Re: The meetings in Sheffield and France

[Judith Rosen <***>]

> Athel wrote: At a meeting in Sheffield (you can see what sort of
> meeting it was in the meeting report at
> http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/genomebi.htm) in January I spoke a
> little about Rosen, and included the rash statement that few biologists
> had ever heard of him. This proved to be wrong, as several people
> told me afterwards that they had heard of him but that they had
> not been able to make sense of what he was saying, and couldn't see
> how it related to life as everyone else thought they understood it.
> I had a similar experience a couple of months later at a meeting in
> France. It appears that plenty of biologists have heard of Robert
> Rosen, but hardly anyone is trying to advance his ideas in the
> primary biological literature.


Hi Athel,

I would love to be able to talk to the biologists who have heard of Robert Rosen but haven't been able to make sense of what he was saying. Please feel free to direct them to me; they are welcome to email me or simply read some of the material on the website (which is not the densely scientific/mathematical prose that people have so much trouble with). I would especially suggest they read "The Devil's Advocate" and see if that helps bring the ideas into clearer focus. These ideas really are easy to understand once they begin to integrate inside one's head, and I find they integrate faster if people don't concentrate on the mathematical aspects. It's all too easy to get lost in mathematical arguments which take the discussion in directions which have absolutely  no significance for what RR was doing and saying. That's what happened to Calvin and Torkel. They both need to first read the books and then go argue mathematics with Aloisius! I told them which page numbers to go to first, but I'm not about to get embroiled in the mathematics. Especially with people who have an orthodox attitude about it. (I don't get the feeling that you do, by the way.)(... have an orthodox attitude, I mean.)

See... I have found that it is really, really easy to be misunderstood-- no matter how clear I am trying my damnedest to be or how careful I am not to offend. So the fact that Dad was misunderstood a lot no longer surprises me. Nor do I attribute it to the word choices, anymore. At least, not entirely. I do attribute some of it to the use of mathematical illustration, though! Most biologists aren't into the math the way he was and/or aren't into the foundations of physics (the reasons why there are the problems that exist in science where biological systems are concerned).

Judith
PS: I think people may be more aware in France, if a recent email I received is any indication. They wanted a picture of Robert Rosen to go along with text which was to be part of a big anniversary issue of some magazine. The story was about the "giants of the life sciences" and Dad's name was in a list with people like Schrodinger! Now, THAT surprised me!