Tkendrick previously said:
>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
excuse the delay...I have been having problems postin
