problem being that what is “good” and what is “bad” is contentious, at this level.
-
-
Replying to @joXn @Meaningness
for STEM folks, who you’re trying to reach, what’s needed is examples where “fuzzy” “unscientific” thinking wins really big …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
I only started thinking about the 4.1…4.9 structure a few days ago, but I was thinking that the final lesson would be called >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @joXn
“Conjuration: legendary feats of meta-systematicity”; and I came up with a list of examples, but then realized that none are sciency
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
everyone accepts that group theory and symmetries of groups are integral to physics, but rewind 150 years and nobody did
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn @Meaningness
Maxwell had everything needed to beat Einstein to the punch, but the group theory involved was considered abstract nonsense
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
let me see if I can find you a good citation. Might take some digging.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn @Meaningness
Freeman Dyson, “Missed Opportunities“, §3 on Maxwell’s Equations. http://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bams/1183533964 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.