list. Now you have become your own listowner, and someone seems 
to violate the concept of your list. I wonder why ideology is always winning the game in 
these matters. I really found Pattee's contributions very bright and stimulating. Kicking 
him out seems to me as burning one's own library, for the sake of straightforwardness 
(getting rid of all those nasty and mindshaking books).

I don't need a Rosen cultus in order to admire his work; I do need a critical appraisal, 
not in order to condemn him, but in order to relate his work to those who partially 
disagree with him, or even to those opposite to his ideas.

To those interested I include below a part from our exchange on this list on april 29, 
2004. Indeed, there we found a small dividing line between a critical understanding of 
the writings and of the ideas presented by Rosen on the one hand, and on the other hand a 
critical study of the topics and subject matters themselves, as hinted at by those 
writings and ideas.

This line is strict, indeed. We can study Pythagoras' cosmology in order to clarify what 
he had in mind, without a need to disagree with it. Personally I like to do both: to see 
what a person, dead or alive, has in mind, and to see whether or not I can agree. If I 
want to understand someone, I want to keep my own thoughts, and see where and why they 
may *commute* with his.

Arno Goudsmit


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: ***
Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
Date:         Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:52:28 -0500

> 
> Howard,
> 
> Again you are skewing the point.  The point is not the topic of his
> opinions, but mischaracterizations. I have had enough.
> 
>      - Subscription revoked -
> 
> Tim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> > Pattee
> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:54 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Anticipatory Systems
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > I will cease discussing Rosen's opinions of other scientist's motives and
> > models, fair or not. I can see that it is not an acceptable topic
> > for your
> > list.
> >
> 
> 
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim Gwinn
>    Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 4:59 PM
>    To: ***
>    Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
> 
> 
>    Howard,
> 
>    HP: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.
> 
>    TG: As listowner, I am far more concerned with your continued attempts to
> propagate mischaracterizations of Rosen on this list. Again and again, you
> have seeked to paint him as something he is not, pulling quotes and partial
> quotes out of context and attempting to draw caricatures about his
> character.
> 
>    In your previous post, to seriously ask "why not?" as you did, in regard
> to the positions of Rutherford and Hutchins that you referenced, I can only
> conclude that either you have not actually read "Life Itself" or that you
> have little or no understanding of the book, since that was such a
> fundamental point. As Judith said, your portrayal entirely missed the point
> of his comparison.  In either case, with that apparent lack of understanding
> of the very beginning of the book, you are in no position to characterize on
> this list the man who wrote the book.
> 
>    My patience is about at an end, and there is too else much worth
> discussing on this list to waste time on these tiresome
> mischaracterizations. Subscriber status is granted or revoked on this list
> at my whim, and I am feeling mighty whimsical right about now.
> 
>    Tim
================================
From: "Arno Goudsmit" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] The Goal of this List
> Tim, Howard and others,
> I feel very much ashamed by the mere idea that this might be the way in
which this list deals with dissident ideas and their owners. Is this a sect?
> Arno Goudsmit, PhD
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Gwinn <***>
> Date:         Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:34:19 -0400
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: The Goal of this List
>
> > Howard,
> >
> > If you have issues with Rosen's paradigm and writings, I suggest you
> > unsubscribe from the list. The premise of the list is based on the
paradigm
> > he presents therein. Since he continued to promote these views in spite
of
> > your contact with him as a colleague, then I do not see that it is
fruitful
> > to try to raise such criticisms now - at least within this list.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of
Howard
> > > Pattee
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:20 AM
> > > To: ***
> > > Subject: Re: The Goal of this List
> > >
> > >
> > > Tim,
> > > You define the goal of your list as: the discussion and
> > > advancement of the concepts and work of theoretical biologist
> > > Robert Rosen.
> > >
> > > HP: That is worthy goal to which I would like to contribute, and
> > > I have suggested some current research areas where Bob?s ideas
> > > might be advanced as well as offered criticism. The subject is
> > > profound and requires many approaches. To me advancing Bob?s
> > > ideas does not mean just interpreting everything Bob has written
> > > as the final word. History makes clear that advancement of
> > > profound concepts requires more than hermeneutics. In science at
> > > least, ideas are highly competitive and without actively engaging
> > > in dialog with critics and without comparison with alternative
> > > approaches, any concept will become extinct simply by default.
> > >
> > > Can anyone think of any accepted scientific concept or theory
> > > that was born perfect or expressed ideally? Does anyone know a
> > > theory that did not go through years of severe critical disputes?
> > > Either the theory died or, in the end, come out the better for
> > > these disputes.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that Bob has himself engaged in severe (some would
> > > say inflammatory) criticism of the entire fields of physics and
> > > biology and specific areas of research as well as ideas of
> > > individuals. This is all very well and part of the game, but one
> > > would be delusional if one expected Bob to get a free pass exempt
> > > from response from the scientific community. Failure to engage in
> > > such critical response by excluding it from this list would not
> > > in my view contribute to the advancement of Bob?s ideas.
> > >
> > > Of course if you disagree, it is your list and your choice. Would
> > > you prefer that I limit my posts to the points of agreement I
> > > have with Bob?
> > >
> > > Howard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Tim Gwinn <***>
> > > > Date: 2004/04/21 Wed PM 05:52:27 EDT
> > > > To: ***
> > > > Subject: The Goal of this List
> > > >
> > > > JJK wrote:
> > > > > We have to ask first and foremost why we converse at all, I
> > > mean what is
> > > > > the goal? The desired outcome?
> > > >
> > > > The goal on this list is: the discussion and advancement of the
> > > concepts and
> > > > work of theoretical biologist Robert Rosen.
> > > >
> > > > I remind everyone that this forum is not intended as a general
> > > complexity or
> > > > systems discussion list. Hence it will have a significant prima
facie
> > > > philosophical bias toward Rosen's views of science,
> > > epistemology, life and
> > > > biology. If anyone considers that focus and bias to be
> > > unacceptable, then
> > > > their time is not well-spent on this list.
> > > >
> > > > I think some of this recent discussion has shown that perhaps
> > > there is the
> > > > need for a more broadly-based complexity-and-biology discussion
> > > list on the
> > > > internet. It is not my intention nor my interest to host such a
list. If
> > > > some wants to start one, I'll offer them what help I can.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tim
> > > >