Though I have found that some people find physical proximity to me unnerving. I think maybe it's all the pink make-up.
Pink is an unnerving colour. But I'm pretty sure I could get over it.
I studied a good deal of the history and philosophy of science (philosophy was my undergrad minor).
As I think you know (I don't know if i've ever said anything about it, wheree you'd have read), I'm in graduate school for Philosophy and Religious Studies. Have you ever read the work of Dr. Robert Almeder? He was my professor for ethics and philosophy of science. I think you might find his work interesting, even if you end up not enjoying it.
At some point I encountered T. S. Kuhn, with whom you are very likely familiar. He proposed, in essence, that the forces driving "scientific revolutions" were neither rational nor the result of an increase in knowledge, but merely a cyclical process. . .
I've not read Kuhn's work, but I'm definately going to pick up some of it, soon. This sounds like the kind of problematic line of thinking that leads to people misunderstanding all kinds of intellectual and spiritual advancements. Thinking that A) there's nothing new and B) there needs to be some new thing. Not done before will happen, because the person doing it hasn't done it, and their methods will, necessarily, be different. But that's a whole other tangent.
I much prefer the Michio Kaku view that "Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense." The idea that if it's truly new, truly a revolution, there will be resistance to it, by its nature. The job of the scientist, the intellectual, the (cliché alert) "seeker of knowledge" is to test it, examine it, work it to a full and logical conclusion.
It takes a while, because it flies in the face of the foundations we were talking about, earlier. My contention is that we should be a bit more flexible in our foundations. The kind of skepticism you mention, with the ability to amend as necessary, rather than the seeming reticence to deal with new put.
Not on the part of good scientists, mind you, but on the part of the general public and "stodgy academics" who have to digest and disseminate the material into the world.
Sorry, my iconoclast is showing.
I am not opposed to any investigation that might in any way better our understanding of the Cosmos.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 05:34 am (UTC)Pink is an unnerving colour. But I'm pretty sure I could get over it.
I studied a good deal of the history and philosophy of science (philosophy was my undergrad minor).
As I think you know (I don't know if i've ever said anything about it, wheree you'd have read), I'm in graduate school for Philosophy and Religious Studies. Have you ever read the work of Dr. Robert Almeder? He was my professor for ethics and philosophy of science. I think you might find his work interesting, even if you end up not enjoying it.
At some point I encountered T. S. Kuhn, with whom you are very likely familiar. He proposed, in essence, that the forces driving "scientific revolutions" were neither rational nor the result of an increase in knowledge, but merely a cyclical process. . .
I've not read Kuhn's work, but I'm definately going to pick up some of it, soon. This sounds like the kind of problematic line of thinking that leads to people misunderstanding all kinds of intellectual and spiritual advancements. Thinking that A) there's nothing new and B) there needs to be some new thing. Not done before will happen, because the person doing it hasn't done it, and their methods will, necessarily, be different. But that's a whole other tangent.
I much prefer the Michio Kaku view that "Scientific revolutions, almost by definition, defy common sense." The idea that if it's truly new, truly a revolution, there will be resistance to it, by its nature. The job of the scientist, the intellectual, the (cliché alert) "seeker of knowledge" is to test it, examine it, work it to a full and logical conclusion.
It takes a while, because it flies in the face of the foundations we were talking about, earlier. My contention is that we should be a bit more flexible in our foundations. The kind of skepticism you mention, with the ability to amend as necessary, rather than the seeming reticence to deal with new put.
Not on the part of good scientists, mind you, but on the part of the general public and "stodgy academics" who have to digest and disseminate the material into the world.
Sorry, my iconoclast is showing.
I am not opposed to any investigation that might in any way better our understanding of the Cosmos.
Thank you.