Re: OT: art and language and THE DAVINCI CODE

Christophe Grandsire scripsit:

> If he cannot explain quantum mechanics over dinner, then he is not a
> scientist (or one who doesn't know anything about quantum mechanics.
"Explain" was a poorly chosen word.  I can do that too, but I can't prepare
someone to tell the difference between valid work and rubbish, which is
what Sally is lamenting she can't do either.

> As for the second example, I doubt any
> scientist is able to make the difference between a promising and a
> non-promising research until the promising one does begin to show its
> results and the non-promising one has stalled for more than a few years.
If you don't learn this skill, at least in this country, you will have a
big problem getting grants.

> I dare say that hard sciences are in many ways *less* subtle than "soft"
> ones. It's not that difficult to vulgarise physics, but I've yet to find
> someone who has managed to vulgarise musicology or creative writing without
> betraying them.
Well, "creative writing" is not quite the term here: "the criticism (=
understanding) of literature" is what we want here to correspond to
physics and musicology.

--
Winter:  MIT,                                   John Cowan
Keio, INRIA,                                    jcowan@reutershealth.com
Issue lots of Drafts.                           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
So much more to understand!                     http://www.reutershealth.com
Might simplicity return?                        (A "tanka", or extended haiku)

Reply