as an artist i ask myself difficult questions in order to 'understand' the implications of my findings / work. sometimes this means assuming a position opposing that which i believe. but i don't think that science and the arts are opposing factions, they lie along parallel continuums.
i'm not sure my academic or artistic credentials are important, the question here is about the 'texts' not the 'authors'. however, my publications can be found online and in journals, and for those that do not know ... my initial training is in dance and theatre arts (undergrad), with graduate studies in contemporary dance practice.
during my initial grad studies that i had the pleasure, and honour to practice with lisa nelson. from that time onwards i have spent much of my artistic (and other) praxis exploring the embodied. in my continuing exploration of 'perceptual' improvisation i observe / experience embodied simulation and synthesis.
as a grad student (again) i am currently developing a somatically valid, computer based movement notation. based in a school of (computing) sciences i hope to demonstrate that individuals with humanities / arts based training, and a keen sense for the philosophical can contribute to (and learn from) 'empirical' research.
our positions are not irreconcilable in an absolute sense. i do understand the stance you take, it is one i used to take myself. i now find such a position difficult to support.
the reason i have not stated my position is that my interest is in trying to understand the findings of your work. i do not see peer review as the last stage of acceptance in published work. authors should be able to, and prepared to explain and defend their texts. critique should be expected and embraced, not argued against.
its not that i don't think your contribution is not worthy of the list. my desire for this list is discussion and debate, which has to be better than a notice board for events. i think thats what killed the last dance-tech list.
there are may people on the list (students, people from other fields) who do not understand the terminology we use. although i could direct them to journal papers, it seems like overkill when they simply need to understand the context of a list posting. wikipedia is not perfect, but at least it offers an accessible route to further understanding.
best wishes, and i look forward to further responses to Johannes' posting