Trobriand Islanders

[John Doe]

Sure...my last conversation with Weinberg was back in
May...and our "views" jibe pretty well with each
other's, thank you  ;  )...yup they're
multiplying...dangerously scribbling away those
globe-threatening equations; many a tree has gone to
the blade for the reams of paper needed for those
cold-hearted reductionist String Theorists to plan a
way to implement 11-dimensional 'branes' into the
Military Complex of the good ole US of A...I don't
recall ever saying or implying Feynman WAS
representative of most scientists; but there's enough
of them ( see above ) and others as well to justify my
claim that science is not some inherently nasty
occupation that always ultimately leads to World
Destruction....look who's making a logical fallacy; my
caliming that when MOST educated people hear the word
Literature, they are most likely not thinking of
writers like E.L.D., but, rather, are more likely than
not having vague associations of the word to writers
like Eliot, Kafka, Tolstoy, etc....nothing in what I
said implies relegating less talented writeres to the
trash heap...I live Brautigan, but I wouldn't exactly
put him up there with Joyce...ya know what I mean? Are
you implying that YOU never "discriminate"?... and
yeah, super-talented mathematicians and scientists
have what amounts to a sensual feel for the patterns
and quantities they are calculating...sorry it's
suchan alien concept to you...we speak of artists
having such a thing all the time, but somehow ordinary
people have trouble imagining how such a passion to
compute and deduce can be real in someone
else...failure of imagination...it's seems obvious ,
given how people need juicy rationalizations to
justify their points of view, that if a person cannot
imagine, convincingly, that another can enjoy
differential equatins the way THEY enjoy Dosteovsky,
then they simply see science as some arbitrary system
that is taken as an elective in college...funny how we
have NO problem imagining athletes loving their
thing...the answer is that sports is exterior and
manifest; calculating is not, so people find it hard
to see how talent of that sort can "feel" good...they
even have trouble with literature; I recall all the
morons back in Jr. High ascribing Poe's ability to
"doing too much opium, MAN!"...unable to realize that
ya knowwwwwwwww...some people like Poe have MORE
imagination than others, dude!...same kinda thing....

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

> 
> 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...
> >
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com