The ugly truth of science

[David Morris]

Your argument is with the nature of Humanity.  Science is its subset.

Solve that, I dare you.

On Sunday, June 16, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:

>
> The conversation is too polarized. I have the sense that what I am
> actually saying is being turned into something far more extreme than it
> really is. I don't think there is any evidence Kai, myself or even the more
> extreme  aw posts are promoting a disdain for science, and I'm fairly sure
> we all see that science is a process with many benefits and great potential
> for the human endeavor. But its evolution has yielded enormous power, and
> in some ways that power is so dangerous as to potentially nullify its
> benefits and even  life itself. That is a power that has to be reckoned
> with. Humans have not evolved ethically  at the same rate as science  and
> that is a discord that is a global problem.  Science has become a godlike
> force and we are still territorial primates with an inclination to link our
> territories to beliefs. Unfortunately, what this means is that science has
> become something of a modern religion and critical discussion is not a
> dispassionate process.
>
> The critique I am trying to put forth is about the ways, psychological,
> social and technological science is historically and currenty linked to the
> destructive abuse of power. This is no more indicting all science or all
> scientists than it would be to indict all teaching or all teachers  for all
> the bad stuff that gets taught and what happens as a result, or indicting
> all written and graphic communication systems  for its inherent distortions
> of reality, broken treaties, the dishonest accumulation of wealth. My
> intent  is a matter of thinking about all these things in such a way as to
> know the potential dangers  of how we do all these things and be better
> able to avoid those dangers.
>
>  JZ. Comparing anyone on the list with the
> rightwing-xenophobic-fundamentalist-fascist Michelle Bachman is not what I
> would call an astute or credible observation. Instead of calling people
> anti-science, maybe it would be more respectful to engage on the level of
> responding to the actual words and ideas. How, for example have the
> descriptions of science on the list been inaccurate?
>
> What alice wellintown is saying about science seems to me to be about
> showing the inherent psychological appeal of getting new knowledge and
> extending one's power,   that  it is not inherently benign, and has a dark
> side. The issue is that science is a human activity.
>
> Perhaps something about the role of science in my own life and family. I
> like science and talked about it with my adopted step daughter and 2 birth
> children often while they were still home. I don't think any of them would
> say I maligned science. My oldest daughter  has become a director of
> science curriculum at a large school district, my son, the youngest, is
> working  for a silicon valley entrepreneur on a prototype of an electric
> work truck, collaborating with Siemens and using Darpa developed batteries
> . My other daughter just graduated from Smith with a degree in
> environmental policy.  I continue to try to master the practical science of
> food gardening and working with glass as an artistic medium. Recently,
> along with literature, news and commentary I have been inclined to read
> about permaculture, mushrooms, soil science, global climate change,
> environmental issues, and the science of hot glass. I teach art glass every
> year and talk about surface tension, the random molecular structure of the
> glass as opposed to the crystalline structure of most minerals, the
> coefficient of expansion as a factor in the compatibility of fusible glass,
> the practical use of geometry in design for architectonic ornament and
> other things that boil down to the science that is helpful to know for
> joining art and glass.
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>
> > As a fellow scientist I don't get the anti-science rants either. I'd
> recommend recognizing that half the anti-science content comes from one
> poster. But even so I've come close to dropping this list because of that
> poster.
> >
> > - Joe
> >
> > P.S. U. Pitt! I am a CMU grad but from long ago (1990).
> >
> > On 6/15/2013 9:03 AM, JZ Stafura wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >>   Been a lurker on this list for a long time, haven't felt like I've
> had the time to contribute to the list, given the fine minds here. While
> I've enjoyed the discussions, debates, and thoughts for years now, the
> latest anti-science talk sounds more like a Michelle Bachman speech than
> the intelligence I'm used to on this list. As a junior scientist (who just
> must be bought and sold by the powers that be - those evil folks who want
> to find ways to help children with language impairments through
> non-pharmacological instructional techniques - gasp!), the level of
> discourse on science here has been depressing, small-minded, and reveals
> how little my 'kind' are thought of here. Yes, scientists are aware of the
> dangers of science, most of them are like me, curious and amazed at the
> world around us - and not stupid enough to take money to study things just
> because the money is there. It sounds like everyone on this list has there
> mind made up, but what if scientist lumped all literature students in the
> same pile (I also have a lit degree) - we could say something like lit
> theory has offered nothing new for over 50 years, which is why the programs
> are drying up - it isn't the worlds fault, it's yours. I don't believe this
> at all, but it is as accurate a description of humanities as the
> descriptions of science have been on this list over the last month or so.
> >>
> >> Take it or leave it, I don't mind, and I'll always enjoy reading what
> the brilliant folks on this list have to say.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> Joseph Z. Stafura
> >> U. Pitt
> >> iPhone (apologies for the brevity and mistakes)
> >>
> >> On Jun 15, 2013, at 11:16 AM, alice wellintown <
> alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Look into a Astro-Biology textbook, or into an Astronomy Webpage, and
> you will see beautiful artwork. Artistic simulations of what the data from
> distant space probes fed into computers is adding up to. With the space
> probe, the computer, we can build entire worlds, above and beyond the
> confining fact of nature, and these built worlds are nothing next to the
> transformation wrought by science and technology, which has extended our
> bodies to manipulate and change the world to fulfill its very own, often
> evil and cruel plans for it and its unwitting inhabitants. Much as
> Science/Technic claims to educate and warn, Science and Technology has
> shown how to destroy before we understand. In P we have several
> unmistakable examples. We have the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> This, of course, is the Science/technology destruction that continues, even
> after we exit the Theatre/Theater to hover above our heads in equations we
> can't understand, but in common sense parlance, it's the fucking bomb, and
> Science and Technology is only a hindrance to our grasping the
> sphincter-tightening reality.   Science/Technology has altered what is to
> be a human by giving the species the capacity to totally denude our Earth
> with war that escalates to madness and chaos. Remember WWII? madness.
> Chaos. GR is a reminder and a warning. Isn't it? Even if the anti-bomb folk
> are now pro-bomb for everyone folk, even Iran and N Korea have a right to
> the bomb, no? Even if the MAD men are now Peace Men who want to prevent
> proliferation while maintaining a huge advantage, even if the threat keeps
> the peace or whatever...we have been transformed by the bomb.
> >>>  McCarthy does delve into this, BYW. _The Road_ is set after some kind
> of holocaust that burns the Earth to a crisp.
> >>>    In any event, the Earth, the Planet Earth no longer seems a home
> that we can live on forever. Science played god, and so we poor preterit
> must accept a home, a garden that is not eternal, but has an end to it.
> >>>  The Second Coming of Science-Technic is Modernity without Restraint.
> >>>    But don't worry poor fellow, Science-Technology will make you
> immortal, ship your frozen head to a new planet or to a space station. The
> limitations of Science and Technology, once we see that it has extended our
> capacity to Destroy Earth and holds out space stations and frozen heads as
> compensation, are clear enough to a common thinker who reads and thinks,
> and who knows it's OK to be a reader and thinker even if this opens one to
> accusations of Luddism.
> >>>  Science a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130616/32c5a479/attachment.html>