|
I agree with what Victor wrote. It might be much more interesting to
discuss what science is in the year 2000. We might want to ask ourselves
if we spend more time looking for "sexy" science that grabs the attention
of the politicians and the public instead of plodding through issues that
may be less sensational but far more scholarly. WE might want to discuss
the culture of science and the nature of funding. Anyone can have a web
page that contains a collection of "facts." Some of the responses have
been interesting but I know the intellectual calibur of this list could be
spending their time on less moribund topics. I have had several responses
blasting me for my email suggesting the discussion move to private emails
of those most interested--it has just been my experience that at some point
it becomes similar to beating a dead horse and not everyone on the list
wants to be a part of it. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Karen Wegner
"I think Debbie has initiated one of the more interesting
discussions that I seen on FishSci in over a year."
Karen Uldall-Ekman
So, it's just makes one feel sorry about our duscussion, isn't it?
Sure, sensationalism is lot more attractive and exiting for some than boring
collecting & analysing facts and making conclusion - a process called
science. Prophet's job was always more respected by public and politicians
than researcher job. So what?
Regards
Victor Gomelyuk
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
To leave the Fish-Sci list, Send blank message to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
Web page at http://segate.sunet.se/archives/fish-sci.html
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
|
