NPWittList(wassomethingPynchonrelatedatsomepointmaybe)

[Sojourner]

At 12:09 PM 8/13/97 -0400, Ted Samsel wrote:

>But then, you get science cranks like Roberty McIlwhaine (remember him?)
>and Archimedes Plutonium who take science into their own hands. Some-
>times this stuff is amusing, but the disinformation-for-disinformation's
>sake aspect of these antics often beclouds already murky issues with
>"conventional wisdom" and ever-so "wishful thinking".

Biggest science crank of all time: Aristotle.

And he was the biggest only because so many people followed his
teachings blindly.  Aristotle is a personal enemy of mine, but
that aside, it was blind assumption that a man, a human man,
knew more than you that lead to such dead-end beliefs.

When people started reading labels and studying food for its
content, food manufacturers got the message in a hurry.  Imagine
if people started reading the science behind the media, or
studying where "stories" come from, or read the Jerusalem Post
as well as their local paper, or read or studied or questioned
and did more than idly gossip about the same shit they know
everyone else heard, aka "current events", weather, TV,
brand names of products, sports or office politics.

Seriously... its almost impossible to get a topic of convo
on something OTHER than the 6 topics above.

>
>My main problem with science-as-it-is-now is the falling away from
>the natural history aspect of it. Bean-counting is bean-counting
>no matter in which discipline the frijoles fall. There may be some
>awe and wonder in mathematics, etc. but damn little in the numerical
>"wankerie" we often witness today. But everyone to their own taste
>said the old woman as she kissed the cow.
>
>Ted Samsel....tejas at infi.net
>

	"I'll kiss yer mammy for a quarter"

	    --Elephant "Joe" Bosco