Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: "Seán O'Leathlóbhair" <jwlawler@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Jan 2006 12:11:53 -0800
Neeraj Mathur wrote:
> "Seán O'Leathlóbhair" <jwlawler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137069654.532020.152110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >Brian M. Scott wrote:
> >> On 12 Jan 2006 02:25:27 -0800, Seán O'Leathlóbhair wrote:
> >> > Universities cannot seem to agree on whether to give BAs
> >> > and MAs or BScs and MScs, some even let you choose.
> >>
> >> How universities choose to classify the subject is
> >> irrelevant to the discussion. (Indeed, it's largely an
> >> administrative decision.)
> >
> >Fair point.
>
> At this one, for instance, all undergraduates receive a BA, whether the
> degree is maths, physics, Classics and Oriental Studies, law, or anything
> else.
Oxford does that. Is that your "this one"? BA in maths is common
enough but a BA in physics or chemistry is odd.
> >I saw a discussion recently which claimed that String Theory is viewed
> >with suspicion by physicists because it was developed by
> >mathematicians. If the people had been labelled physicists, it may be
> >more welcome. The labels seemed arbitrary, the ones that developed it
> >were labelled mathematicians but they could easily have been labelled
> >physicists. (No claims on the validity of this, I think that I saw it
> >in another newsgroup).
>
> I've just returned from Canada, where my sister's gotten engaged to an
> engineer, former physicist. His take on string theory - the reason that he
> was keen to pooh-pooh it - was not so much that it was developed by
> mathematicians (although he did mention that), but rather that it was not
> falsifiable, since it made no predictions about the dimensions we can
> observe.
>
> Neeraj Mathur
I have not studied String Theory in depth and not noticed the lack of
falsifiability. If it is so then the physicists have good reason to
object. On the other hand, a physicist is unlikely to say that he
objected to it because it was developed by mathematicians. "Not
invented here" syndrome seems to be real but people rarely admit to it.
--
Seán O'Leathlóbhair
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Neeraj Mathur
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- References:
- Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Joachim Pense
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Helmut Richter
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Aidan Kehoe
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Aidan Kehoe
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Aidan Kehoe
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Aidan Kehoe
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Colin Fine
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Seán O'Leathlóbhair
- Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- From: Neeraj Mathur
- Orthography supporting sound changes?
- Prev by Date: Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- Next by Date: Re: Foreign is foreign, right?
- Previous by thread: Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- Next by thread: Re: Orthography supporting sound changes?
- Index(es):