The ugly truth of science

[David Morris]

Humanity being the set, what humanity does is a subset. Science is a subset
of that. What science does is a subset of that.

So, what science does is a subset of the nature of humanity.  The nature of
humanity dominates, and is not dominated by its subsets.  So fight human
nature first.

David Morris

On Monday, June 17, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:

>  I would be happy to have a discussion about what is the nature of
>  Humanity.
>
> It isn''t the most enlightening phrase to say science is the subset of the
> nature of humanity. I guess you could call human nature a set.  But even if
> roughly true,  unchecked science is still a particularly dangerous subset .
> Science is a cumulative group effort drawing on previous knowledge that can
>  and often has focused mental and physical resources to produce deadly
> technologies which confer new degrees of destructive power.  Often that
> destructive power goes to the most corrupt, avaricious and sociopathic
> elements of society.   That is just one example of misapplied science. The
> ethical logic of science is nothing if not flexible there are plenty of
> excuses why Hiroshima Nagasaki, Agent orange, Drone strikes etc. were
> necessary but none for the V2s or Guernica.  More human nature.  Science is
> also being used to tell us about human nature and they are moving right
> along after figuring out that we are neither pigeons nor mice nor adding
> machines.
> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:09 PM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130617/e6ecc1fa/attachment.html>