Pomo, RESULTS and science

Richard L. Warms (RW04@SWT.EDU)
Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:18:56 -0500

I think that perhaps Read and McCreery have misunderstood my postings (as I
have sometimes misunderstood theirs).

The point about Galilleo and science is that there really is no such thing as
science apart from its specific manifestations. Science doesn't exist free
floating in the ether. It is a specific sort of activity done by specific
people in specific places at specific times. These people are prepared to know
some things and not other things. They ask some questions and not others.
They invariably have an adgenda. This is not because they are evil or myopic
or anything else. It is simply because we as people have our own histories and
our own interests and desires and these determine the sorts of things we do.
We may make our investigations objectively, but do not choose our subjects or
our questions objectively.

McCreery asks for results. If he really wants to see them, he needs to specify
what he intends. I thought that in providing the names of authors who I
believe made valuable contributions to the discipline I was providing results
(even though admittedly I was brief...sorry I don't have more than about 25
minutes a day to do this). If he is looking for results in terms of general
formula or law (the kind that sometimes appear on this list) I'm sorry I have
no suggestions for him. Those are not the sorts of questions that pomo
techniques are designed to answer.


Rich Warms