🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <388@hubcap.UUCP> steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) writes:
>in article <97@thirdi.UUCP>, sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) says:
>> 
>> I think,
>> however, that you can't specify the questions, nor the methodology, in
>> advance.  Both evolve with the science.
>
>To some degree you are right.  That might be the difference between a mature
>and an evolving science.  A science probably stagnates if it keeps (1) turned
>inward and (2) asking the same tired questions (long ago answered.).

By this definition of "mature", I think I prefer "immature sciences"!
"Overripe" might be a better term.  The only science I can think of that's
fully mature, in this sense, is the science of playing tic-tac-toe.  And that's
not much fun anymore.

>Part of my interest is pedegogical:  My students beat on me saying "You never
>tell us where we're going."  I say,"But you were supposed to get that in
>xxx course."  Well, they didn't get it there: so now I have to do it.  I
>used to think them blase and not curious - now I think that they haven't
>been primed to ask "the usual questions."  Biep's list is nice in that respect
>as it is a list of questions to prime the pump.

Agreed, with bells on.  I think what Biep is aiming at is very worthwhile.  My
only point is that it isn't a definition of "methodology".
-- 
"Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge