And thanks to PZ for his typically generous comments.

If you haven’t been here before, you’ll find links to various categories of posts at the bottom of each page. (Actually, they’re also there if you have been here before.) I write a fair amount about applied botany and wildlife biology, with forays into paleontology and rambling excursions into other aspects of science.

We’re welcoming new visitors and lurkers here in the Milky Way thread, or just say hello here. Make yourselves at home.

1. 
   Sherwood 2007 09 19 at 10:32:05 pm

   It’s been more than a day now, and no actual scientists have responded, so I’ll do my community college thing and try to explain what they’re doing in layman’s terms:

   An activity called “writing” is necessary for a response.  “Writing” involves proper sequencing of wordicles, each of which is a member of one of a number of families of wordicles called “parts of speech.”

   Having researched parts of speech, they are now delving further into the hypothetical intersection of verbs and adjectives.  They suspect the existence of wordicles (playfully called “adverbs”) that combine some characteristics of each, but which cannot, in fact, be either one.  They call this seeming dead-end the “adverb duality,” and are proceeding as though everybody understands what the Hell that means and accepts it.

   Since “adverbs” are, at present, merely conjecture (albeit not inconsistent with classical General Relativity), scientists are understandably not eager to give the impression that wordicles, as a paradigm, are fully accepted.  They have thus declined Chris’s generous invitation.

   Either that, or nobody who reads CRN wants to cop to being an actual scientist.