In <psyclerD8G1wG.1J2 at netcom.com> psycler at netcom.com (Psycler) writes:
>I follow your ideas and I am trying to figure out a way to test it
according to your parameters. In general, when I set out to do an
experiment, I am asking the question: What happens if I do this?
I am looking at a default state in which, upon introducing some
predefined variable, may cause a shift away from that state. Okay,
so in order to experiment on a normal immune system, what variables
can I introduce that will maintain that state of normality? I'm sure
there are lots that will qualify, but in the end, I'm not sure I've
learned anything new.
I hope you don't think I am being picky, but I need to ask these
questions to understand your ideas. On the other hand, perhaps I have
misunderstood and simply gone off on an irrelevant tangent. Please
advise me if this is the case. If not, how would you answer these
questions?
The process of observation will change the system (basic physics). My
intent was not to suggest that one should only study intact systems,
but rather that when thoeries (drawn from components
of a system) are applied to the system as a whole, they can not be
given the same level of validity. I understand that for practical
reasons, one must usually do experiments in this manner,
but I find that the majority of people fail to understand this concept.
>It depends on how much I generalize when looking at the big picture or
how much I get specific when looking at the small picture. It also
depends on how much I let semantics play a role in thoughts. I am
not so much concerned with semantics as I am with knowing if something
new has been learned or realized or that my understanding has
increased.
>I think we can discuss at length how to distort our internal models of
what the media has presented as a role for the immune system and I see
no boundaries to this distortion. As I inferred from your previous
post, I too think that media offers a lot of political diatribe which I
myself have made some contributions. :)
I agree, perspective is the key. First, sementics are of dubious value
when you play with thoughts in your head, but are of critical
importance when you try to convey your thoughts and
ideas to others. (As you can tell I have cartainly ot mastered this
area). Second, every theory is wrong (either by construction of
limitation of detail) but conveys some aspect of the underlying
truth. This being the case, it would seem that the best way to
approximate this truth is to compile as many points of view as
possible. The only thing we know about the truth is that it
must explain all of the observations (the boundry). Knowledge can be
taught, but understanding must come from within.
Chris Thoburn
