Hi Tom,
I am actually a scientist as is Antin and there is a
>difference between experimenting and proving something by the experimental
>method when such things as rigor, explicability, etc come into play in
>respect to whether or not the experiments PROVE something. you might say
>that scientists create by experiment but the proof relies on a percentage of
>a number of replications of experiments?
I'm sure you do respond to poems in their particularity, and I did take your original complaint to be with words like ag and experiment being waved back and forth like large flags, as I put it. I just don't know what you're talking about basically. Even as you discuss this in relationship to the sciences, you are making a distinction between the experimenting that leads to "creating" (and creating what?) and the experimental method as a way to 'prove' perhaps the creation. I don't know as I agree that scientists create by experiment, some of them seem to create by intuition, by a sort of deeply inarticulate sense of reality, which they then prove or experiment with. But I'm not sure that we disagree. I just don't know what your terms are, which is why I emphasized the definition of them. I did go and read the Antin article by the way but I am not clear as to why it's an "experiment," isn't it just talking into a tape recorder and using one's breath and writing down everythin!
g? What makes it an experiment?
Best,
Rebecca
Rebecca Seiferle
www.thedrunkenboat.com
>
> By the way I slso respond to poems
|