Comments on: Burble Tensors on Cross-Disciplinary Manifolds of Love! http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/ rock out to the apparatus Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:05:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: yami http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1348 yami Fri, 13 Aug 2004 02:35:00 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1348 Disclarity is very much the privilege and joy of blogging, n’est-ce pas? I’ve muddied the waters even further with corrections Disclarity is very much the privilege and joy of blogging, n’est-ce pas? I’ve muddied the waters even further with corrections

]]> By: Harrison http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1347 Harrison Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:56:00 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1347 I probably didn’t make this clear on my blog, but your point 3 conflates — because I didn’t give proper context — a <em>hypothetical</em> research project I gave as an example with my own research project. Sorry — the fault for the confusion is entirely mine. I probably didn’t make this clear on my blog, but your point 3 conflates — because I didn’t give proper context — a hypothetical research project I gave as an example with my own research project. Sorry — the fault for the confusion is entirely mine.

]]> By: yami http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1346 yami Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:41:00 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1346 Hmm. Is there any way you can print/post what WP is sending, and the response it gets, when it tries to ping? Seems like this problem is worth debugging, ’specially if it’s afflicting other WP users. Hmm. Is there any way you can print/post what WP is sending, and the response it gets, when it tries to ping? Seems like this problem is worth debugging, ’specially if it’s afflicting other WP users.

]]> By: Harrison http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1345 Harrison Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:50:00 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1345 Dang ol’ <a href="http://www.permanentred.com/index.php/archives/2004/08/12/re-burble-tensors-manifold-of-love/" rel="nofollow"> manual trackback</a> dang ol.. Dang ol’ manual trackback dang ol..

]]> By: Anonymous http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1344 Anonymous Wed, 31 Dec 1969 23:59:59 +0000 http://greengabbro.net/2004/08/11/burble-tensors-on-cross-disciplinary-manifolds-of-love/#comment-1344 It's one thing to bring a pre-existing personal interest to bear on a problem. Asking literature students to invest a significant amount of time in higher maths is another. What I'm stumbling towards is: it oughta be possible to grab a physicist to answer the technical questions, and to provide peer review / editorial support for any necessary descriptions of reality (at least as reality is reflected in scientific consensus). If it's not, this is at least partially the fault of scientists, who don't appear to have an effective mechanism for earning tenure-points by doing so; and can't tell the difference between legitimate work and the Sokal Hoax. Oh, and I wouldn't place bets on my ability to tell the difference between legitimate work and the Sokal Hoax, either. In part, I think, because I still haven't worked out why literary criticism needs to play at science and epistemology by addressing "real" physical reality, rather than whatever kinds of reality people happen to believe in or think about. Crap it's bedtime again. Good night. It’s one thing to bring a pre-existing personal interest to bear on a problem. Asking literature students to invest a significant amount of time in higher maths is another.

What I’m stumbling towards is: it oughta be possible to grab a physicist to answer the technical questions, and to provide peer review / editorial support for any necessary descriptions of reality (at least as reality is reflected in scientific consensus). If it’s not, this is at least partially the fault of scientists, who

don’t appear to have an effective mechanism for earning tenure-points by doing so; and

can’t tell the difference between legitimate work and the Sokal Hoax.

Oh, and I wouldn’t place bets on my ability to tell the difference between legitimate work and the Sokal Hoax, either. In part, I think, because I still haven’t worked out why literary criticism needs to play at science and epistemology by addressing “real” physical reality, rather than whatever kinds of reality people happen to believe in or think about.

Crap it’s bedtime again.

Good night.

]]>