The ugly truth of science
Kai Frederik Lorentzen
lorentzen at hotmail.de
Mon Jun 17 05:12:51 CDT 2013
> ... the nature of Humanity. Science is its subset.
Well, your word "science" could be replaced by nearly any other word.
Try 'law', 'politics', 'family', 'art', 'sport', 'economy', or
'education'. Claiming "the nature of (h)umanity" is seldom wrong but
hardly ever helpful. As Joseph says: The debate is about the
socio-historical evolution of concrete social systems (or 'forms', or
'figurations', or 'spheres'), here science. It's not about the human
hardware.
My suggestion to people who feel the need to defend science on this list:
Show where Pynchon speaks in favor of science!
Question: Why is /Vineland/'s Weed Atman a mathematician?
http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf591
On 17.06.2013 05:09, David Morris wrote:
> 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/20130617/922b10cb/attachment.html>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list