Reply to comment

One of the things that I appreciate about the "loopy science" model is the way in which it encourages constant investigation. Given that there is no absolute answer, truth, or reason, there is always more work to be done, new observations and summaries to make. If we accept our current understanding, in any field, as the final understanding, we may not push ourselves to learn and discover as much as we truly can. I also like the fact that loopy science is more inclusive than linear science. I agree that science can be performed by anyone, anywhere and feel that more mainstream image of science/research often excludes individuals with valuable ideas and observations. A narrow definition of research limits the reach of our discoveries.

 At the same time, I do wonder how useful it is to eliminate the concept of truth. To what degree, I wonder, does human nature depend on truth and how do we respond to that need? Can humans feel trust without certainty? 

I also like that loopy science acknowledges the impossibility of objectivity and gives people the freedom to combine the academic with the personal.

As for the Descartes/Dickinson question, I am still on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that all concepts lie within the human brain and are not externally based,  but on the other hand, I do feel there is something material about the world that exists regardless of humans. As I mentioned in class, I also wonder how the Dickinson notion can be used when we begin to think about other species.