Ralph M Bernstein (ralph at ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: you were not discussing immunology in your diatribuic discourse, but
: teleology. that is what i pointed out.
I see it differently than you Ralph. I don't see immunology and teleology
as separate entities that are mutually exclusive of each other. I see
the immunology of teleology and I see the teleology of immunology. I see
overlap of most sciences, on some level in some way, with immunology and
myself and others are finding it to be topic relevant. I am sorry that
you don't.
: yes indeed i have many a comment,
: but this issues will not be solved by this teleological verbiage, but by
: experiments-and that is what i do, on this subject.
Yes, but when you do an experiment, do you not plan beforehand in
consideration of the appropriate controls, any undefined or uncontrollable
variables, various methods to approach which will seek to answer your
questions? Part of this discussion has addressed how to test Chris' ideas.
I find it helpful to discuss these aspects instead of just going and
doing an, the first, experiment that comes to mind.
: i may not have the
: insight that you and chris have, but i work at it and contribute my part. i
: pointed out that your discussion was seemingly going no where.
Okay, and if I condemn any discussion to which I am not qualified to
contribute, and if those discussions ceased on such behalf, then we would
see the end of 99.999999% of all scientific discussions. I do *understand*
the feeling of not being able to contribute and thinking that without
my contribution, the discussion is going no where, and it's a very human
reaction. But that's as far as it goes. Your mileage may vary.
: indeed
: discussion is involved: einstein, although, formulated his theory, and that
: prompted one of the largest explosions in theoretical knowledge ever in
: relativistic physics-his theories were later, and are still, being proven,
: both correct and incorrect, today. usually, if really involved in a
: scientific discussion, a person wouldnt respond so defensively? so, indeed
: if your high moral platitude is appreciated out there, i will cease any
: further remarks. and thank you for pointing out the veritable definition of
: a theory to me.
I apologize if anything that I write is perceived as a personal attack. My
intentions are to address the ideas put forth in this discussion and not
you personally.
: and if you had been reading this thread when it appeared you would have
: seen my comments that both applauded the "new" theory, and cautioned its
: acceptance as a new theory, but as a melding of several already present for
: some time.
I did read it and I agree with your approach. I like to see little theories
that come together to make larger theories without losing their attributes
of either little theories or pieces of a larger theory. I find value on
any theoretical level if by addressing the theory at that level, it serves
to enhance my understanding. Polly Matzinger's ideas have done that on
multiple levels for me. Again, your mileage probably varies.
TKendrick
