• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'Jon Noring'" <jon@n...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:43:59 -0500

That's pretty much it, Jon, well that and have a blast while you can.  One
reason I like email lists over blogs is that an email list is mostly a
conversation with others and a blog is mostly a monologue.   Both have their
place in the publishing world, but I learn more from the email lists faster.

If we can stay above the name calling and argue the ideas (I enjoy Rasmussen
because he does that), then when an idea germinates, lots of people share
the cred and it's a horse race to implement it profitably.  It only gets
ugly when someone goes off and writes a blog without sharing the cred or
claims invention, then all of the pointers point to the blog, the PageRank
pile-on begins, the hero worship, the nonsense of celebrity and guess what,
the conversation stops.

You gotta share the ideas.  Ecosystems see to the extinction of selfish
genes.  Does that chew up bandwidth?  Sure.  And the alternative is?  I've
written and published papers that looked into the future.  I've had more fun
and learned more on the email lists.

If you have an active and well-focused development project, a group blog is
a good idea.  If you are working out ideas that are formative or put another
way, weak signals from the edge of the network (of ideas or machines), email
lists are an all volunteer army of thinkers.

len


From: Jon Noring [mailto:jnoring@g...] On Behalf Of Jon Noring
 
Len wrote:

> That is why one wants to be deeply aware of all of the crazy ideas out
> there.  Some of them work when the right questions are asked.  

I keep in touch with a physicist, Dr. Hal Puthoff, who has published
controversial papers in the area of zero point energy. Some of his
papers on ZPE, the origin of gravity (which he believes is a ZPE
effect), etc., have been published in top-notch peer-reviewed
journals, one of which is highly regarded, so he is a physicist that
straddles the boundary between respectability and "crackpotdom" (well
some think he's a crackpot.)

Anyway, he regularly reads the "crackpot" journals and papers. Even
though 99% of it is junk (in his reckoning) -- he does so to keep his
mind open, and it helps him to look at things in different ways.

The scientific "orthodoxists" always attempt to stamp out what they
consider to be crackpot ideas, and even try to limit dissemination of
such ideas in scientific journals if it does not fit current thinking.
Many of them would love to be able to censor even the Internet to make
sure such ideas are rooted and stamped out -- and that they control
the flow of scientific information. These orthodoxists tend to
gravitate towards positions by which they can control the flow of
ideas.

This reminds me of similar famous quotes (their origin seems to be
unknown) which go something like this:

1. "New ideas in physics won't take hold until the old physicists die."

2. "Funeral by funeral, science makes progress." (Paul Samuelson,
   Nobel prize winner)

3. "There are two theories of the nature of light, the corpuscular
   theory and the wave theory.  We used to believe in the corpuscular
   theory. Now we believe in the wave theory because all those who
   believed in the corpuscular theory have died. (James Clerk Maxwell)

For a profession that adheres to the principles of science, scientists
rarely practice what they preach -- to treat everything as a theory,
and to be willing to change their theories as new evidence comes in. A
corollary of this is that all ideas are to be treated as equal when
tendered. The reality is that science is a dog-eat-dog world where
egos and emotions rule, not science. And having worked for 15 years in
three DOE National Laboratories as a staff scientist (including LBL
and LLNL), and had regular lunches with many of the Ph.D physicists
and chemists there, I know what I speak of. In private, 95% of the
conversation dealt with the human issues of ego clashes, personality,
censorship of ideas, etc., and not with discussion of science following
rational scientific principles of openness and inquiry. I guess humans
are human, even if they are Ph.D. scientists. The "Mr. Spock"
personality among scientists is actually quite rare, as is the
open-minded scientist typified by people like Dr. Hal Puthoff (well,
there are a lot of open-minded scientists, but most of them have been
beaten down by a system which promotes scientific orthodoxy -- very
few try to fight the system.)

Jon Noring

• References:
  • Re: XML-DEV list - prior art
    • From: Jon Noring <jon@n...>