[iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s

[Ellis Godard]

That's lovely as poetry but arguably useless as evaluative criteria. I can
understand how to measure the extent to which a scientific idea is simple,
by asking how briefly it can be stated, or general, by asking how many
situations or settings it applies to. How does one measure "complex in the
simple" or "general in the particular", if those are even meaningful?

-eg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: idc-bounces at bbs.thing.net 
> [mailto:idc-bounces at bbs.thing.net] On Behalf Of Myron Turner
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:35 PM
> To: 'IDC list'
> Subject: Re: [iDC] Praxis-based Ph.D.s
> 
> 
> Art
>  the complex in the simple
>  the general in the particular
>  untestable:  neither valid nor invalid
>  like science original within the confines of its cultural 
> indebtedness
> 
> Ellis Godard wrote:
> > The difference in "approval mechanisms" is somewhat 
> interesting. The 
> > difference in evaluation criteria interests me more. 
> Science seeks to 
> > (as described by Donald Black) simple, general, testable, 
> valid, and 
> > original. What are the criteria by which non-science should be 
> > evaluated?
> >   
> _____________________
> Myron Turner
> http://www.room535.org
> http://www.room535.org/woodblocks 
> http://www.mturner.org/XML_PullParser/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed 
> Creativity (distributedcreativity.org) iDC at bbs.thing.net 
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
> 
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/