Under-Appreciated Gems of Scientific Epistemology

Darren Rhodes darren.rhodes5 at btopenworld.com
Wed Jul 21 09:03:10 EST 2004


"Scott Seidman" <namdiesttocs at mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns952D58FADD86Ascottseidmanmindspri at 130.133.1.4...
> jlanfield2003 at yahoo.com (Jeff Lanfield) wrote in
> news:235c483f.0407201549.681ffa4 at posting.google.com:
>
> > I am writing a paper on how new ideas gain acceptance in science. I
> > would like to get opinions on what were the most profound books and
> > thinkers on scientific epistemology you have encountered.
> >
> > By  this I mean a work that totally changed the way you look at the
> > world and at science. Below is my list. I would be grateful for your
> > additions. I
> > am really looking for works that are novel and different, orthogonal
> > to the ones I listed. For example, I included Bertalanffy's General
> > System Theory so I do not want the many, many other books on General
> > System Theory.
> >
> > I'm specifically looking for the thinkers and books that are not only
> > highly original but also under-appreciated and not as widely known as
> > they deserve to be. For instance, Aristotle, Plato, and Darwin will
> > not make this list as their work is well known and universally
> > recognized.
> >
> >
> > My list (no particular order):
> >
> > Rene Thom: Structural Stability and Morphogenesis
> > Ludwig von Bertalanffy: General System Theory
> > David Bohm: Wholeness and Implicate order
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your help,
> >
> > - Jeff
>
> Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions  (a MUST given your topic!!)
> Koestler, The Watershed
> de La Mettrie, Man a Machine
>
>
> Scott

Try Lovelock, J in Science around about 1965 and compare with the 'life on
Mars' space programme (it is a closed access journal so I can't post a
link).  Perhaps you should include 'funding' as to why some ideas gain
acceptance and some don't.  Darren.






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list