Western Science

[Joel Katz]

look, clearly it's a lib-arts reflex when some moke opposes 'western' 
science to some provocatively vague orientalist notion of it (involving 
human sacrifice?  lotsa fucking and sucking?  $2000 dollar/year jivamukti 
membership?).

father forgive them, what they mean to indict is the baconian conception of 
scientific rationality, proposed in the novum organum, as 'legitimate power 
over nature.'  in this view, the forms of nature are what is expressed in 
its use and exploitation -- so that knowledge becomes domination per se.  in 
addition, the operations of science, in deference to the church, are 
detached from metaphysics (which is in turn detached from theology) and 
final cause -- so that progress of science can remain unimpeded and 
unavoidable, which is to say, mindless.  science becomes the juggernaut.

so, while the notion of 'eastern' and 'western' science is moronic, the 
notion of 'scientific ethics' is equally stupid -- or, hehe, atavistic at 
best.  science as we live it is functionally a mechanism for degrading and 
dissolving the basis for such distinctions -- bits of reified nature, magic, 
gods.


>From: John Doe <tristero69 at yahoo.com>
>To: lsavage at westmont.edu
>CC: David Casseres <david.casseres at gmail.com>,        "jbor at bigpond.com" 
><jbor at bigpond.com>, pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Western Science
>Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
>
>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.
>

>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

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963