Western Science

[John Doe]

Ahhh... so where do your cultural and geographical
divisions sit on the map? Are say Arabs of an Eastern
mind-way or a Western mind-way...we're not being
cheeky - has it ever occured to you when you first
heard of this "distinction" ( maybe in high school,
maybe in college, wherever ) that it COULD be
bullshit? Why didn't you question the very validity of
it's postualtion? What Great Authority came up with
this nutty "difference" in the first place? I bet no
one on this site has a clue, but we all just use the
expression as if it has incontrovertible legitmacy.

--- lsavage at westmont.edu wrote:

> Despite the feeling like a few of you are choosing
> to be cheeky and 
> intentionally dense, I'll clarify:
> 
> I used the term "Western Science" because I felt
> that our discussion was 
> ruthlessly Western (i.e. dealing with this Western
> Literary Canon, Western 
> religion, etc.) And although I am not an expert in
> Eastern Science, what I do 
> know has led me to believe that the tensions and
> inferred duelisms between 
> science and religion in the Eastern Hemisphere
> differ from those with which we 
> are familiar.
> 
>  Quoting John Doe <tristero69 at yahoo.com>:
> 
> > Uhhhhh...yeahhhhhh...so, what exactly is the
> > alternative to "Western " science? As opposed to
> > ?....this specious distinction between a supposed
> > "Eastern" WAY of doing stuff, and the Dualistic,
> fill
> > -in - the - blank "Western " WAY has always been
> > murky, wooly and irresponsibly vague: this
> distinction
> > is erroneous, and I might add, usually perpetuated
> by
> > folks who have no clue how science really
> "works"...go
> > and actually hang out with an Indian scientist, a
> > Japanese, an Iranian and a Russian; they will
> quickly
> > clear up all this hogwash about " a different way
> of
> > thinking"...there is no such thing as, say Tibetan
> > calculus, Japanese- differential equations,
> Russian
> > geometry...the way the human brain "processes"
> reality
> > is the same across all cultures..."Eastern" people
> > reason the same way everyone else does...if they
> > didn't, there would be no science in Russia...or
> > India...
> > 
> > --- lsavage at westmont.edu wrote:
> > 
> > > I am shocked that anyone would be so brash as to
> > > conflate "antiscience" and 
> > > "anti-Darwinism". I expect better attention to
> the
> > > proper catagorization of 
> > > things and people from the members of this list.
> The
> > > Western definition of 
> > > science is not the end-all definition, and
> neither
> > > is yours.
> > > 
> > > My humble suggestion is that you let your heads
> > > catch up with your emotions and 
> > > ensure that the things you say actually contain
> > > meanings which are not absurd.
> > > 
> > > (I'm sure absurdity happens to everyone now and
> > > again - it is not my intention 
> > > to offend - just please, be a little more
> attentive
> > > in the future, eh?)
> > > 
> > > Quoting David Casseres
> <david.casseres at gmail.com>:
> > > 
> > > > On 9/29/05, jbor at bigpond.com
> <jbor at bigpond.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On 30/09/2005, at 3:51 AM, David Casseres
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The Big Bang hypothesis doesn't infer
> cause
> > > from effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > The syllogism goes like this: the universe
> > > (experienced/perceived
> > > > > effect) exists, so there must have been a
> Big
> > > Bang (inferred cause).
> > > > 
> > > > Not a cause, just an origin.
> > > > 
> > > > > > It doesn't
> > > > > > address cause at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it *is* rabbit out of a hat stuff? Voilà.
> > > > 
> > > > No, the hypothesis doesn't mention a hat, it
> just
> > > tells the story of the
> > > > rabbit.
> > > > 
> > > > > > It is simply a narrative of the history of
> the
> > > > > > universe.
> > > > >
> > > > > As is the Book of Genesis. Or any other
> Creation
> > > myth.
> > > > 
> > > > If you like.  However the Big Bang hypothesis
> > > emerges from observed
> > > > evidence, not from the words of the
> forefathers.
> > > > 
> > > > > > And it is neither atheism nor agnosticism.
>  It
> > > is just science, which
> > > > > > you insist on conflating with atheism.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the terms of your little allegory, if
> > > "Physics" concluded "There is
> > > > > no God", then that'd be atheism. Atheism is
> the
> > > belief, or faith, that
> > > > > there is no God. But when "Physics" says "I
> > > don't know whether there
> > > > > is/was a God", that's agnosticism.
> > > > 
> > > > Have it  your way.  I guess it's
> "agnosticism,"
> > > but that's a category
> > > > invented by deists.  It means nothing to
> science.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Here's something I need to say:
> > > > 
> > > > It is monstrous that the antiscience movement
> has
> > > gathered so much
> > > > momentum that it shows up, in its most
> destructive
> > > form, on the
> > > > Pynchon list of all places.  The attack on
> science
> > > is an attack on
> > > > humanity, by way of attacking one of
> humanity's
> > > highest achievements. 
> > > > As well attack literature itself, or
> philosophy,
> > > or music, or any of
> > > > the arts.  I fear for the culture that gave me
> > > birth, education, and a
> > > > lifetime of experience.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 		
> > __________________________________ 
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 



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