Trobriand Islanders

[John Doe]

well ask Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Bob
Wittan about the myth of pure science..these guys
essentially do what Feynman did...theoretical
physicists- and there are even MORE now, thanks to all
the grad students wanting to work on sexy String
Theory - have not disappeared or suffered a mass
extinction....THAT is arrant nonsense; there are a LOT
of string theorists out there and they do all there
work on paper and blackboard and that's about as
"pure" as pure science gets; they ain't gonna win no
contract from the pentagon for doodling around with
String Theory...I  made my point clear many e-mails
ago that Feynman's attitude towards science is what I
consider real science to be...sure it's scarcer than
contracted scientists working on military stuff; so
what? when we talk about Literature, are we thinking
of all the hacks on the same level as E. L. Doctorow,
or do we tend to have more like T.S Eliot in mind?
same thing here...and what is nonsensical about
assuming that many people simply have no notion of
what grabs and compels a physicist to do what he or
she does? Do you really think most people including
yourself have the sort of oh call it almost sensual
feel for numbers that a guy like Feynman or Bethe had?
C'mon - your brief defensive retort was empty of
intelligent objections because what I said bugged you;
otherwise, you must believe the opposite of what I
said is true; namely, that almost all the people in
the humanities have a strong visceral feel for numbers
and a burning curiosity about the basic forces of the
universe - I mean,you can't have it both ways - if you
think my characterization is erroneous, educate me in
how I am wrong,or better yet, tell me of some
humanities profs. with powerfull mathematical ability
AND a burning curiosity about the basic forces of the
universe; that'll shut me up and I'll admit " man, I
was dead wrong about that!"...and no Feynman wasn't
and I certainly am not "at war" with the humanities; I
had both Leslie Fiedler and Robert Creeley as
mentors...but what puts a stick up my ass is some of
these trendoid FrenchyTheory asskissers who read a few
books that say dumb shit like "science is an arbitrary
system" and they think that THAT is some kind of
deeply intellectual and comprehensive summary of of
all the endeavors from Thales to Einstein...but if
they actually stopped to really THINK about what sort
of thinking went into Newton's Laws, maybe they could
see that some dork with a mild verbal talent for
conceptual manipulation has no clue what the fuck he's
writing about because he has never had any feel for
what Newton had a feel for...again; why is it you
don't see Weinberg or Kaku dismissing Shakespeare as a
fool who "merely arranged words on paper"?...because
they know better...

