Steve Smith wrote at 05/07/2013 09:09 AM:
> I understood that when I wrote it of course... but...
I know. But language coerces thought. So, it's important (to me) to
avoid metaphor when possible. And it's important to my (puzzling)
distinction between thought and behavior, cf below.
> I still
Glen -
Hm. I don't think science _aspires_ to be anything. And I'm not just
making a cheap rhetorical jab, either. ;-) Science isn't really a
thing, at all, much less an entity that can aspire.
I understood that when I wrote it of course... but...
It's an amalgam of
behaviors that we cherr
Steve Smith wrote at 05/06/2013 02:06 PM:
> It is an interesting paradox to compare "what things are" and "what
> things aspire to be". I do agree that Science(tm) *is* a
> collective/consensus model with some self-limiting features that help it
> to be relatively coherent. But it *aspires* to
On 5/6/13 2:16 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Saul Caganoff wrote at 05/05/2013 09:58 PM:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/why-listen-to-weird-ideas3f/4666056
I like her comment that mainstream science (or did she say physics?)
consists of _collective_ theory. It re-rais
Saul Caganoff wrote at 05/05/2013 09:58 PM:
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/why-listen-to-weird-ideas3f/4666056
I like her comment that mainstream science (or did she say physics?)
consists of _collective_ theory. It re-raises our question of the
importance of consensus
Just this weekend in the Science Show there was a story on "Outsider
Science".
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/why-listen-to-weird-ideas3f/4666056
In listening to the description of the behaviour of these "cranks" I was
struck by how many real physicists I had encountered
In researching another project I tripped over this:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/12/11/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/
http://theiff.org/exhibits/physicsonthefringe.html
FRIAM Applied C
