Eric wrote:
>However, since your real point (I'm assuming) is that stability is
>less important than versatility, I'll address that. Do you think it's
>possible to have a ball in "free fall" continually? Didn't Kuhn (I
>think that was the author of _The Structure of Scientific Revolution_)
>prove that even science uses bowls? The real trick is to remember
>that the bowls one does use do not have infinitly high walls -- that
>sufficient proof could always come along to bump the ball out. (PCR).
Yes. And beyond that timid route, that sometimes it's quite useful to jostle the bowls--hard--every now and again, just to see where the ball might land when it finally does come down.
-Prof. Tim