----- Original Message ----- From: Kirby Urner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 11:42 am Subject: RE: RE: [Edu-sig] Acadmic gender gap (was Thoughts)
> > > Which leaves the alternative, at least for those of us > unaffiliated, to > > rant at them. Or at least that is the only alternative I have > been able > > to see. > > > > But nobody likes a ranter. > > > > I should know ;) > > > > Art > > Those with money who don't like the science party line of the day, are > likely to create affiliations out of whole cloth, and fund counter- > science. The analogy you are making doesn't completely work for me. I don't see the issue here as competing science. I see bad science in the face of questions that cannot be answered by science. If my thesis is correct, if I stick with science, I can only counter with more bad science. But you describe the dynamics correctly. It becomes a funding game. *If* we were talking science, one can sleep with the confidence that in the end, the better science would prevail. If I am correct, and there is no scientific counter to be made, funding will decide the day. And one cannot sleep so well. And my darker visions arise again. Art > In the global warming department, you'll find the Hoover Institute > withfunding from Scaife, pushing back against the UCSD Scripps > Institution of > Oceanography and National Geographic, for example. > > At least that's my current birds eye view, which may be > inaccurate, since > global warming is only a peripheral vision thing for me at the > moment -- > right out there with OWL, DAML and RDF. > > In any case, that's an alternative to ranting as an unaffiliated > being.Either make some new friends, or, failing that, buy some. > > Kirby > > > _______________________________________________ > Edu-sig mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
