An observation that we established was misplaced, because you assumed
I had ignored Rosen in my paper. Also you do not seem to accept that
any scholarship of comkplexity other thatn the Rosen stream counts!
> Now, after zilllions of words, and a lot of study on my part as
> well as others, I find myself even more fearful that we are even
> more guilty of bad scholarship than before.
Speak for yourself. If you see sloppy scholarship in my postings
point it out and criticise the argument. Merely saying I have not
studied Rosen enough is beside the point.
> For what it may be worth, let me try to explain. Robert Rosen has,
> since 1958, been developing a rigorous categorization of scientific
> exploration of systems based on a clear definition of "complexity".
While I understand Rosen's general thrust (anto-reductioninst), I
strongly dispute the clarity of his definition of "complexity", which
has a strong post-hoc flavour. He has a point but unfortunately
cause much confusion by choosing a popular but innappropriate label
(i.e. that of "complexity").
> To do this, he uses a modeling relation, aimed at making us
> conscious of our actions as we pursue truth. My original attitude,
> which is stronger now than before, was that before dismissing
> Rosen, a great deal of study of his position was required.
This may be true, but is an non-starter as an *argument*. If you
beleive a position to be true, either you have arguments or evidence
to support this or you accept it is a purely personal belief (i.e.
non-public). If you can not articulate this argument, it is not
useful to others - it will not produce a very productive dialogue.
> This includes a number of books and papers. The reason should be
> obvious, but clearly isn't. The reason is that he is dealing with
> the very basis of what we call "science" and has developed a
> revolutionary view of how science needs to be done IF WE WISH TO
> ACHIEVE THE GOALS WE PROFESS TO BE SEEKING. The idea that the
> essence of this matter can be dealt with in ANYTHING but a
> superficial manner in this forum is really not very sound.
Who is doing this? Just because people disagree, it does not mean
that they are dealing with it in a superficial manner!
> However, Jeff and I have tried to provide a summary of Rosen's ideas,
> hoping they will be taken in the intended spirit, namely as an invitation to
> further study of this vast body of work, a lifetime of superb intellectual
> effort.
In which case your postings are merely misplaced. This is not a
Rosen study/appreciation group - he has worthwile perspective, but
it is only one perspective. I argue that some aspects of his views
(especially those about "complexity") are not completely adequate. We
are here to discuss our own views. If you do not feel able to
discuss YOUR views (albeit based on Rosen's), then, yes, you need
more study.
> I am dismayed at the response of some very vocal members who use this
> as an opportunity to try to promote their own ideas
This is *supposed* to be a dialogue of our own views. We don't want
mere reports of others views (unless internalised as our own) -
however important the sources.
> by capitalizing on our handicaps as we try to encapsulate this
> large, interconnected body of ideas.If for some reason, books will
> be burned and Jeff and I become the repository of Rosen's
> scholarship, then I fear all is lost.
"all is lost" - therefore you presumably not not value your own views
at all? - therefore Rosen's views are "all"? I'm afraid this smacks
of hagiography!
> Especially if this medium is our only forum for exposition.
> Fortunately, this is not the case, and there is ample opportunity
> for anyone who is SERIOUS about understanding these ideas to study
> the original works and see the whole emerge from the parts.
Exactly why we do not need a recapitulation from you but YOUR views,
aragued about.
> Jeff and I are still in the process of studying Rosen and Kampis
> and the others folks out there have recommended. WE find this the
> real meat of PCP,
Everybody will want different things from this group, I want a MUCH
broader discussion that just Rosen et al.
> and are not really interested in having a sterile
> digest simply prove the futility of reductionism and
> fragmentation.
The sterility of the dialogue can come from either side. I find your
inabliity to argue your OWN views and your constant re-iteration of
someone else's (Rosen's) very sterile - it does not progress.
> The history of these exchanges since summer is a
> laboratory for seeing Rosen's cautions about these practices
> manifest. I hope this is taken in the right spirit. I can only
> really speak for myself, and hope my using Jeff's name here will
> not be misconstrued. I am simply trying to alert the "audience" to
> what they may already know, namely that if you really want to
> understand these ideas, PCP is not a shortcut, but a spring board.
> The journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step! Best
> regards, Don Mikulecky P.S. I will follow with some quotes from
> Rosen's work as an attempt at some sort of damage control, since I
> sense the real thrust of Rosen's approach has become somewhat
> distorted in all the manipulation here.
It comes down to this:
1. When discussing a view, it needs to be subject to argument and
possible rebuttal. Any devices that prevent this (e.g. the
exhortation that you just have to study something more, without a
specific reply to the points raised) merely help to shore up, what
might be, inadequate arguments. Reductionism has been thus protected
for many years - LET US NOT DO THE SAME WITH ROSEN'S!
2. You need to learn to discuss your own understandings not others.
Thus discuss your view of Rosens idea. If you are unable or
unwilling to put your views to open debate and defend them, you have
to accept that either you need t clarify your ideas more or they are
not very good ideas (my guess, is that it is the former that needs
to happen.
3. If we want to understand Rosen's Ideas we will talk to or read
Rosen.
4. Are you going to fundermentally accept argument against Rosen's
views? Or are they sacrosant? If the former, please state what is
an acceptable way to proceed. If you dismiss any argument about a
specific point as "reductionist", have you not closed the circle
against any disagreement? Is this a genuine and useful idea or
merely an ideology?
Please answer these points explicitly.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html