Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:40:43 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 18:21:22, Sune Fischer wrote: [snip] >To set a lowest common denominator for research is a very bad idea. > >Einstein would never have been able to publish, for instance. > >Some times you need the vocabulary to understand, some times you even need to be >a professor. >If you do research into the spectrum analysis of gravitational waves eminating >from colliding black holes, do you care if your mother understands anything? >Of course not, it is enough that the other researchers in closely related fields >understand. We are surely off topic now. Mabye the other forum would be better. But if you can explain it in a way that your mother can understand (as Einstein did) does that diminish the value of the document or enhance it? Anybody have trouble understanding Hawking in "A brief History of Time"? Anybody have trouble understanding Newton in "Principia"? (OK, I only read some translations of it -- we don't have to learn Latin in the US). Most really good science is stuff that anyone can understand. When people go out of their way to sound technical, I sometimes wonder if they know what they are talking about themselves. Once in a while, it is clear to me that they do not understand it.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.