Under-Appreciated Gems of Scientific Epistemology

Dirk Bruere at Neopax dirk at neopax.com
Tue Jul 27 19:16:33 EST 2004



Darren Rhodes wrote:

> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk at neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:2mn9p5Fohgn8U2 at uni-berlin.de...
> 
>>
>>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.
>>
> 
> 
> As we approach the Singularity as described in Kurzweils law of accelerating
> returns (see http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1) it
> is axiomatic that SF will be a indistinguishable from science.  Darren.

I've pretty much stopped reading SF because it can't keep up with real life.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list