Yeah, I didn’t mean to get into a whole discussion of the current state of regard for Boyd’s thinking, though I think opinions may vary on that. And I was merely pointing out that while there are parallels to the stages of the two processes, Boyd’s was dynamic as it was dealing with a process, presumably a conflict of some kind, while Michael’s was perhaps more fixed, not to say “static,” as the crystallization of some new insight as an end result of the process.
That’s not to say that one wouldn’t necessarily return to it, especially if it’s an particular subject of interest and continue to collect, curate and so on, perhaps revising views over time.
Science as a whole, often lends itself to many points of view about “real life.” “Survival of the fittest.” “Everything is relative.” “Uncertainty.” “Incompleteness.” “Chaos.” Not all are appropriate, though they can often be a useful way of looking at things.
These “processes” are useful points of departure. The five stages of grief, the hero’s journey, the dynamics of new product or technology acceptance/penetration, all lend themselves to looking at things in what for many are new or different ways. Inevitably, the critique or debate rounds on the model itself, as all models are deficient in one way or many.
Anyway, I just found it interesting when I read Michael’s piece it called to my mind Boyd’s work. That was all.