Earlier I wrote
> (In its fundamentals, science is a form of transcultural communication
...
> Your enemy simply ignores you, if you are lucky, which enables
> him to change his mind later, or says you are a fraud. That is
> why `paradigm shifting' ideas consume at least a generation.)
"Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded
We differ significantly here. As a counter example, Shelly
Glashow was almost laughed off the stage for proposing Electroweak
at a conference. A year later, almost everyone agreed that he was
right. Within a few years it was called "The Standard Model."
I don't understand what you mean: are you suggesting that many
physicists are better that I suggested? If so, that is good.
What I am trying to say is that even in tough circumstances, where
`authorities' are authoritarian and do not change their minds,
students (or at least some of them) will be more flexible.
I may be wrong about students, but if not, my claim is that as a form
of persuasion, science is robust. Other forms of persuasion fail in
various areas: an appeal to authority fails when the authority lacks
respect. An appeal to future benefits fails when the future arrives
but the benefits do not (and this failure can be communicated to
others). An appeal to a metaphorical similarity fails when the
application of the metaphor apears faulty.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
