NP Witt List (was something Pynchon-related at some point, maybe)

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

Mark Smith writes:
> I know I'm leapfrogging off Gary (and Andrew's) original Wittgenstein
> topic, but I think there's another kind of relevance here to Pynchon's
> themes.  The adherents of creation "science" represent a substantial, if
> disingenuous, group of people with access to power. They really don't
> care about science, except insofar as they can subvert it to their own
> purposes, in this case, religious purposes, although I use the term
> 'religious' rather loosely.  Like those other power mongers, the tobacco
> companies, they are able to shift the center of discourse of any subject
> by seeking out those very scientists who happen to agree with them, and
> promoting their views through massive investments of capital and media
> exposure.  They are very organized, and represent a voice out of all
> proportion to their numbers, because of the power of big business which
> stands behind them.  

Yep, power struggles are very much a determinant of what is truth.

> We are seeing the same phenomenon with the current efforts by captains
> of industry to subvert the clean air act.  A body of about five science
> sceptics are paid huge amounts of money to throw sand in the face of the
> thousands of other scientists who have sound data for their conclusions
> about the effects atmospheric pollution on climate. . . .

And in the end this is what determines truth, sound data. Only the key
qualifier here is sound. What is it that makes everyone but tobacco
companies accept that smoking contributes substantially to cancer. The
fact that we are willing to take on board a whole framework of
scientific and medical advice which sets the scene for the notion that
smoking can be related in such a way and the fact that we accept the
existing evidence as representative of how things will continue to
turn out. Do we have to do these things? No. Scientists in the past
have, usually justifiably, been reluctant to let go of theories even
though the data seems to contradict them. There is room for debate
(ill-advised or not) in the face of any data and clearly such debate
cannot be based on the data but on other considerations. Creationists
just have different standards as to what they will accept as
plausible. At least that's what they say, although in truth most of
them try to have their cake and eat it since they don't really act on
what they say,i.e. dismantle all belief in the surrounding framework
of conventional scientific explanation. But then scientists like
everyone else are not 100% rational beings, never contradicting their
words by deed. The decision to go with Darwin rather than Creationism
is not because Darwinism is right and creationism is wrong. It is
because systematic application of Creationist principles (I use the
term loosely) would require us to adopt expectations and behaviour
which most of us do not want to adopt.

> . . . So, in the great tradition of American democracy, every
> backwoodsman has his opinion, and they are all equal, but now the
> backwoodsman scientist gets singled out for special patronage by the
> interests of Capital, and truth takes a backseat.  How does anybody
> know anything anymore?  Surely a Pynchon leitmotiv, if ever there
> was one.

Which is why he also tackles the question I have been discussing of
what it is to know something - the obverse of that leitmotif.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
How do you know but ev'ry bird that cuts the airy way
Is an immense world of pleasure clos'd by your senses five