Under-Appreciated Gems of Scientific Epistemology

[Bruce Sinclair]

In article <2mn9p5Fohgn8U2 at uni-berlin.de>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk at neopax.com> was seen to type:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>> In article <235c483f.0407201549.681ffa4 at posting.google.com>,
>> Jeff Lanfield <jlanfield2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>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.
>> 
>> None.  My understanding of science has evolved slowly, from numerous 
>> sources and personal experiences.  It's shuffled and stumbled forward as I 
>> slowly grasp concepts on the fourth attempt at general relativity, 
>> fifth attempt at quantum field theory, or whatever.  There are certainly 
>> some very good and useful books, but I can't say I've read any that, as 
>> you say, have totally changed the way I look at the world and at science.
>
>Well, for me Neuromancer came close when it first came out.
>In general, SF.

Yes ... much SF. It encourages the use of imagination.
For me, probably the JG ballard ones and the phillip dick book with 
"ice 9" in it (been a long time since I read that so this is IIRC :) 
). Apply the precautionary prionciple ... always :)




Bruce


================================================
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave 
is olds.
	Lord Vetinari, ¨The Truth¨       Terry Pratchet



Caution => followups may have been changed to relevant groups 
(if there were any)