I would put it more strongly and say that it is "entirely not subject
neutral". I think if we look honestly there is not a single thing that
we can drill into that has ultimate reality. I'm not being cute, or
deep, or nihilistic, ;) but I really don't think that this is simply a
matter of reducing to the absurd either. Or if it is, then we are
showing that the very act of reduction is itself absurd. Once we begin
with that kind of understanding of the profound limitations of
conceptual knowledge then we can begin to do real science.
(I am thinking quite seriously about writing a book that catalogs
material and concepts simply as an exercise in loosing our affection
for seeing things as "really real".)
On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:41 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09/16/2009 06:49 AM:
Miles Parker wrote:
What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent? Context?
Scientific writing aims to facilitate the reader in understanding
how to
reproduce a result. It must be subject neutral.
I.e. it's not entirely subject neutral.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
