i.n.kurtzer (921207.0009)
well i finally read "models and their worlds..." and i give it two fat
thumbs up!!!a regular tour-de-force, a veritible masterpiece, a succinct
identification of problems and a tenative (to be overly modest) solution
to those problems;also, it was a well-placed kick in to the head/arse of
psychology as it stands. however, i can understand why it might have been
rejected--the paper is simply not appropriate for a journal, it is not
NORMAL SCIENCE(i bet kuhn and dag will love that one),period. it IS a
PROLEGOMENA TO A LIFE SCIENCE. remides one of galileo's comparison and
contrast of ptolemaic and copernican gesalts. i say, emphatically: @#%$@
them all, let their ecletic plastic palace sink into an ocean of snake oil
and phrenomenology, let them practice their modern numerology searching
for truth within a scatterplot of mush, let them be the STATANISTS that
they are (the idolatry of STAT the viceroy of the realm of NILPOINT where
stillbirths are allowed to live). the have no need for midwives like
yourselves who can recognize a sickly child. ah, if men determined the
worth of an idea like the spartans did for the worth of a child.
gee, science really is a rational progression of ideas---not-so-subtle
sarcasm.
a cygnet of csg-net, or just a overblown moron
i.n.kurtzer