Re: complex

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

John,

> Dear Tim,
> good luck
> You can start your 6 volume vocabulary with explenations
> (glossary) and then
> the argiments with collegues within the RR terminology, as Steve, myself,
> and the rest of us, finally you may have a language of terms+qualifiers to
> start arguing with the rest of the world who use the same terms but do not
> understand your qualifiers and thing quite differently.

It seems to me that using entirely different terminology from "complex" will
equally require some kind of glossary. Whatever the labels chosen, the same
difficult-to-explain concepts will underlie them.

> Of course all of
> them are wrong, because we are right.

This is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. <g>

> However: wrong or not, they constitute the "scientific establishment"
> controling academia, the publishers, the governmental grants, the
> scientific
> periodicals.
> Which does not mean that we are the underdog: we are the outerdog.
>

I like to think of it as a "privileged position". :)


-snip-
>
> IMO we need changing, not mending.
>

But.....changing to what? What terminology do you recommend?

Regards,
Tim