Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

Mark K. Bilbo (
Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:57:23 -0600

In article <4v2o1n$>, (Eric Brunner) wrote:

>No comment, I don't have an interest in current popularizations, they are
>so ... bothersome. Did Gleick cover K-autormorphisms and Bernouli shifts?
>How about Szameridi's theorem? Ratner's work on horocycle flows? Which of
>the last 20 or so years worth of papers does s/he cite in his biblio/cites?

Show off. <g>

Eric, how you been? Still persecuting the Usenetizens? <chuckle>

You know, I have and have read Gleick's book. It's really rather good but
all popularizations suffer from the same problem. How to explain rather
complex ideas to a lay audience. Still, not all of us have the time to go
back to school to learn every subject that crosses our paths.

Personally, I'm encouraged by the trend of science folk of learning to
write their *own popular accounts of their work or at least being a major
part of the process. US science has long suffered from the ivory tower
mentality and that has, in part, brought down on us all the nuage game.

The "education" system just won't cut it. They're still teaching that silly
planetary model of the atom. But I do understand they've moved into the
nineteeth century (except in certain Southern states)...