Jones Beene
Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:02:42 -0700
--- Ed, I am not suggesting that "intent" is ever necessary or required for scientific advancement. After all, we can point to many anecdotes in the history of science where a great advance was either random or accidental. In fact seeming "randomness" serves to disguise the proportion of cases where intent is useful. Instead, the point is that intent can *on occasion* expedite, or significantly step-up the rate of progress, over what is expected; and furthermore that the "occasion" itself can be manipulated in a positive way by group *non-physical* input (as well as by real information from the larger group). > This has nothing to do with general understanding or interest, any more than a safe can be opened using only intention without the key. That, my friend, is a very fitting example and perfect metaphor for exactly what I am talking about. ... which metaphor does indeed highlight very well the thin-line of applicability to situations where "intent" can not only expedite but go beyond ... and where "intent" can materialize in several surprising ways: including looking at a problem "outside the box," and having finely honed sensory ability to "practice what you preach" and reach beyond normal limitations ... Bottom line: you do not always need the key: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004434096_apwasafecracked1stldwritethru.html Jones