In article ,
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
wrote in message
...
[spit]

In article ,
(Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
"Morituri-Max" wrote in message
...
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:

So you haven't understand yet. The fact that there are many
"workers"
in a field doesn't MEAN that there is not a single source.

Nor does it mean that there is a single source.. You are basing a
premise on a
very weak foundation.

In fact, all of them had a very genial idea, am I right?

genial?

I think he intends the word to be an adverb form of genius and
using it as an adjective.

And they developed it to create a whole field; each one contribuing
an aspect. And the field in a way is complete. But also, is there a
hierarchy of ideas in their ideas?

..no, merely a common desire to learn and advance our understanding
of
how the
universe works.

That is, do you have a root idea from which stems another, and
until you have that one, comes the other, etc?

No. There are plenty of examples of scientists on completely
different
continents coming up with the same breakthrough in science at about
the
same
time.. then it is a matter of who publishes first.. after which they
sometimes
collaborate on refining their ideas.

Depends on the idea. Obvious ideas will be anticipated. Genial ones
belong to a single individual and may never be discovered again. You
have to refine your conception of knowledge. Mine is a tree.

We have been telling you that you are wrong considering it to
be a tree. If you superimpose a web connecting all nodes of
your tree, you will take a first step of understanding.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

You mean a semantic net?

No. I mean a "work that has to be done before the genius can
do the thing that will give the genius its label" net.
Try reading or watching some of the stuff that Burke produced.
I would recommend _Connections_ but not _Connections 3_. That
will give you a taste of how progress in arts, science, industry
and general knowledge happened. That's how it will happen in
the future.


..But reason proceeds step by step, like in
sylogisms, so there is a tree. Think of course 101, where you learn
superficially, and then course 303 where you learn *some* of the same
things but in deepness. Say, introduction to economics and then
macroeconomics, and then central bank policies and then open market
operations, etc. There is an implied tree, though admittedly there is
an enmeshed web.

That is only the _result_ of previous work; what you see in school
is a distillation of all efforts into what finally was made to
succeed. Even the presentation of this information has gone
through an evolution. Text book writers and instructors
changed how stuff was taught based on what worked the best.

.. Like in a very net with thinh threads and then some
rather rigid threads that form an inner structure with the form of a
tree...

However, your structure doesn't have the shortcuts from the
leaves to roots. What you see and saw in texts was all of the
shortcuts that worked. You aren't noticing the shortcuts that
didn't work because they have been cut out of the cirricula.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.