ok, prev posted,
: clark is certainly correct here. where is this discussion/thread going?
: this has become an exercise in discussing teleology. "the immune system
: evolved to protect",= teleology. and whethre or not it did, it does (and a
: hell of a lot more). the infectious self, vs non self, has been debated for
: years, (see a charles janeway, immunology today for easy review, 2 years
: old). this protection from self and or seeing foreign antigens has also
: been batted around for years, especially in the autoimmunity circles.
>Gee, I bet physics was batted around for quite awhile prior to Einstein's
>theory of relativity. What if he had used that as an excuse not to think,
>discuss, communicate, and teach? I'm sure glad he didn't. I kind of like
>the idea that this thread is *going* without *going anywhere*. Here on the
>internet, there are no deadlines or general expectations aside from topic
>relevance. I find this discussion quite valuable and it's my impression that
>>the other participants do as well. I have read Charlie Janeway and Bartel and
>I find their work impressive. However, in no way does their work serve as
>the final word or to close the doors of my attention to the ideas of
>Chris Thoburn or Polly Matzinger or anyone else that wishes to contribute
>their own original ideas to this discussion, including you.
>My question to you is, what are your ideas concerning this topic? What I
>mean by your ideas is not what you've read in Janeway's paper, but what
>you encountered while running through the park or gazing at the stars or
>sitting in a jacuzzi alone. What has your imagination contributed to your
>understanding? If you could challenge just one slight angle of Janeway's
>ideas, say maybe the microbial dependence upon immunity which does not
>encompass viral antigens, what would you choose? As Chris Thoburn stated,
>and I paraphrase, no theory is correct 100%. Theory only contribute pieces
>of the truth and the more perspectives involved, the more truth takes
>presence. Maybe Janeway is 99% truth. I want to know the other 1%. It's these
>kind of discussions that will divulge such information.
>TKendrick
sorry tkendrick,
you were not discussing immunology in your diatribuic discourse, but
teleology. that is what i pointed out. 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. 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. 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.
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 would have normally emailed personally to a response such as this,
but since he posted his response, fairs?)
again, pertinent points?
email me,
regards, ralph
Ralph M. Bernstein
Dept of Micro/Immuno
University of Arizona
Ph: 602 626 2585
Fx: 602 626 2100
