[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Reductionist philosophy
- From: Arno Goudsmit <***>
- Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:26:11 +0100
Hi Judith,
I must admit: there are some vital differences between the way Tim stopped at Don's list,
and the way Pattee stops here. Still there is something in common: it is a sense of
injustice thathe t is felt to be inflicted upon the list in which someone is
participating; and it is the listmaster's response, full of irritation, controlled or
otherwise.
Personally I have a huge sympathy and admiration for RR; my acquaintance to him is
restricted to a single phonecall; my sympathy and admiration for his courage are mainly
based on theoretical considerations.
When Tim left the other list, I felt then very sorry for all involved in the collision,
like I do now. I remain convinced that things get less interesting when sincere and
goodwilling people, like Tim and Howard, are, or feel like being, excluded; especially
when such exclusion is based on arguments that I find invalid. Such is now the case. I
may be quite naive in my reading of Pattee's contributions to this list, but I have read
them as a series of suggestions how to avoid unnecessary contraposition between RR's work
and mainstream theorizings. I did not feel this in any way to be unfriendly towards RR,
both qua person and qua theorist; to the contrary, I think this was meant as a
contribution to the attempt to make RR's work better accessible to a wider audience. On
the other hand, I did notice some unfriendly undertones by him (and at times overtones as
well) towards those on this list who did not appreciate his critical suggestions. But
that is a different matter, and it should not be confused with a hostile attitude towards
RR.
Best,
Arno
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: ***
Subject: Re: Reductionist philosophy
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:40:44 -0500
>
> Hi Arno,
>
> I both understand and empathize with your position. In fact, I share
> your approach to learning. I will do my best to help in any way
> possible with regards to what I know about my father's work and with
> access to material whenever possible, as well. I have no problem with
> honest criticism of the work, or with different/differing ideas. My
> problem is only with someone impugning my father's character as a mode
> for discrediting the work. In my opinion, that is what Howard Pattee
> has been doing.
>
> I have to say that I don't think it is fair to compare what Tim has
> done with the reasons he left Don Mikulecky's list. In fact, the two
> situations are almost total opposites: Don M. as list owner was
> abusive to people who disagreed with him. Here, a subscriber was being
> abusive towards the man the list is about, and it was particularly
> scurrilous because my father considered that man a friend in life,
> never realizing that he had so alienated Howard with the direction
> that his work was taking him that Howard would harbor such hostility.
>
> It may not be apparent to those on the list just how subtle and
> subversive the misinformation was, but it was clear to me for some
> time now. On occasion, Howard's hostility was actually useful to me
> because it required me to delve into areas of my father's work that I
> hadn't spent as much time in, however, the need to constantly go back
> over old arguments was beginning to wear me down.
>
> Plus, it's just so petty and unnecessary. Why do people spend any time
> out of their lives in such unhappy pursuits? It's a waste of spirit. I
> do not believe that Howard was subscribing to this list in order to
> "understand" as he said, nor do I think he was here to help anyone
> else understand Robert Rosen's work. He had perfect access, all those
> years in between the collapse of the center in Buffalo and my father's
> death (1976-1998). Dad was living in Rochester for two years before he
> died, Howard was in Binghamton. He never called, he never visited;
> it's barely a four hour drive. If he wanted to understand, why didn't
> he ask Robert Rosen, himself, when he had the chance?
>
> Instead, he subscribes to a discussion list about Robert Rosen's work,
> after the man has died... and constantly posts barbed criticisms,
> accusing my father of all kinds of things like allowing his scientific
> focus to be skewed by what? Irritation? Howard called his criticisms
> "academic disputation"... I'm not an academic. Dad is not here. You
> have no idea how much my father helped that guy. The Pattees lived in
> our house in Buffalo while Dad was at Hutchins' Center for the Study
> of Democratic Institutions. When the UB center collapsed, Dad arranged
> for a tenured position he'd been offered at Binghamton to be offered
> to Howard instead. Dad had already accepted a job in Halifax because
> he wanted to get out of the SUNY system and he felt responsible for
> Howard because he had brought him to Buffalo. My Mom still sends Mary
> Ellen and Howard Pattee a Christmas letter every year.
>
> So this constant harping, dressed in the guise of a friend "who
> enjoyed Robert Rosen's mind, over a brandy..." just really upsets me.
> The fact that Tim, who doesn't know me, and didn't know my father,
> also saw this behavior tends to lend credence to my claim that this is
> not just my imagination. Again, if Howard wanted to know what Robert
> Rosen thought and why, how come he didn't get in touch all those
> years?
>
> My father told me that he rarely was attacked directly anymore, by the
> mid-1980's. He said it was much worse when he was younger. But he had
> become too good at defending himself and his work. Those who wanted to
> damage him did so from behind the scenes; as reviewers for manuscripts
> or so forth. Word always seemed to get back to us about it, and it
> rarely surprised my father. I think Howard's behavior on this list
> would have both surprised and saddened my father a great deal.
> Speaking for myself, I'm glad Tim unsubscribed Howard Pattee.
>
> Judith Rosen
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Arno Goudsmit
> To: ***
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 5:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Reductionist philosophy
>
>
> 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
> > > > >