Re: A typical scientist? (Re: Evidence . . . .
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Mon, 22 May 1995 02:53:00 GMT
In article <3pmo5c$5hl@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Robin Roberts (scipio@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>There are two things going on here. (1) If you can't express an idea
>or a reasonably related group of ideas in 30-50 pages, then you
>probably don't understand the idea at all yourself; (2) If you can't
>express it in those number of pages, the _reader_ can't understand the
>idea either.
Assuming of course that you are only expressing an idea. If you are
only expressing an idea, however, one wonders how it would take even
so much as 2-3 pages. Assuming that we are being presented with a
reasonably related group of ideas, of course 30 pages would appear
to be very reasonable indeed.
However, even briefly comparing three different song cycles say from
Arnhem Land, each in themselves several hundred verses long, would
as reasonably take over 250 pages.
Continue your crud nit-picking as long as you wish, people. It fails
to impress anyone, and only diminishes your standing and reputation
as scientists. No problem.
I never met so many people set on the path to their own self-abasement
as I find here on this Usenet. Please don't think for a moment I for
one would stand in your way; anything I can do to help is a pleasure!
We don't want you off, merely expose you for what you are, yes?
|