Yes, Virginia
Stefan Schuber
sschuber at rio.com
Fri Nov 8 16:25:49 CST 1996
Murthy Yenamandra moves the discussion forward by asking:
"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?"
We may not be talking about the same thing. Science tells us, for
example, the current best estimate of the charge on an electron. This
value is, to the best knowledge and belief of scientists, the same in New
York, Tokyo, London, and Outer Boomwad, regardless of whether the
scientist doing the measuring is Christian, Shinto, or Pagan, white,
black, yellow, or any admixture thereof.
I'm the first person to suggest that science as now constituted has
changed over time (i.e., has a history) and that it is only one of many
components of a world view. That said, I maintain that it's dangerous to
declare that the charge on an electron is such-and-so because the gods,
disenfranchised Boomwadians, or any other group says so. Social/political
factors may determine how much money is available to fund research to
determine the charge with greater accuracy, but I don't believe that
social and political factors exercise a "controlling vote" over the
outcome.
My point about slapstick is that it's a remarkable restorer of
perspective when it's just too much to bear the charge of all those
electrons. I hope Andrew is having a better day.
Cheers,
ss
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list