Trobriand Islanders

[jporter]

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 by
> the way - scientists like Feynman, and he's a great
> example, DON'T like to work for the mass production of
> weaponry...

Are you joking, Mr. John Doe? "Scientists like
Feynman" comprise a set of about a hand count,
if that. Feynman was rather unique. He is, indeed,
a very poor example. One might say the same for
Pynchon w/r/t novelists. In general, most scientists
are now being funded by the military-industrial-academic
complex, and seem happy to accept the funding. The
majority of novelists engage in book tours, readings,
signings and other promotional activities.

> in fact he used to say, 'I have a policy
> practically of never going near Washington'; he also
> nearly turned down the Nobel Prize; until his wife and
> friends talked him out of it....here was a guy who
> simply wanted to know what made things tick...he was
> not into watching his ideas transformed into
> rockets...

Right. My point, and to sharpen it- he was in that position
because of his exceptional brilliance and his charming
personality. He was sought after. It's much easier to play
hard to get if you're wanted, than, if like the majority of
scientists, you must compete for a job, as well as, for
glory.

> .I still don't know why humanities people,
> so proud of their imaginations, cannot put themselves
> in the position of awe and wonder that many scientists
> are in - and that's perhaps why they can't figure out
> what science is about; they can't relate to the
> impulse to discover...if you yourself have never felt
> such passion for understanding WHY apples always fall
> downwards and not some other direction, or how this
> automatic transmission accomplishes what it does, then
> I can see why it's all so unvisceral and abstract to
> you...but y'know, I'd figure you can at least through
> the exercise of your copious imagination, be able to
> put yourself in those shoes of wonder for at least a
> few seconds....but I guess some people have a deficit
> that way....so they whip up complicated Theories about
> how science is just arbitrary rhetoric..blah blah
> blah...funny how indignant they get over MERE
> "rhetoric"...and by the way,

I'm sorry, but this is arrant nonsense.


> Feynman was "old-school";
> the scientists today ARE much more aware and
> responsible about for what and for where there work is
> or is not gonna be used...but nonone can anticipate
> everything J.; many a humanities prof.'s writings have
> been warped to serve the purposes of Dangerous
> Groups....NIetzsche to name just one.....so don't
> pretend like texts are any more immune to corruption
> than E=mcsquared...and try to keep in mind that folks
> with a childlike "wanting to know" are not the same
> folks who write up government contracts to make
> missles...you really need to sit down and talk to a
> real thoretical scientist...you will be
> surprised...

I see. I'm beginning to understand now. The one time
I did speak to Feynman- as a member of an audience
at a lecture he gave- at which I asked a dumb question-
he was honest enough to take me seriously, and he
gave me no quarter. I wasn't surprised.

jody


> besides, if you knewe about the history of
> the life of the mind so to speak at Los Alamos, you'd
> know that many scientists had misgivings at the time,
> and especialy afterwards...again, I have heard many
> scientists change their mind baout something - it's
> part of the job - but rarely have I heard of
> politicians or preachers or humanities profs. say "
> Man, guess I was really dead wrong with that
> idea....back to the drawing board" no - their egos
> demand that they never admit error in judgement...if
> it comes down to Trust, give me a scientist with
> contingent beliefs anyday over some inflexible,
> imperious schlep who believes his Word is Truth
> unqualified.....
>
> --- jporter <jp3214 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>