No subject

[Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=]

hardy  Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL> Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sender: "Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=
From: irisman <irisman at AMERITECH.NET>
Subject: Re: Scientific explorations and response.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transf er-Encoding: 7bit

Well, Ray--
OK, Since I don't know your background and you didn't know mine,  I'll tr=y
not to lecture you if you'll do the same .  It's obvious that there are a
number of scientifically trained people in the group.,probably more Ph.D.=s
than most groups.

The registry which you have inaugurated is impressive to me.

The point I was trying to make --is that in advance one does not know al=l
the ways to reach the objective., but probably has some notion of how to =get
there and substantial trial-and-error is required to tease out the variou=s
ways that will develop., so, planning in advance --in the sense of writin=g
down the steps needed can blind one to ways that will be discovered as on=e
proceeds..  For me, a "plan" is a set of blueprints, an experimental
protocol of procedures, etc.    Broadly speaking, trial-and-error is a pl=an,
but I suspect you don't like this kind of thinking .  See, I'm lecturing
again?  or am I?    I thought I was clarifying what I meant, and defining
parameters of  our recent discussion.    For me, a plan is not an objecti=ve,
it is the procedural schedule for getting there.    Enough for now?

And, I hope, no hard feelings?




----- Original Message -----
From: "George R. Stilwell, Jr." <GRSJr at WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 7:06 PM
Subject: Scientific explorations


> Adam,
>
> I certainly didn't mean to imply that a plan must be rigid and devoid
> of sensable change.  None of my many patents resulted from
> rigid plans. But, I did have a plan. Perhaps you would prefer to
> call it an objective. Bit it also contained the many ways known to
> reach the objective and the advantages/disadvantages of each.
> But, the inspiration that produced a solution novel enough to be
> worthy of patenting could not be a part of the original plan else
> it couldn't be considered novel.
>
> You're not the only one who works in science. I did so for 40 years.
> Many others on the list also are scientists..
> I really don't think we need a lecture on the subject.
>
> Ray