Trobriand Islanders

[John Doe]

yeah he was big on testability, so I would agree that
Feynman would be kinda skeptical about it...I can see
him understanding its appeal..and the math IS rather
compelling...but, again, if ya can't test it it
remains sophisticated surmise...

--- David Casseres <david.casseres at gmail.com> wrote:

> Uh, John, how is E.L. Doctorow a hack?  And the man
> is right, Feynman
> was way atypical; a mere handful of his
> contemporaries AND successors
> are in his class.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I reject all that bullshit
> about science being a
> "social construct" and I think a lot of lit crit is
> utterly
> irresponsible grandstanding.  But as my freshman
> English prof at
> Caltech used to remind us, there are all sorts of
> assholes running
> around in white coats and calling themselves
> scientists.
> 
> (Parenthetically, I wonder what Feynman would have
> said about that
> sexy string theory.  I'm guessing he would not have
> liked it.)
> 
> On 11/1/05, John Doe <tristero69 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



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