[ExI] Singularity - Non-Gender Specific
spike66 at att.net
Wed Sep 30 04:07:46 UTC 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
> natasha at natasha.cc
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:40 PM
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Singularity - Non-Gender Specific
> Spike, you are absolutely right. (I was alerted about Dr.
> Carson by Max who complimented my post but raised a
> fully-arched and furrowed brow at the Rachel Carson example.)
> Even though I was referring to Carson's earlier work -
> before her real f__-up, Madam Curie is more appropriate.
> Thank you for correcting me.
Natasha, I grew up hearing of Carson's Silent Spring, and how it said this
and said that. In high school I found it in the library and actually read
the thing, or most of it. I was appalled. Carson definitely had the
passion, but it was so far from real science it struck me as little more
than a political screed. I confess I choked a bit when I saw the reference.
Inspired was I by Madame Curie's work. She and the old man, working every
day in the lab, observing something new and cool, working, working, working,
applying strict scientific rigor, always recording and observing, always
striving for accuracy and truth. I get the feeling the Curies must have
read Darwin, and said (as I did recently) I want to be like him when I grow
Speaking of Darwin, I have some cool new ant observations to share here
soon, but not now, for I have a series of experiments going on during this
short season when the big migrations are happening. I learned a lot about
observing ants from reading the stunning chapter 7 of Origin of Species.
One could spend a lifetime observing, trying to get all the stuff in just
chapter 7 of OoS.
> Quoting spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> > ___________________________
> > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha
> > Vita-More
> > ...As with Rachel Carson, a scientist, whose chrysalis
> brought her
> > deeper into the rigor of scientific study...Natasha Vita-More
> > <http://www.natasha.cc/>
> > OK but as a word of caution, do avoid hoots of derision
> from using Rachel
> > Carson as an example of rigor in scientific study. A far
> better example
> > would be Madame Curie.
> > spike
More information about the extropy-chat