Dear Klaus, Michael, and Friends,
This gets worse and worse.
I did NOT argue that Wittgenstein is insignificant. I did NOT say that he
was a lazy layabout.
I was attempting to describe some of the arguments occasionally used
against basic research in terms of immediate utility, and the related
arguments again universities and museums as what David labeled
trainspotting and stamp-collecting institutions.
THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS.
Because David referred to Wittgenstein, I cited Wittgenstein as an
important and valuable thinker whom some would dismiss on the grounds of no
immediate utility. I was attempting what should have been clearly a
rhetorical approach to show that a thinker whom David respects might not
have a forum in a world that refuses on political or economic grounds to
fund the great train-spotting and stamp-collecting universities and museums.
I DID NOT STATE THAT WITTGENSTEIN IS INSIGNIFICANT OR LAZY. I STATED THE
EXACT OPPOSITE.
Please friends, it should be clear from what I said and the way I said it
that I was attempting to describe a position used against the value of
basic research. This is not my position.
Neither does this opinion apply to other great (and valuable) thinkers whom
I offered as examples who were at one point or another dismissed on grounds
of questionable immediate utility.
Please, Klaus, read again exactly what I wrote. I did NOT write what you
seem to have read. I am genuinely horrified to be misread this way.
Best regards,
Ken
|