The ugly truth of science

[Christopher Simon]

I haven't seen any long, abrasive threads started in defensive of science, the topic usually only seems to come in response to anti-science ones. This is to be expected, however, because science doesn't have an agenda, at least not in the same sense that AW's many threads seem to. Most of the pro-science responses seem quite level-headed, not full of rambling vitriol. There are many legitimate criticisms of the scientific community, certain methods of investigation, ethical considerations concerning personhood and experimentation, etc. None of these seem to be issues brought up, however: favor is given to abstract demonization instead. Which, while fun to read sometimes, don't ring of constructive discourse.  



-----Original Message-----
From: "alice wellintown" <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
Sent: ‎6/‎16/‎2013 12:03 PM
To: "pynchon -l" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science


Could say he same for the zealous defense of science here, it reminds me of the defense of the Catholic Church against accusations of child abuse. And, those who toss stones have entered the ring of the lottery. Monte is a stone slinger. 
On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Christopher Simon wrote:

I think that direct personal attacks make Monte's point, for him/her, no?

Anyways, the anti-science diatribes here seem far too close to those found in fundamentalist religious circles; characterizing science as one single-minded body that has a consistent agenda, one bent on eradicating humanism or the arts, and has been doing so for upwards of a hundred years. I think you would be hard pressed to find a body (at the risk of making the same over-generalizing error) that has done more to further the quality if the human condition than the sciences.


From: alice wellintown
Sent: 6/16/2013 10:01 AM
To: pynchon -l
Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science


Monte, the stick up your ass is taller than the Empire State and you're too fixated on me and what gives me the authority to post what I'm posting. Take it easy, dude. You read more like MalignD everyday. 
 
Happy Father's Day 
 
May all our children at war return to their fathers and may all our fathers at war return to their children, healthy, and as soon as possible. 
 
And God Bless Our Terrific Scientific Nation. 



On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis at verizon.net> wrote:

No, Joseph. When Alice wrote here two weeks ago (the entire post): "Science
is the project of little men who are easily enslaved and who crave
authority, though it is, at the same time, and necessarily so, rebellious."

It was, as she explained ten days later,  a "playful allusion to Reich's
_The Mass Psychology of Fascism_." Maybe to Reich's _Listen, Little Man_ as
well; Alice is very well read. It's not a quotation, paraphrase, or summary:
in fact, Reich's "little men" were average citizens of mass society,
insecure and ignorant and seeking certainties in the fascist leadership of
Great Men. Fortunately, they could find freedom and autonomy in the genius
and mail-order apparatus of a scientist -- psychoanalyst-turned-"orgone
biophysicist" Reich -- and what could be farther from whacked-out, messianic
pseudo-science than that?

... But I digress. The sentence and the thought are Alice's very own, and
they're PLAYFUL. Trust me on this.

When Alice tells us that scientists "take comfort.. in mouse/clicking a
village to dust..."

Or that science "hides its brain surgery butchery behind its rocket science
superciliousness..."

Or that "the scientists took over and they don't believe in anything except
hubris and machines..."

These aren't attacks, as you think. They aren't unfounded stereotypes, as
you think. They don't cast blame, as you think. They're the free play and
penetrating insight of a cultured mind. Trust me on this.

How could they be attacks? Alice is "a science person" herself -- one who
will surely "kick [my] ass in the science ring," and no doubt yours and JZ's
too, as soon as she gets around to it. She won't specify a scientific
discipline specified, won't offer any of her experience or attainments, and
has *never* written here of science and scientists except in contexts of
condescension and contempt -- but she's a "science person." Trust me on
this.

She's "married to a famous scientist" -- and trust me, what a marriage of
true minds that is!

She loves her science (whatever it is -- don't ask because we've been over
all this, and the whole subject is boring, and why are we so angry anyway?)
as much as her poetry. Trust me on this.

She's also a world-class ballerina, a Formula One winner, a nominee for
multiple Nobel prizes, founder/patroness of an orphanage near Antofagasta,
and life chair of the Department of Omnicultural Studies and Plasma Physics
at Miskatonic University. Only a little man like you could mistake her for a
sad, strange online poseur and troll. Trust me on this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130616/1d1a8c0d/attachment.html>