Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!gauss!markv
From: markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Fractals, and Philosophy of Science
Message-ID: <12784@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 8 Jan 90 15:56:04 GMT
References: <119.256E54C5@uscacm.UUCP> <1247@becker.UUCP> <9144@cbmvax.commodore.com> <6780@lindy.Stanford.EDU> <9215@cbmvax.commodore.com> <12707@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <9239@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 55

In article <9239@cbmvax.commodore.com> mitchell@cbmvax.commodore.com (Fred Mitchell - PA) writes:
>In article <12707@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) writes:

>Obviously you miss the point entirely. I am referring to phenoomena that
>specifically does not lend itself eaisly to analysis. Basically, I am 
>discussing a change in the 'traditional' analytic process itself. Usually,
>investigators tend to ignore anomlies that does not fit the "accepted" 
>model. There are many cases in history where a person made a significant
>discovery where others overlooked. X-Rays is one example.

	I agree.  Witness the growth of research into chaotic systems.
	When Lorenz published his initial paper, people first of all thought
	that differential equations couldn't possibly behave that way,
	and even if they did, REAL systems didn't behave that way.  
	Scientists had developed a model in which they had become too 
	comfortable, and weren't willing to see that there were large
	numbers of behaviors which were not typically analyzed.  

>Failed? I believe that to be a blanket (and incorrect) statement. Many
>phenomena are well understood. Many others are not. But to say the we
>have failed is a bit much.

	Perhaps.

	We used to believe that we understood damped and driven oscillators.
	Many respected scientists believed that either motion would
	grow without bound, decay to zero, or become cyclic.  Now we know
	that there are no such guarantees.  Our understanding of such
	trivial systems was basically flawed.  

	If such basic understandings are flawed, how can we possibly say
	we understand anything as complex as cell reproduction or plate
	tectonics or global warming?

>It does seem that the general mentality here is to "slash to peices" anyone
>with a differing point of view, rather than to see how that particular
>viewpoint reflects on the particular insights of that person and what new ideas
>may be spawned. 
	
	I am merely trying to present an alternative viewpoint.  I have
	received mail about equally split as pro or against my opinion, but
	so far no one has written me and said "you changed my opinion about
	fractals" so perhaps it is merely talking into a brick wall.

	Perhaps you are the voice of insight, and I am the voice of caution.
	Both are needed for scientific progress, because without the first
	science stagnates, and without the second, it decays into mindless
	random motion.

>I think that if we were face-to-face, we would act in
>a different manner. But the game here seems to be "who has the biggest stick."
>Therefore, I will not respond anymore to this particular thread except
>by direct mail. I tire of the diatribe.

	No doubt I will tire of this as well.