The teacher/student relation then is inherent in each of us, that we understand how one can push the other in our inquirers. Comparable to "this Arch of understanding" I spoke about.
Geometrically, I laid this over top of the circle, mandalic in interpretation, that it served to raise the wonder in mind of what is driving this relation of the student with the world around them. "As the teacher" finding consequence to every inquisitive act, in answer.
Such results then become the new and alternate plan to what is used to describe this new found relation. Ways in which the driving force of "wanting to learn" become an inherent "topological feature" of what begins descriptively, now has this inner/outer consequent to "expanding the frontiers of our knowledge base," inherently expanding the "fluttering of this egg of colour" that surrounds each of us.
Debate if you will the words associated to "fluttering of this egg" and ask your self about what science has accomplished in mapping neurological sequences with the patterns of thought in relation to the condensible brain? What it might reveal of the "condensible features." Might such action also reveal in the "outer cover?"
"In 1680, Isaac Newton worked on the abstract problem of gravity and he changed the world. In 1820, Michael Faraday discovered a connection between the exotic phenomena of electricity and magnetism and his discoveries electrified the world. Einstein's 1905 conceptual obsession with space and time led to nuclear energy and the operation of accelerators for knowledge, for cancer therapy and for machines that provide luminescent x-ray photographs of viruses and toxins. In 1897, the "useless" electron was discovered. In 1977, Fermilab discovered the bottom quark and in 1995 the top quark was found. The lessons of history are clear. The more exotic, the more abstract the knowledge, the more profound will be its consequences." Leon Lederman, from an address to the Franklin Institute, 1995
So before this "act of change existed," the position of the student/teacher had already formed a consensus. I was looking to find this place amongst the order of such changes. It became the study I have placed myself "in" as I look to understand what scientists are saying from the "accepted position" they assume. As they work to develop "insight" and "model changes" to what we already know. To push "beyond" these boundaries of thought. The "standard model" perhaps.
That I may give credence to what is hidden by Raphael in "his painting" is to gather a lot of perspective of the history of the times. To have them all resting on the "stairs and ladder of progression" to perfecting this relation "of the inquirer."
The painting serves in this "mandalic sense" to represent the action of Plato and Aristotle as key figures in this relationship of "above and below." Inner and outer. Why their centralized location in the picture
I have been short on time, so the articles that I have read are snippets of the "larger picture" while I can get back to more research.
But the essence "is" that along with "this change with discoveries," scientists have this way about handling things. This has been reiterated by Clifford and others in science. So I just wanted to highlight this. AS part of this fundamental status of moving to ward these consequences and statement of change.
The science press and scientists themselves do science a disservice when they seek to dramatize a discovery by emphasizing that it discredits a previous theory. Such coverage typically does not discuss whether the earlier theory was tentative or whether the new result modifies a well-established but incomplete theory. This dramatization feeds the popular image that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Much is tentative, but much is well understood and unlikely to be discredited. We scientists need to convey more about the status of our knowledge than can be learned from the muddy "most scientists believe" statement. We need our listeners to know what is tentative and what is not so that they understand better the ragged but cumulative progression of science and can use current knowledge effectively, with an understanding of its inherent uncertainties, in personal and political decision making.
So again by giving credence to what scientists have requested by those who are of the science themself, serve as role models for what is accepted, as we investigate and report.
To visit perspective scientists in the know, are not the way in which to say, "hey listen I have found this to be so and so," and have some "revolutionary change." To let them alone, and continue to push the boundaries of the trade by investigating the work that they do, and learn accordingly. To read what they have written, and join in by asking what you are not sure about. Of course depending on the scientist's openness to sharing of themself, realizing "the greater message" can be conveyed to the many.
How did they get to their perspective positions that they know more then what you know and we had not assimilated the required knowledge? What is every statement saying, about what you know of the science "against" what they have learnt and we may lack the comprehensive understanding of what laws we see applied in every case.
Under this whole post exist the thoughts then about Thomas Kuhn and the paradigm as it would have shown itself as "change that had consequence." Only now do you see this relation here while speaking about change and consequence, did you not know that it followed some rules according to some kind of model and research?
See here for more information on the person, and model perspective. The paragraph is taken to show the connection to the research work already done in the past, on my part. The label as well will reveal earlier thinking as I integrate what I understood of the philosophy, and "other perspectives" as well.
The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.