dubdobdee | (Reply)

From:

Well, one of my insights (or "insights") is that if we're not willing to learn from bad writers and bad people we narrow our range (which is why I think it's crucial that my Department Of Dilettante Research be in an "open space"); but how to learn, so that the attempts don't get us into a quagmire, is a question that's not so easy to answer. There's also triage: the squeakiest wheel may not be the one you most need to be spending your time on (so maybe there's a Fuller type who's much better than Fuller). The one review I read of the Kuhn book made the complaint I've made about SR: the reviewer claimed that Fuller didn't engage the substance of Kuhn's ideas, rather thought it sufficient to nail Kuhn for his associations and social stances. But that anti-Fuller piece that Alan linked paradoxically made me more not less interested in Fuller (though not much interested in Fuller). My educated guess here is that Fuller is someone who is threatened more by Kuhn's idea of normal science than by Kuhn's idea of incommensurability. But anyway - in regard to use of

dubdobdee's time - Kuhn's idea of normal science is provocative itself, and I don't recall you discussing it.

In regard to trolls, the majority of trolls have very conventional ideas.