The ugly truth of science

[alice wellintown]

I don't like order.

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

>  You opened the topic by sending out a wall of text headed by "The ugly
> truth of science".  If you'd like to make to try and make your point in a
> more organized and less inflammatory way, more than a few people would
> participate.
>  ------------------------------
> From: alice wellintown <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'alicewellintown at gmail.com');>
> Sent: 6/16/2013 1:24 PM
> To: pynchon -l <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'pynchon-l at waste.org');>
> Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science
>
> 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
> Sent: 6/16/2013 12:03 PM
> To: pynchon -l
> 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 coul
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130616/306b98c0/attachment.html>