🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <dirk@neopax.com> wrote in message
news:2mn9p5Fohgn8U2@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
> > In article <235c483f.0407201549.681ffa4@posting.google.com>,
> > Jeff Lanfield <jlanfield2003@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.


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