The ugly truth of science

[Joseph Tracy]

On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Antonin Scriabin wrote:

> "I'm saying our priorities need to be adjusted to our global crisis which is clearly human caused if science is worth anything."
> 
> How does this follow, exactly, and what do you mean by "worth"?
When that many scientist agree on something so big I assume it has value and significance, or 'worth'.  
>  Science can be plenty accurate and useful even if bureaucratic and political forces keep it from solving climate change, no?
No, I don't think  being accurate is enough. There needs to be a call for collective action and there needs to be individual action. Scientists as scientists should report data and careful interpretation, scientists as citizens should be empowered by their knowledge to bring commitment and conviction to their participation.  Sorry I didn't get the tone of the sun cycles comment. It isn't entirely obvious and I'm being too defensive. 

>  And my sun cycles comment was meant to be facetious.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:51 PM, <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
> You've been speaking not of "our" priorities, but of science's, or Science's, which I take to mean those who practice science, although I'm not sure about that either:  you speak sometimes like the entire endeavor is bankrupt, but then there's your children, etc.  In any case, what practical form do you envision this adjustment (of science; let's be consistent) taking and who's in charge of the adjusting?
> 
> I'm saying our priorities need to be 
> adjusted to our global crisis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wed, Jun 19, 2013 1:44 pm
> Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science
> 
> Thought alone will do nothing without action. I have said nothing opposing free 
> thought or humane scientific inquiry. I'm saying our priorities need to be 
> adjusted to our global crisis which is clearly human caused if science is worth 
> anything. And how would sun cycles produce carbolic acid and ocean 
> acidification?
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:38 AM, Christopher Simon wrote:
> 
> > There is always the hope that free thought will help us overcome the sort of 
> consumerism that enslaves a planet's natural resources and people, to the 
> ultimate ruin of all involved. At least, I doubt such things can be overcome 
> without it. And who knows, maybe the sun's cycles actually are to blame, and we 
> will eventually all burn up the way Nature intended. :)
> > From: Joseph Tracy
> > Sent: 6/19/2013 12:13 AM
> > To: P-list List
> > Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science
> > 
> > You  and Davis  have refused to answer what I actually say and put words in my 
> mouth then set fire to your little straw men.  Your cheap put-downs are boring. 
> > 
> > Maybe you could explain how free thinking will stop the solar heat trapped by 
> greenhouse gas, Dr. science. 
> > On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:41 PM, 
> MalignD at aol.com
>  wrote:
> > ,
> > > If so, then I would say you have only (mostly) yourself to blame.  Your 
> speaking of science as something monolithic, at times as if it had a will of its 
> own, isn't worth responding to and it's too bad people did.
> > Horseshit
> > > 
> > > Science is a method of discovery and a very very good one.
> > For some, The "science" they believe is religious dogma. What the original 
> article was pointing out was that there are serious unresolved differences and 
> questions within science. That the dogmatism shown by some is not justified by 
> the science.
> > >   The misapplication of science, if one believes it is being misapplied, is 
> a human issue.
> > This is like saying this particular human activity is a human activities.  
> Really bold.
> > > 
> > > When you speak about what science "should" be focused on -- who do you think 
> should make those choices?
> > Your children. The people of the Maldives, Bangladesh, the American ranchers 
> and farmers who can light their tap water on fire. The people of the Niger 
> Delta. 
> > >  And do you think science would be better served were scientists not free to 
> follow their own questions and issues?  
> > They rarely do. 
> > > 
> > > It's also a silly idea: rope in the cosmologists (sorry, no more cosmology) 
> and get them thinking about climatology.  Great idea.
> > Never said that. 
> > > 
> > > And the argument from government/business money is not without merit, but 
> very much overstated.  If anything will save us, it will be free thought, 
> unconstrained by the sorts of chicken little ranting you're putting out.
> >   You too seem to think we need some saving from ourselves but apparently 
> mentioning exactly why is chicken little if not pre-approved by you. 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joseph Tracy <
> brook7 at sover.net
> >
> > > To: P-list List <
> pynchon-l at waste.org
> >
> > > Sent: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 10:41 pm
> > > Subject: Re: The ugly truth of science
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 and Technology is , of course, valuable. We are not going to 
> > > abandon it. But we need to understand how Science-Technology has altered the 
> 
> > > Earth to make it yield more to satisfy immediate wants, and in the process 
> has 
> > > destroyed its beauty, what took Earth with no plan at all, billions of years 
> to 
> > > create, Science-Technology has destroyed in a few thousand years. But not to 
> 
> > > worry, Science-Technology has photographs and beauty too. The pink sky over 
> the 
> > > industrial motherboard is sublime!
> > > >>>  Extreme examples? Yes. But there they are. The Bomb. Man-made global 
> > > warning or whatever term you prefer.
> > > >>> Extreme examples made weak arguments. But consider how powerful they 
> are. A 
> > > Paradox is useful. Contradictions are often powerful. Common sense is often 
> more 
> > > powerful than logic. A Carpenter is often more important than an 
> > > Astro-Biologist.
> > > >>>  So how close to the bleeding edge do we need to go? Do we need to force 
> our 
> > > Scientists to pull a trigger and blow a child's head off? Would that bleed 
> into 
> > > his/her mind deep enough and disturb the comfort he/she takes in 
> mouse-clicking 
> > > a village to dust? Do we need to strap a Scientist to a Drone so he/she can 
> see 
> > > what he/she has done? Are mediated Deaths an orgasm in the chamber of the 
> white 
> > > visitation?
> > > >>>  The specifics are not  important. Technology and Science now destroy 
> much 
> > > of the beauty in the world that we don't yet  understand. It then sets its 
> own 
> > > beauty before us. Science-Technology is obviously misguided. The German 
> Sickness 
> > > is an epidemic in its fields.
> > > >>>    More dangerous is the fact that the Prince must always keep his 
> Military 
> > > Industrial Complex on the Bleeding Edge.
> > > >>>  Will Obama move drones into Syria? He has Patriots in Turkey.
> > > >>>  What are we poor subject to do? Is it OK to read like a Luddite?
> > > >>>  For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to 
> be 
> > > despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought 
> to 
> > > guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate 
> > > between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is 
> armed 
> > > should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed 
> man 
> > > should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one 
> disdain 
> > > and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well 
> together. 
> > > And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and 
> above 
> > > the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his 
> soldiers, 
> > > nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to have out of his 
> thoughts 
> > > this subject of war, and in peace he should addict himself more to its 
> exercise 
> > > than in war; this he can do in two ways, the one by action, the other by 
> study.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > "Extra credit is not /extra/. It’s just /credit/."
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>