[Prashant Kumar]

http://www.hiyoooo.com/


On 17 April 2013 20:15, Monte Davis <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:

> >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/20130417/9341c51e/attachment.html>