Off-topic posts (was Re: So-long...)

kkollins at pop3.concentric.net kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
Wed Dec 16 18:53:15 EST 1998


Hi, John, thanks for your thoughtful Essay... much food for thought in
it.

John wrote:
> 
> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote in message
> <3675DE23.46C072F7 at pop3.concentric.net>...
> >The Wright Brothers (just Celebrated the Anniversary of their First
> >Flight the other night... they were "mere bycycle-builders".
> 
> New field
> 
> >Mendelson... who's work did meet with Presumption similar to that which
> >you've Expressed.
> 
> New field, no prior experts.
> 
> >Gallois... who's not Celebrated, but who had to Race to get his work
> >written-down before his world caved-in on him.
> >
> >The Great Indian Mathematician, whose name I cannot, presently,
> >recall... Chandekar(sp?).
> 
> Good eg. Died in his thirties. Chandrasakar I believe. Did most of his work
> on a slate and notebook, they are still going through some 200 pages of
> notes ... Natural math genius.
> 
> >Einstein, who, subject to Presumption similar to yours, could not find a
> >Professor's position, so he had to work in the Swiss Patent Office... he
> >was called "dull" by one of his teachers.
> 
> True. To be fair to his maths teacher, many of Einstein's colleague's were
> not impressed by his mathematical acumen either.

[FWIW, in the Maths I use, what's not, essentially Geometry and
Trigonometry, I invented, building on "infinitessimals" in Calculus.]

> >The woman, whose name I, also, cannot, presently, recall, who did the
> >most Crystallographic work on which hinged the Reification of DNA... her
> >Expertise was so-little respected that practically all Credit was
> >Withheld from her (which Remains the case, BTW).
> 
> Rosalind Franklin and you're claim appears correct, she is as much
> reponsible as Crick and Watson because she provided the crystallographic
> work which helped them through. Sadly, she died of cancer ... all that
> radiaiton.

Thank you for her name. I've Mourned for her ever since I read _The
Double Helix_, and some additional commentaries... but I never did get
her name locked-in... 'til now... My Sister.

> >Faraday, was relegated to the ranks of "lab technician" until he, almost
> >single-handedly Established Electrical Science.
> 
> Einstein was a patent clerk when he came up with relativity. Isaac Newton
> was nothing in particular. Darwin was gentry chap. Pretty obvious ... .
> 
> But the point remains valid. The maverick idea is a furphy, more often
> than not breakthroughs occur exactly by professionals who have pondered long
> and hard.

I've worked on Tapered Harmony for 40 years, albeit, for all but about
the last ten, as a low-key hobby... I just Love Physical Science. And
I've worked =Hard= on NDT for 29 years... be-cause its stuff needed to
be done... only difference is that I funded my research by working as a
programmer :-)

> Where mavericks do succeed is in the early stages of any
> discipline, a time when many can be 'experts'. 

No "offense" intended (just the opposite), Neuroscience had a Mountain
of Truly-Beautiful results, but they were terrifically-disordered. All I
did was find the order, and apply it.

> The psychological corollary
> so frequently evident on the usenet is that the mavericks claim the whole
> establishment is narrow minded and arrogant. 

The Researchers aren't "at-fault"... it's what Grad Students are
Required to "buy-into" if they're to Acquire their Degrees that's been
the Villain... same errors handed down, assuring that the same errors'll
be handed-down, yet again, and so forth. Woe to the one who sees
differently, and comes up against such long-established behavioral
inertia.

> A necessary defence on their
> part, but not a logical or proven one. The trouble with professionals is
> that they get mighty pissed off when an outsider comes along and suggests
> they might be wrong. Still, as Max Planck once quipped,
> 
> "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
> opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
>   its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
>    up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."

Yeah, Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Analysis of this stuff (from which I use
what you quote, above, in AoK's "short-paper" section) says it all for
me. Another Brilliat work of Kuhn's (best book, in Science, I've ever
read) goes even-more Elegantly into the Same-Stuff... and that's "just"
it... how long were folks going to Allow PTOFA to Dictate folks' very
Abilities to See?

As I relate in AoK's "short paper, I Saw it needed to be =Done=.

> In the ongoing battle with Ken and neuroscience community, what is
> interesting to note is that initially everyone treated him with due respect,
> then challenged him, and now for the most part are engaging in abuse. They
> may claim they are doing this for the 'public good' but this is baloney. We
> all have egoes, even reductionist deterministic anti dualist
> neuroscientists.
> 
> This thread is an excellent example of how such processes soon lead us all
> down the drain.
> 
> John.

"Nothing touches the sore spot" (A. Lincoln), but at least nothing
Surprises me anymore :-) ...it just Needed to be Accomplished...
=Enough= Blindness Dictating to Humanity.

Cheers, John, ken collins



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list