The ugly truth of science

[alice wellintown]

Ok, constructive discourse. I'll look for it.


On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Christopher Simon wrote:

>  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.
>
>  ------------------------------
> From: alice wellintown <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'alicewellintown at gmail.com');>
> Sent: 6/16/2013 12:03 PM
> To: pynchon -l <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130616/1fb5cc8d/attachment.html>