Re: An attempt to get back on track :complexity ala Rosen
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Mon, 9 Oct 1995 08:06:44 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Bruce Edmonds:
Sorry, but I find this last posting rather tedious. I need not grace your
version of my thoughts with answers. I said what I had to say, the ideas are
there in Rosens writings. I am not ashamed of using someone I respect and
find useful and enlightening as a reference. I am also dismayed when
the discussion focuses on debate between individuals ratyher than a pursit of
truth. I don't find that "pragmatic". We can declare you the "winner"
if you like. Meanwhile I urge anyone who wants to see what, in my opinion,
s a very cogent critique of how science is done to study the only source
I can cite with any conviction, the writings of Robert Rosen. When I see
something better, I'll cetainly let you know.
ironically, these discussions have a great value relative to this
critique. They seem to demostrate clearly the effects of reduction and
fragmentation. I see no way around the deliterious effects of these
inthis format. It seems to be a severe limitation on what is otherwise a very
fruitful process. Therefore, I strongly recommend that anyone interested
in serious scholarship, rather than chat or debate for its own sake, go to
the original works for a holistic view of what is being fragmented, often
beyond recognition, in this forum.
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky