> I believe Wade, that in the past our impression of animals has been much
> devalued. Many scientists did not think there was that much to be
> learned. The science was cursory. And because we tend to bring our own
> baggage to studies, it is not surprising that we tended to see what we
> expected to see.
(snip)
> As a woman in the same age group as Jane I know of the obstacles that
> many women scientists have had to overcome in trying to have their work
> accepted by their peers. I am also cheered in seeing how many women
> have started to shake up the old boy science club. However, women face
> some of the same possibilities for bringing our own baggage to our
> work... But certainly feminine baggage is as good as male baggage -
> hey?
>
> Marie
>
Having scientists working with diverse kinds of baggage, and comparing
results, is about the closest we can get to "no baggage" in the real
world, because what we're calling baggage in this context is, of course,
what we're made of. The near-paradox of needing lots of different
memetic backgrounds (*) in order to avoid entrapment by any one illusion
is something like the idea "We are nearest to waking when we dream that we
dream".
Eva,
who welcomes anyone reminding her of the origin of the quotation above
(*on both cultural and individual levels)