[alice wellintown]

A falty comparison, malignD, s/b mathematics. Algebra is a part of math. In
any event, to rail against any of the sciences or arts is like kicking a
machine that breaks down. If one rails against a mule that won't pull, the
mule may respond, but a broke down engine don't got no sense, so it makes
none to rail against it. But there is no railing here. Science is in need
of honest critics; it is rather thin skinned and puffed up with hubris. We
are all scientists and engineers by nature, so there is nothing wrong with
a good hard look in the mirror. There is nothing about science that makes
it above our critical examination, beyond our condemnation when it fails
us, when it sins, when it hides its brain surgery butchery behind its
rocket science superciliousness.
On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, wrote:

> This is a smart post with which I agree.  I would add that science is a
> method -- of investigation and discovery.  To rail against science is like
> railing against algebra.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 7:36 pm
> Subject: Re:
>
>  So, a couple of things; a two-step if you like: reification and
> generalisation.
>
>  First: science is not a contiguous set of practices. It is not
> monolithic, and therefore its meat and method is not isolable in the way
> our dear interlocutors have presumed. So, whatever you say about the
> ethical colour of man or machine depends peculiarly on man, machine, and
> the way the former uses and is changed by, the latter. *See also*:
> technologies of the self. Variegated of course by a soupcon of historicism.
>
>  What I'm saying maybe does seem irrelevant, but consider that the kind
> of science we get -- from methods to what specifically is studied, and how
> -- depends on the medley of personalities, funding and need one finds in
> modern scientific contexts. To call it "science" and then sort it into the
> right morality-bin is to discuss a  *popular, a layman's, version* of
> science. It's fine, but don't expect such an analysis to say anything about
> "real science". Prejudice, greed, and the fleshandblood motivations of
> modern scientists are *indispensable *to discovery. *See also:* *Against
> Method 4th ed., *Paul Feyerabend.
>
>  To say "science gave us computers" is to say quite literally nothing.
> How? What sequence of discoveries produces a computer? and, now, should I
> permute the order? What then? One more: how can we be sure of
> counterfactuals: *"**devices which wouldn't exist were it not for
> science." *?* *This is a stronger statement than it appears. Is science a*
>  *unique historical process, with equally unique material correlates? *See
> also:* *Historical Ontology, *Ian Hacking.
>
>  Let me say as well, this discussion calls on a particularly Western
> suppressed premise: the moral rectitude of progress itself. So what if we
> don't have computers? Fuck 'em.
>
>  And now to generalisation. I'm sure you see where I'm going by now, so
> let me just say this. The choices scientists are presented with, and the
> decisions which they make, differ in substance between disciplines. And
> technological innovation from scientific discovery *is a process distinct
> from science itself.  **See also:* You figure it out...
>
>  P
>
>
> On 16 April 2013 08:04, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> I didn't say anyone attacked me. I don't think anyone did.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Rev'd Seventy-Six <revd.76 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>  "...rather than argue against what I've argued, which is, that science
> is the new religion, the greatest risk to life on Earth, the P-Lister
> elected to distort my argument and recast it as an atack on people who work
> in science or scientists."
>
>  For starters, it wasn't an attack on you personally; point of fact, it
> wasn't an attack at all.  It was a ramble and probably poorly written,
> sparked by confusion which caused me to ask you to clarify your position--
>  which I couldn't quite tell was farcical or not, considering we're having
> this little chat on devices that allow to communicate over vast distances
>  --devices which wouldn't exist were it not for science.  For as many
> hazards as you might argue science has produced, it has produced an equal
> number of benefits.  I don't see it as being particularly sacred, but I do
> think it's taken an unfair number of knocks over the last little while
> because there's this
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130416/35c10ff6/attachment.html>