Wed Apr 17 05:15:25 CDT 2013

>To rail against science is like railing against algebra.

Or waging war on terrorism.

From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of malignd at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:53 PM
To: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re:

This is a smart post with which I agree.  I would add that science is a
method -- of investigation and discovery.   

-----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 weird tendency to characterize a vast, fascinating field encompassing a
scintillating number of disciplines as somehow being Against Humanity.  In P
there's a certain cautiousness throughout to the uses of science, and that's
what I thought we were discussing, not whether or not capital-S science were
going to stomp us with Karloff size twelves for our failure to be
god-fearing enough. 

You've again stated science is the greatest risk to life on earth, which I
don't hold to be any more or less true than the statement that human greed
is the greatest risk to life on earth.  We're at an impasse, is all.  Not a
matter of fault if we disagree.  Again, sorry for any offense.

-David

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130417/1bb1a1a5/attachment.html>