[David Morris]

Agreed.  Thanks again Prashant.

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/20130416/9d841950/attachment.html>