Re: Biological Phlogiston

Dear Pedro and All:

I would like to attempt to connect two ideas in Pedro's comments.

> Taxonomies do not advance science, bold hypothesis may do.

>If we could make significant advancements in the understanding of
> cellular signaling systems (let us be modest! they are new comers to the
> sci. arena), in the nervous system processing role, and in of our own
> social relationships between the "economic" production of social life and
> the world of knowledge, then something interesting might be gained.

A central issue in conceptualizing a transdisciplinary view of the the
sciences is the relattionships between the scale (size, magnitude) of
different objects and the proposed hierarchical nature of organization
of systems.
[A trival example: who would expect an atom to be conscious?]
If a connetion is to be made between physical particles and living
behaviors, then we must search for mapping functions which allow us to
relate the attributes of the various contributors to the game. I
suggest that if such mapping functions exist ( and I believe they do)
then the nature of the mapping functions will depend on the
classification rules (taxonomies) which name the players ( the domains
and ranges). In a well known case, we can look at the example of three
degrees of organization - subatomic particles, atoms and molecules. One
hundred and fifty years ago, we were uncertain about the character of
each of these degrees of organizations. Today, we assume that quantum
mechanical rules are adequate for many purposes - including calculating
the entropy content of good-sized molecules. Perhaps I am showing my
biases as a (bio)chemist, but it seems to me that before we can do
synthesis, we first must have a taxonomy (structure) which permits
analysis. This may strike some colleagues as a bit "out-fashioned" and
out of touch with the go-go simulations of the '90s, but it is how is I
see science operating. Others, with different a "Lebenslauf", may wish
to provide another perspective on the role of taxonomies in the history
of science.

Koichiro - have you thought about this aspect of scientific philosophy?

Cheers to All
Jerry

PS: I loved the notion of "Biological Phlogiston" - hits the spot!
:-) :-)
Received on Tue Mar 3 05:07:05 1998