Dear Pedro,
I do not have time to type all my thoughts in the wake of your posting, so
I am just sending you a brief personal word of encouragement.
The problem, as I see it, is that science labors under a metaphysic that
has outlived its usefulness. It is a ragged remnant of what two hundred
years ago passed for Enlightened science, but most colleagues cling to the
shreds with a ferocious tenacity!
I am about to begin writing my third book, which purpose will be to
expostulate a replacement metaphysic (which I have pretty much scoped out
for myself.)
I can't recall whether I found it on FIS, or elsewhere, but have you read
Elsasser's "A Logic for Biology"? It gives some strong arguments as to why
the argument for mechanism in biology is specious:
<http://www.vordenker.de/elsasser/we_logic-biol.pdf>
Problem is, if one is concerned only with organisms, the idea of mechanism
doesn't look all that faulty. It's when you get into the realm of ecology
that mechanism loses its lustre.
Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know that you are hardly alone in your
frustration with how nature is perceived by most. Unfortunately, the big
journals that everybody worships will not touch an alternative metaphysics
with a ten foot pole!
Peace,
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Ulanowicz | Tel: (410) 326-7266
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory | FAX: (410) 326-7378
P.O. Box 38 | Email <ulan@cbl.umces.edu>
1 Williams Street | Web <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan>
Solomons, MD 20688-0038 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Dec 13 16:23:36 2005
