Yes, Virginia

[Murthy Yenamandra]

Stefan Schuber talks back to Andrew:
> These points are well taken, but IMHO there is a tremendous difference, 
> on the one hand, between saying that science takes place within a culture 
> that invokes politics and ethics -- and, on the other hand, giving this 
> culture/politics/ethics consortium a controlling vote in the exercise of 
> science. The latter, I fear, results in "politically correct" science, 
> vague notions of PoMo "science" (e.g., creationism), and finally a 
> vulnerability to exactly the sort of mordant irony and slapstick that so 
> wonderfully infect GR.

Why does giving ethics/culture control over science automatically result
in all sorts of caveman scenarios? Science is already subject to ethics
and culture - all we're looking for are better guidelines. "Science" is
not just basic enquiry, but is also a structure of practice supported by
politics/culture/ethics and affecting every part of our reality, so is
it not fair to ask that it be subject to some control in deciding which
goals are worth pursuing for our common future and what experiments are
desirable to realize them?

> To put this another way, there's no escaping the brutal reality that 
> atoms can be split. The "better us than THEM" argument that (correctly, I 
> think) bothers Andrew is postpartum rationalization that must be 
> countered by a good grasp of history and a Pynchonesque sense of hilarity.

The "brutal reality" is not just out there, but is actively constructed
by science - not every potential possibility needs to be realized by
science into a brutal nightmare reality. We actively reconstruct reality
all the time, whether with science, culture or politics - it's
disingenuous to claim that science is a passive observer and then sit
back and be surprised when the reality gets even more brutal, assisted
by the invisible hand of science. It may be a brutal possibility that
poison gas can kill people and atoms can be split, but they are not
preordained to be a part of our reality.  If you want to blame this all
on politics and culture, then you'd better be prepared to let politics
and culture control what sort of realities science can make possible.

Mordant irony and slapstick are coping mechanisms, not guiding
principles. A Pynchonesque sense of hilarity will only get us so far -
It has happened before but there is nothing to compare it to now.

Murthy

-- 
Murthy Yenamandra, Dept of CompSci, U of Minnesota. mailto:yenamand at cs.umn.edu
"Always there's that space between what you feel and what you do, and in
that gap all human sadness lies." - _Blue Dog_