RankStranger Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Legion, can you give me an example of some useful application of this guy's work? Some disease that's been cured? Some critter that's been discovered? Some biological anomaly that's been explained? Otherwise it just looks like a novelty to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornnormal Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 sorry if someone already recommended, but these lectures are great: This is only one, there are seven 1 hour long lectures of Dawkins from 1991. Enjoy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMandeville Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Man, Rosen basically demolished the hope that organisms can be understood in mechanistic terms. I don't know if I'd use the word "demolished." He offers a new and somewhat untested method of understanding organisms, but I understand it to be conjecture and purely theoretical as opposed to practical. I could be wrong, but I see no reason to jump the gun and get behind a theory just because of its novelty. He flatly stated that the machine metaphor in biology is a mistake, and then he gives an examination of relational theory of machines and organisms. In my estimation the guy's work either will be, or should be, marked as a new threshold of scientific achievement. "Flatly stated" is a far cry from "definitively proved." Your estimation means nothing to me. No offense. You need to rid yourself of this idea that science is a highly political field rife with conspiracy to preserve "conventional" knowledge; all such a view does is make one mistrust data and proven theories while making it easy to accept unproven nonsense. It's destructive. I checked with a friend who is a doctoral candidate in the genetics program over at Emory, and he had a similar view. Quantum genetics and/or biology simply aren't relevant or practical. It can be applied to certain stages of photosynthesis, as I've found (you learn something new every day), but means relatively little as far as contributing to a practical understanding of biology. Quantum genetics is the String Theory of biology. Have you read any of his work by chance? I have read Life Itself but nothing else apart from an essay or two, and those were a long time ago. He just gives me a bad taste in my mouth because he's often cited in magazines like Touchstone as a source, along with Schrodinger, when some Catholic author is trying to talk about the supposed misconceptions behind evolution and use them to prove God exists. I know, it sounds stupid, but people actually do stuff like that. Gotta love homeschool education. I'm not saying Rosen wrong, but complexity theory and this sort of anti-reductionism is used quite a bit by Michael Behe and his "irreducible complexity" nonsense. I don't think Rosen ever used the exact phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," but that's basically what a holistic approach to biology boils down to, and like I said, I don't see it as being especially profound and I think it leads in decidedly unscientific directions while being easily misinterpreted or misrepresented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Legion, if all you're reading is this one guy, it makes sense that you really don't have a good birds-eye view of the matter. One of our resident nutbar pro-lifers (don't know if she's still as fucking extremist as she used to be as she's been kinda quiet on the subject of late, so no names, please) used to use as her personal Bible of prenatal biology what was clearly a very politically skewed textbook. BUT IT WAS WRITTEN BY A DOCTOR, DONTCHAKNOW. And we all know that doctors are unassailable founts of information. So in her little world, that completely overruled every other doctor's more nuanced view of the matter. AND IT WAS A TEXTBOOK DONTCHAKNOW. And we all know how unbiased and completely non-partisan textbooks are. You're making the same mistake. One cognitive bias is the human tendency to not only see only information that affirms their biases, but to seek out only information that would affirm them. You sound like you're doing that now. And that is not science. Science is listening to people who aren't necessarily our "heroes" and assessing their claims and moving forward. You've made yourself a child's fort from the sofa-cushions of ignorance. Sooner or later your mom will need those cushions back and then where will you be? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You guys are something else. Alright, I give up. You win. Evolution is all you need to know about biology. Oh, and genes are everything. Who needs phenotype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You guys are something else. Alright, I give up. You win. Evolution is all you need to know about biology. Oh, and genes are everything. Who needs phenotype? Well that's easier than answering the questions and arguments directly. But it doesn't really get us anywhere now does it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Legion, can you give me an example of some useful application of this guy's work? No, not really. Louie is working to build on Rosen's work, but not many people have glommed on to it. It's still relatively new, and mostly conceptual. I imagine though that there was a lag time between Newton's work and the tech which followed it, and he didn't have the active resistance that Rosen's work encounters. Some biological anomaly that's been explained? Well yes, I suppose so. The question which always propelled Rosen was... "What is life?" And he found an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I'm not saying Rosen wrong, but... "... but people I don't like are trying to misappropriate Rosen's work to support their own pet ideas." Man, I know a guy, who fairly well accepts that he himself is a vitalist, try to use Rosen's work to support his ideas. But Rosen was not even remotely a vitalist, and his work does not support vitalism. Complexity, in Rosen's usage, cannot be understood via reductionism. But