Re: Conversation
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Wed, 24 May 1995 15:55:05 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Louis regarding the "From complexity to perplexity" article
in June Scientific American
I had just finished making a transparency about this article when I
read your message. I am preparing a talk for the French Society for
Theoretical Biology in St. Flour June 12-15. I am talking about
complexity and in particular, the lack of rigor in the Santa Fe Institute's
handling of the concept. Jeff Prideaux and I have commented on this at some
length before. I just wanted to point out that for almost everything
said about that approach to complexity, (for example
- high mouth to brain ratio
- too much journalism
- degenerates into computer hacking)
Rosen's approach is the opposite. He may be hard to understand at
times, but not because of any failure to maintain historical continuity
or to base his discourse on well known and accepted practices and
concepts. He is difficult because he deals with difficult ideas.
Notice also that the Scientific American article has totally
focused on those who have had the media attention. The author either
doesn't know about Rosen or chose to ignore him because to consider
him would have meant writing a very different article.
I am armed with examples and interpretations galore and I think I
have a good story to tell. I have three hours to talk, so I have
a chance to do some didactics. There is still plenty of substance
in the notion of complexity, if you know where to look. C'est la vie!
Best wishes, Don Mikulecky