Re: Idiocosmology

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

Igal responded to what I meant to be merely a personal statement of
opinion, not an argument:

> Leigh,
> I think, I understood what you said.  In some points I agree, in some not.
> It probably not the place to go into a deep analysis.

To this I respond openly. Dear Igal,

I made a statement which was purely emotional and offhand. What
I said may be construed (or, if the ugly neologism is admitted,
"constructed") as being anti-intellectual by members of the PER
community. I don't mean it to be. I respect the members of that
community; some of my most admired idols are members of it. What I
said certainly does not invite deep analysis, however. Though it
is sincere, it is not profound.

My gut feeling is that there are some things, some processes,
which are better treated or accomplished by following one's
instincts than by more formal, analytical procedures. Certainly
the solution of the hydrogen atom problem is not among those
things, but just as certainly one would be foolish to devote time
and effort to reading a treatise on improving one's technique at,
say, urination. While I acknowledge there is a continuum between
those extremes, my opinion differs from those of many of my
friends and idols on the relative positions of some things on this
continuum.

All I did was to express some of those gut feelings. Presenting me
with scholarly endeavor in a field I have decided to place a good
bit nearer the instinctive end than the scholars themselves do
will not help. You are adducing evidence where I feel evidence is
less important, less valid, than gut feelings.

Leigh