Kaufman also neglects Prigogine in his books.
Curt
Glen wrote:
> Stu Kauffman on the varieties of laws and entailments.
Wow, seriously? A paper on the exact same subject as Robert
Rosen's big
works and not a single citation of Rosen, even to call him wrong?
What
am I missing?
Have you *met* Stu? My experience is that he does not reference his
sources very thoroughly (even to dismiss them). He's a rock star (in
his own mind)... does Mick Jagger acknowledge his influences (I actually
don't know)?
I still think Kauffman is dead on with most of his ideas, even if he is
not always honest (thorough) with is referencing/acknowledging.
Superficially it can make him look like a psuedo-scientific charlatan.
Following Rich's recent post (
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-real-meaning-behind-ted-controversy.html
) regarding the imminent demise of materialism seems relevant.
I think Kauffman is doing more to bring hardline materialism
(appropriately) into question than the likes of Sheldrake ever will.
Sheldrake's brand of psuedoscience seems to be very popular based
primarily on it's "outsider" status. We love our conspiracy theories...
and our perpetual motion machines... and our free energy... and grassy
knolls... and Bush-binLadin secret marriages ... anyone who claims to
debunk most of modern scientist is presumed to be the second coming of
Galileo (by many).
I wonder what D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson would have to say about
Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance? I'm guessing he would roll in the grave
and release some dusty miasma in his general direction?
On the other hand, my (Virologist) daughter has pointed me to dozens of
examples where mechanisms much like Lamarckian Evolution seems to be in
play. So the old clear line between Darwin's and Lamarck's legacies is
smearing a bit.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
