Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:46:07 -0500
From: rahul-AT-peaches.ph.utexas.edu (Rahul Mahajan)
Subject: Re: Schrodinger's Cat


Barkley, I did not mean to imply that a great deal of originality is
present in every scientific paper. Ph.D. dissertations specifically often
contain little that is new, and are often not published. What I was saying
is that there's something new in each published paper, not that it
necessarily requires true originality. Still, there is a big difference
between science and other disciplines in this. Exegeses of some long-dead
thinker get you no points. Throwing out vague ideas dressed in verbiage get
you nothing. You have to have done some genuine analysis or observation,
not just come up with some "idea" that may be completely unworkable or
nonsensical.

The majority of scientists are not very original people, but I protest
against the condescending view that this makes them different from people
in the  arts or the social sciences. Sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine
and photographing it takes a lot less originality and creativity than most
works of "normal science."

Rahul




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---