> I've never understood what's up with science-spod types who
> refuse to learn a few technical terms, apply themselves and
> accept some metaphorical language when it's someone else's
> field, but demand limitless indulgence in their own.
what's not to understand about 'he-man master of the universe'?
otherwise, very nice points. despite the valorous struggles of the lab-coat crowd, the fact is that the very basic practices of 'science' vary tremendously between disciplines. and to those who don't believe it, the line forms to the left for vaccina- tions developed using archaeological techniques.
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:29:27 -0500
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Incidentally, the main intellectual crime in fudging one's use of
> "imaginary" and "irrational" numbers is a crime against history.
so what's the main intellectual crime in fudging one's use of 'fudging' and 'a crime against history'?
> Someone pointed out that imaginary (complex) numbers aren't
> imaginary and irrational numbers aren't irrational. Precisely: and
> some important philosophical and social history is buried in
> those labels. The same person whined about "up" and "down"
> quarks -- the point is that the scientists who explored quarks
> had a sense of humor. "Quark" itself comes from *Finnegan's
> Wake*. On the other hand, the earlier mathematicians who
> coined "irrational number" really thought those numbers were
> an insult to rationality. And the mathematicians who coined
> "imaginary number" really thought those numbers didn't exist.
and one could equally hew to the fact that someone who lived in a period in which irrational numbers would be named thusly didn't 'really think' things, which after all bears all kinds of baggage about subjectivity and the discursive role of em- pasis therein: they KNEW. and one could easily pursue this point by noting that there's a good chance that what was at stake wasn't 'rationality' but, rather, divine order. but it would be pedantic to say so, wouldn't it?
> Humanists, sociologists, psychologists may not take mathematics
> seriously -- but if they don't take history seriously, then fuck
> them.
there are a lot of ways to take history seriously. and, i'll point out, precedents of 'then f-ck them' dogmatism aren't very pretty: there are a lot of ways to f-ck people.
cheers, t