it sure as hell isn't I.D. or any of that B.S. In short, you've not rejected Rosen's work. You've rejected misunderstandings of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Legion, if all you're reading is this one guy, it makes sense that you really don't have a good birds-eye view of the matter. It's a good thing that I've read all kinds of things, huh? That way the antecedent of your conditional assertion above does not hold. I'll tell you what. Why don't you try to sneak another lame strawman/accusation in there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wndwalkr99 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You guys are something else. Alright, I give up. You win. Evolution is all you need to know about biology. Oh, and genes are everything. Who needs phenotype? That's about the most dishonest and disingenuous "concession" I've ever seen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Legion there is nothing attractive or alluring about your contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Rank, let me attempt to give you some idea of the potential I see in Rosen's work. I spoke with a doctor this past Sunday while on lunch break. I asked her if if she thought there was a difference between promoting health and preventing disease. She said, yes, in her opinion there is. Most doctors probably now spend most of their time trying to diagnose and prevent disease, but they don't really have a coherent understanding of "health". I think it is through Rosen's work, or something very much like it, that "health" will be understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Legion there is nothing attractive or alluring about your contempt. I could see how that might be the case. But I've tried to take the "high road" for years, and that doesn't seem to be working. Therefore I will now try to return contempt with contempt2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Rank, let me attempt to give you some idea of the potential I see in Rosen's work. I spoke with a doctor this past Sunday while on lunch break. I asked her if if she thought there was a difference between promoting health and preventing disease. She said, yes, in her opinion there is. Most doctors probably now spend most of their time trying to diagnose and prevent disease, but they don't really have a coherent understanding of "health". I think it is through Rosen's work, or something very much like it, that "health" will be understood. Only partially correct. Most doctors spend almost of their time diagnosing and treating existing disease. Next to no effort is spent on anything else, because as soon as you tell some morbidly obese person they need to lose 30 pounds (at a minimum) they get their feelings hurt and want to sue somebody. Please elaborate on your and the doctor's distinction between disease prevention and health promotion. Please give some examples of each. Which category would you assign a prescription for a regular exercise regimine? What would you assign to the opposite category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Please elaborate on your and the doctor's distinction between disease prevention and health promotion. Please give some examples of each. Which category would you assign a prescription for a regular exercise regimine? What would you assign to the opposite category? I didn't have the time to pursue the doctor's views in depth. And I haven't yet explored these ideas in depth for myself. There was once a time when I apologized for my intuition. I will do it no longer. Yes, intuition can be mistaken, but I seriously doubt that new understanding has ever been acquired without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Please elaborate on your and the doctor's distinction between disease prevention and health promotion. Please give some examples of each. Which category would you assign a prescription for a regular exercise regimine? What would you assign to the opposite category? I didn't have the time to pursue the doctor's views in depth. And I haven't yet explored these ideas in depth for myself. There was once a time when I apologized for my intuition. I will do it no longer. Yes, intuition can be mistaken, but I seriously doubt that new understanding has ever been acquired without it. This is the entirety of your argument. Thank you for admitting you have nothing to say on the matter, but I was really hoping to hear you share some true insight, I really truly was. Sheesh, you've got pages and pages of nonsense built on an un-thought-out intuition? WTF. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Please elaborate on your and the doctor's distinction between disease prevention and health promotion. Please give some examples of each. Which category would you assign a prescription for a regular exercise regimine? What would you assign to the opposite category? I didn't have the time to pursue the doctor's views in depth. And I haven't yet explored these ideas in depth for myself. There was once a time when I apologized for my intuition. I will do it no longer. Yes, intuition can be mistaken, but I seriously doubt that new understanding has ever been acquired without it. This is the entirety of your argument. Thank you for admitting you have nothing to say on the matter, but I was really hoping to hear you share some true insight, I really truly was. Sheesh, you've got pages and pages of nonsense built on an un-thought-out intuition? WTF. I have just a tad bit more than as-yet-to-be-justified intuition. But let me ask you. Do you think that new understanding has ever been achieved without intuition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 You guys are something else. Alright, I give up. You win. Evolution is all you need to know about biology. Oh, and genes are everything. Who needs phenotype? That's about the most dishonest and disingenuous "concession" I've ever seen. That's the highest praise I've received this morning Wndwlkr. You have a good mind I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Please