group query

[Andrew Dinn]

jporter writes:

> I gotta say, with all due respect for the singleminded visciousness
> of the techno-military elite, and the paranoia their thirst for
> power and control engenders, the literary culture, starry-eyed,
> luddite, pockets full of hope 'n all, is so far out ahead of where
> "the scientific" culture is struggling to get to- with their
> attempts to "prove" a Theory of Everything" or Unified Field Theory,
> etc.- that I can't help but believe it's literature (and all the
> arts, philosophy, etc.) that sets the stage and course for the
> formalizations of scientific discovery and canonization.

Lemme get this straight now... Scientists are so obsessively focussed
and the techno-militia so glutinously(?) single-minded that it must be
literature, not to mention the arts and philosophy, which sets their
agenda? Care to explain that in more detail, with examples?

> I think Pynchon and p-modern artists of like caliber have restored among
> some of the intelligentsia the awareness of the pre-eminence of the arts in
> providing a meaningful context for the progression of scientific behavior.
> This should become even more apparent as the boundaries between living and
> "artificially" reproducing  systems gets thinner. Been there, done that.

Allow me to exclude myself from your slice of the `intelligentsia'.
Most pomo (excluding Pynchon, if you insist on including him under
this particular umbrella) seems to me to be horribly ignorant of
science and hence in no position to provide a context for the
assessment of science's value. You would almost certainly better
acquire such a context by reading either scientists themselves or
historians like Kuhn who have taken the trouble to study scientists.

And I don't know many scientists or technologists who ignorantly
presume that science and technology are worthwhile and justifiable
ends in themselves. They mostly know damn well when they are cooking
up stuff which could blow up in people's faces (just as well when they
are serving up stodge). Whereas I have met many run-of-the-mill
techno-hopeful types who don't know much at all about science and
technology but sure place a lot of faith in it. And a lot of equally
science/technology illiterate types who babble about how dangerous
scientific and technological developments are without the aid of a
philosophical or cultural safety net yet are in no position to make a
realistic assessment of those dangers.

> I find the angry flak which scientists like Tipler (right or wrong) have
> attracted from among their own ranks, by REcognizing what artists have been
> suggesting, pointing out, ironically denying, etc., for years, to be
> indicative of just how clueless the unconscious worshippers of science
> really are. (Note: not all scientists are likewise unconscious.)

Lots of scientists have been pointing out for years the dangers of
placing too much faith in science, usually with a lot better handle on
what they are talking about than non-scientists, often with just as
little effect. And if it was not science which attracted people's
credulous optimism, it could equally well be religion or theosophy or
Jungian psychology or whatever other brand of nonsense. This is not
particularly science's problem.

> I think a pretty good case can be made for "literature" having set the
> stage for all the major scientific/technological discoveries of which the
> west is so proud (ashamed?).

I think this is the most ridiculous piece of bullshit you have posted
yet. How exactly is literature responsible for `setting the stage' for
ICBMs? automobiles? nuclear reactors? antibiotics? gene therapy? the
internet? Your ignorance is only matched by your audacity inposting
this sort of nonsense.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
O alter Duft aus Maerchenzeit / Berauschest wieder meine Sinne
Ein naerrisch Heer aus Schelmerein / Durchschwirrt die leichte Luft