Trobriand Islanders

[jporter]

On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:58 PM, John Doe wrote:

> well ask Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Bob
> Wittan about the myth of pure science..

Why don't you tell us about your last conversation
with them. I'm sure their standing in line waiting to
support your views.


> 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;

Multiplying, are they- does Homeland Security know about
this?

>  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?

Oh, so he's not representative of the vast majority, as you
attempted to claim. You're agreeing with me, now.


> 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...

So, we have to ban anyone less than the great T.S.
Eliot, is that it? Maybe ship them off to special Hack
Camps for re-education,  bring them up to your
specification, with all the latest scientific techniques,
of course.

> 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?

"Sensual feel for numbers"... Where's Groucho when we
need him. Was it good for you,  2?

> 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 -

You're creating a false dichotomy. My reply was brief
because I think your attempt to categorize and otherwise
set up two warring camps is as wrongheaded as your
generalizations about peoples feelings.


> 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!"...

I think it's self-evident that many scientists and humanities
professors share much in common, and would sooner
be off having a beer together, and some good conversation,
rather than sticking around to listen to dull, if inspired, diatribes.

jody


> and no Feynman wasn't
> and I certainly am not "at war" with the humanities;
>
			(...)

>
> ...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...
>