--- jporter <jp3214 at earthlink.net> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 29, 2005, at 5:25 PM, John Doe wrote:
> 
> > No..he got it right..and so did J. Bronowski, who
> > published a series of lectures also dealing with
> this
> > sort of humbleness, accountability and necessary
> > honesty...no honesty is necessary in the
> humanities;
> > your rationalizations, biases, vanity and ego can
> go
> > unchecked...
> 
> Feynman was anything but humble. He was a great
> scientist, smarter than I'll ever be, a good man to
> have next to you in a barroom brawl and  probably
> a pretty good student of human behavior. He most
> certainly wasn't "at war" with the humanities- which
> he enjoyed- as you seem to be. Look. there are some
> very bad humanities professors and some very good
> scientists, and vice versa, but the humanities
> certainly
> have no monopoly on vanity, egoism or bias. There
> are daily accounts of scientists falling prey to
> their
> ambition and falsifying results, in the most
> respected
> labs. We do not hear about the cases from the second
> tier. It does no good to mistake the ideals of
> science
> for the character of scientists, who, no matter how
> ingenious, are human, just like me and you.
> 
> 
> 
> > I can't believe you can't see this in
> > operation around you with your academic
> > buddies...historically, it has been humanities
> profs.
> > NOT the Cold Hearted Unfeeling Scientists who have
> > been ardent supportersd of Nazism and other
> fascist
> > ideologies...
> 
> Most of my academic work has been spent in the
> lab, or the clinic. It would be difficult to express
> to
> you just how dehumanizing such settings can be-
> real breeding grounds for arrogance, not to
> mention boredom- if left unchecked. Those settings
> are every bit as hierarchical, authoritarian and
> petty as any other academic wing.
> 
> > and , again, when you talk about bombs
> > and planes, trains and automobiles, you are not
> > talking about "science" anymore...
> 
> The distinction between science and technology is
> way over done. Pure science, let alone "the pure
> scientist", is a bit of a myth, I'm afraid.
> 
> > Feynman worked on
> > the Bomb, yes, but excluding that unprecedented
> > association of the government with scientists -
> > ostensibly fighting the Good Fight against Nazism
> by
> > the way - scientists like Feynman, and he's a
> great
> > example, DON'T like to work for the mass
> production of
> > weaponry...
> 
> Are you joking, Mr. John Doe? "Scientists like
> Feynman" comprise a set of about a hand count,
> if that. Feynman was rather unique. He is, indeed,
> a very poor example. One might say the same for
> Pynchon w/r/t novelists. In general, most scientists
> are now being funded by the
> military-industrial-academic
> complex, and seem happy to accept the funding. The
> majority of novelists engage in book tours,
> readings,
> signings and other promotional activities.
> 
> > in fact he used to say, 'I have a policy
> > practically of never going near Washington'; he
> also
> > nearly turned down the Nobel Prize; until his wife
> and
> > friends talked him out of it....here was a guy who
> > simply wanted to know what made things tick...he
> was
> > not into watching his ideas transformed into
> > rockets...
> 
> Right. My point, and to sharpen it- he was in that
> position
> because of his exceptional brilliance and his
> charming
> personality. He was sought after. It's much easier
> to play
> hard to get if you're wanted, than, if like the
> majority of
> scientists, you must compete for a job, as well as,
> for
> glory.
> 
> > .I still don't know why humanities people,
> > so proud of their imaginations, cannot put
> themselves
> > in the position of awe and wonder that many
> scientists
> > are in - and that's perhaps why they can't figure
> out
> > what science is about; they can't relate to the
> > impulse to discover...if you yourself have never
> felt
> > such passion for understanding WHY apples always
> fall
> > downwards and not some other direction, or how
> this
> > automatic transmission accomplishes what it does,
> then
> > I can see why it's all so unvisceral and abstract
> to
> > you...but y'know, I'd figure you can at least
> through
> > the exercise of your copious imagination, be able
> to
> > put yourself in those shoes of wonder for at least
> a
> > few seconds....but I guess some people have a
> deficit
> > that way....so they whip up complicated Theories
> about
> > how science is just arbitrary rhetoric..blah blah
> > blah...funny how indignant they get over MERE
> > "rhetoric"...and by the way,
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is arrant nonsense.
> 
> 
> > Feynman was "old-school";
> > the scientists today ARE much more aware and
> > responsible about for what and for where there
> work is
> > or is not gonna be used...but nonone can
> anticipate
> > everything J.; many a humanities prof.'s writings
> have
> > been warped to serve the purposes of Dangerous
> > Groups....NIetzsche to name just one.....so don't
> > pretend like texts are any more immune to
> corruption
> > than E=mcsquared...and try to keep in mind that
> folks
> > with a childlike "wanting to know" are not the
> same
> > folks who write up government contracts to make
> > missles...you really need to sit down and talk to
> a
> > real thoretical scientist...you will be
> > surprised...
> 
> I see. I'm beginning to understand now. The one time
> I did speak to Feynman- as a member of an audience
> at a lecture he gave- at which I asked a dumb
> question-
> he was honest enough to take me seriously, and he
> gave me no quarter. I wasn't surprised.
> 
> jody
> 
> 
> > besides, if you knewe about the history of
> > the life of the mind so to speak at Los Alamos,
> you'd
> > know that many scientists had misgivings at the
> time,
> > and especialy afterwards...again, I have heard
> many
> > scientists change their mind baout something -
> it's
> > part of the job - but rarely have I heard of
> > politicians or preachers or humanities profs. say
> "
> > Man, guess I was really dead wrong with that
> > idea....back to the drawing board" no - their egos
> > demand that they never admit error in
> judgement...if
> > it comes down to Trust, give me a scientist with
> > contingent beliefs anyday over some inflexible,
> > imperious schlep who believes his Word is Truth
> > unqualified.....
> >
> > --- jporter <jp3214 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com