Sokal et al

[George Haberberger]

At 03:52 PM 12/5/96 -0600, Diana York Blaine wrote:
>But I don't want to build a bridge, I want to have a dialogue with the
>people who do, about where, and why, and if.  I'd like the autocratic
>demeanor that often rains down on the heads of those who look at life 
>using different paradigms than physicists do and dare challenge "progress"
>and "science" to  be exposed for what it is.  Perhaps some of us don't do
>science because we don't want to. Does that eliminate our right to have an
>informed, even professional, discussion about how and why it is done?
>Diana
>

Well, if they get you asking the wrong questions...

Asking the people building the bridges if they should, and why, and where,
is a little like asking a 
prof in English Lit if they should be offering classes in PoMo lit, any
answer you get is going to be incredibly biased. Why not follow the advice
of Deepthroat, follow the money, and ask who decided to build this bridge,
who funded it, who benefits from it? I'm betting the trail doesn't lead to a
hard scientist physicist, but instead a politician, who likely studied law,
or even the humanities (are there any US presidents who came from a hard
science background except Carter the Nuclear Engineer?).

Most of the hard science type I knew in college had a lot more in common
with Pokler than Blicero. Even today, I work in a technically challenging
job, and the most technically adept of my fellow analysts do not end up as
the ones influencing the policies of my center,  the ones that influence
policy are the ones that are the best at schmoozing with others, letting
others see their viewpoints, and have good human relation skills.

Where does this humanities/had science antipathy come from? Maybe declining
resources at the unversity level? In my hometown, the Rochester Institute of
Technology is trying to get rid of its Art department, though the school is
known for graphics arts, they see no need for arts (it doesn't help them get
CIA funding). Also in my town, the University of Rochester is getting rid of
graduate programs in Mathematics, cynically I'm thinking Mathematics grads
can't be nearly as generous to their alma mater as med students and law
students. Is this common elsewhere in academia, lucrative colleges getting
more funds, while the less lucrative humanities and sciences are left to
fight for the scraps?

George

>On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Cal McInvale wrote:
>
>> 
>> It's not a question of "rights." It's simply a matter of training and
>> experience. Those trained to "do science" are apt to "do science" better
>> than those trained in the humanities. Experience in the field further
>> widens the gap.
>> 
>> Sure, one can "do the research" and perhaps offer an informed (as opposed
>> to their previous) opinions on scientific matters. Certainly one would be
>> in a position to ask precise questions at that point. No good scientist
>> would object to this; in fact, most of us would praise anyone who did so,
>> the state of scientific education being so poor these days. But it is a
>> question of "how much" -- you don't expect to be able to build a bridge,
>> solve Fermat's Last Theorem or fully comprehend quantum electrodynamics
>> just by reading a few books, do you?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------
>> cal mcinvale                      entropy specialist
>> calm at tpdinc.com                   tpd publishing inc.
>> 
>>      The fact that I beat a drum has nothing to do
>>      with the fact that I do theoretical physics.
>>                                 --Richard Feynmann
>> 
>> 
>
>
>