🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Al wrote:

> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> 
>>In article <2mn9p5Fohgn8U2@uni-berlin.de>, Dirk Bruere at Neopax <dirk@neopax.com> was seen to type:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Yes ... much SF. It encourages the use of imagination.
>>For me, probably the JG ballard ones and the phillip dick book with
>>"ice 9" in it (been a long time since I read that so this is IIRC :)
>>). Apply the precautionary prionciple ... always :)
> 
> 
> "Ice-9" is Vonnegut.  Vonnegut writes about wry social
> dysfunction, Dick writes about damning perceptual ambiguity.

Dick's more metaphysical stuff wears better over the years than almost all 
'hard' SF.

-- 
Dirk

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