If they are truly incommensurable sides, you *can't* bridge the gap, by
definition. However you can reflect on its incommensurability, which just
fine and not too hard.
The best way to deal with incommensurability in a neutral way, in my mind,
is to 1. state each side in their own terms, 2. state how they characterize
each other.
In reality, though, a lot of things which are labeled as incommensurable end
up not being so, in the end. There is a large literature on
incommensurability (following Thomas Kuhn) in the philosophy and history of
science; I think we have a small article on it.
FF
On 10/26/05, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Read this and work out how you would bridge this gap.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
If you have a quick formula that works, good. But how would you get
someone to think that formula is a good idea and *want* to apply it?
- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l