Well, the geneological enquiry (as described) seemed more adversarial than the traditional - the G guy is trying to discredit the other guy by showing that he is just on a power trip of some sort. I tend to look at them as subtractive (G) and additive (T) sculpture - complementary if some common goal is in mind, but the G guy never gets there, as he has no motivation or handy mechanism to do so. Then again, one has to recognize that this characterization leans dangerously towards using the G approach to criticize the G approach (though I think Corfield realizes that and deals with it).
C. Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Carl wrote: > >> A tract on how the history might work, again, *sigh*: >> >> http://www.dcorfield.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/HowMathematicians.pdf >> > Given a master with power and an apprentice without, don't see why the > genealogical view is necessarily at odds with tradition-constituted > enquiry -- such that one could say science was proceeding in one way or > the other. It's just a question of intent. > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
