Re: The brayers & the gurus.

Elton N. Kaufmann - Cycloid Fathom Group (cycloid@cycloid-fathom.com)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:35:46 -0600

Just one quibble with Terry's analogy. No matter what his contemporaries
might have thought, hindsight tells us that Galileo's legitimacy was rooted
in provable scientific truths. There is an "art" to the practice of
science, natural philosophy, alchemy, and so forth, but the results must
stand up against tests of reproducibility and powers of prediction.

How one chooses to implement an alt-process and the aesthetics of the final
result are far more personal, individual matters of taste and artistic
vision that no one else can assault on the basis of truths and facts. No
doubt the tendency of some to cling to immutable standards originates from
the same desire for the safe and regimented cocoon, whether they debunk new
science or new art. I quibble because I can defend Galileo on the basis of
right versus wrong, but I can only defend Gene on the basis of "there is no
right or wrong".
EltonK

At 05:43 AM 11/23/97 -0500, TERRY KING wrote:
>The example of Galileo
>comes to mind whose astronomical observations were seen as a threat to
>established religious tenets. It did not matter whether Galileo was right
>or not, Such an approach is a force for stability in a tribal society.