elaborate on your and the doctor's distinction between disease prevention and health promotion. Please give some examples of each. Which category would you assign a prescription for a regular exercise regimine? What would you assign to the opposite category? I didn't have the time to pursue the doctor's views in depth. And I haven't yet explored these ideas in depth for myself. There was once a time when I apologized for my intuition. I will do it no longer. Yes, intuition can be mistaken, but I seriously doubt that new understanding has ever been acquired without it. This is the entirety of your argument. Thank you for admitting you have nothing to say on the matter, but I was really hoping to hear you share some true insight, I really truly was. Sheesh, you've got pages and pages of nonsense built on an un-thought-out intuition? WTF. I have just a tad bit more than as-yet-to-be-justified intuition. But let me ask you. Do you think that new understanding has ever been achieved without intuition? Sure, it's gotta start somewhere. But you entered this conversation asserting that evolution is overstated based on this grand premise from your 'hero' Rosen, who you quoted, but couldn't even take the time to explain the quote when asked. Then you claim that his work could revolutionize the health care field. I ask for examples, again nothing. You have nothing to contribute to the argument other than contrarianism. This is the behavior of a troll. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Freebird has a point, Legion. You're making some pretty big claims here that Rosen's ideas are going to completely revolutionize biology or whatever. Maybe that's the case- I'm not arguing directly against it. But if you want others to find this work as compelling as you do, you're going to need to give some specific examples of how this works and why its useful. And why we should care. There's a high burden of proof when you go against an established field of study and for good reason. Speaking in generalities and getting pissy with anybody who isn't convinced... that just ain't good enough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 This is the behavior of a troll. Perhaps, and perhaps not. I may merely be a troll among trolls. If a people are dedicated to destruction, and a person blunts the ability of these people to destroy, then is that person a troll? I'd love to be constructive here. It would be even better still, in my view, to have others join me in this construction. Evolution has been over sold. It has been cried from every mountain top. It has been reflected in every river. Organism has yet to be understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 This is the behavior of a troll. Perhaps, and perhaps not. I may merely be a troll among trolls. If a people are dedicated to destruction, and a person blunts the ability of these people to destroy, then is that person a troll? I'd love to be constructive here. It would be even better still, in my view, to have others join me in this construction. Evolution has been over sold. It has been cried from every mountain top. It has been reflected in every river. Organism has yet to be understood. Then BE constructive. So far whenever I've asked you to be you run into the shadows. Healthcare is a pet interest of mine so I would love to find something to discuss with you and hell, maybe even agree on. But you've got to be able to communicate more than fairy farts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 And why we should care. There's a high burden of proof when you go against an established field of study and for good reason. Where am I going against an established field? Evolution is a fact. It's just a poorly understood fact. Imagine that we have before us two children at the age of 7. One of them says, "I already understand." The other says, "I wish I had more understanding." Which one do you think will one day understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Then BE constructive. So far whenever I've asked you to be you run into the shadows. I have my ways. I will be more inclined to be constructive when you yourself also decide to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 If you are a thinker, then yes evolution vs ID or creationism can cause cognitive dissonance. If you are a typical non-thinking xian, then you can hold a lot of contradictory crap in your head (like I have) with no problem. :-) I held both creationism and evolution in my head at the same time without giving it much thought because I didnt think either of them was very important. I've since tossed the biblical baloney. Regarding your other points, I suppose we could go on forever point for point, but I'd rather not. I get that evolution is a very important part of some people's lives. Does this mean I should fervently study it (i.e. buy into it) or just say "yep, I agree with evolution." Three billion devices run on Java (says Oracle). Should everyone therefore, have at least basic knowledge of Java? Odds are they have a device that runs it. I bet a lot of people have never heard of Java, the programming language. But to the ones who write programs it is invaluable. They are the ones for whom Java is important to be intimately familiar with. The rest of the public may never be aware of Java, yet their lives will be improved by it. That's my feeling about evolutionary theory. I know of it. I agree with it. I'm glad there are people who knows lots about it and put that knowledge to use. But, it's not my passion. There are a lot of things to learn about. I can't learn about them all. I'm not smart enough for one thing. lol. I thought I missed this, and now that I reread this I realize that you're just playing games. Goodbye. Conversation done with me. To fervently study isn't to buy into, to buy into, means to foolishly believe in something. Nice try. And I'd love to see where I said anywhere that you should fervently study anything? Never have I even remotely suggested it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts