GWGW

[j minnich]

Paul Mackin wonders:

>Douglas K 's mention of postmodern science reminds me of certain
>questions that I have whenever that term is used.
>How does the event of so called postmodern science mesh with the much >more
inclusive concept of postmodernism?

Mostly by coincidence, it seems to me.  According to Matson, the undermining
of classical, mechanistic physics, began in the 19th century with the
thermodynamic (probabalistic rather than certain, with the V2/A4 being
therefore a probabalistic missile) equations of James Clerk Maxwell, gained
momentum with Einstein's theories on space-time, and Bohr's discontinuous
quantum-atomic model, and was brought to completion by Heisenberg with his
notions of uncertainty and complementarity.  The Pynchon themes are pretty
obvious here, but this much history-of-science was already old hat by 1964
when Matson's book appeared.  

>The purported shift in science brought about by quantum theory would >have
taken place decades earlier than the 50s--the earliest point at >which
events in media, architecture, consumption, etc., needed such a >thing as
postmodernism to explain.
>How general is the acceptance of the term "postmodern science"? Looked
>for it in vain in a few indexes.

I looked for it in vain, myself, in the index of _The Broken Image_.  I'm
not sure that Matson actually uses this expression, though it does seem
applicable to his book's thesis.

>Finally, how big a shift in science occurred. It was definitely BIG of
>course. But did it deal any kind of fatal  blow to cause and effect?  >Some
may have seen it that way while others didn't.

I think Matson overstates his case on this point.  Cause and effect
survived, whereas "stone determinism" was a casualty.  My sense is that for
Matson "cause and effect" was a much weaker assertion than the stone
determinism of everything.  Matson might hold, nonetheless, that the two
extreme positions complement each other.  (This principle of complementarity
seems to have been his favored means of bracketing excluded middles.)  I do
have a better appreciation for what is meant by "totalizing theories" after
having read most of Matson's book.  Though some scientists who wish to
quantify and objectify human behavior in order to manipulate it may have
been thwarted theoretically by the fall of deterministic science, I don't
doubt that their pragmatist counterparts carry on to this day, attempting to
manipulate and shape our behavior, with enough success to justify larger
salaries than are available to most .edus.  When political elections or
product marketing are the question, probabalistic results are more than
adequate.  The theoretical part based on "postmodern science" can just go to
hell.

What does "GWGW" stand for, by the way?  Gwoup Wead of Gwavity's Wainbow? 

My longest posting to date, possibly.  Next thing you know, I'll be growing
a sig.             -j minnich