Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.

[David Morris]

Good point.
But your beef is entirely political.  It has nothing to do with science
or philosophy, except beyond their application in politics.
In the US 3rd parties are almost lays losers.  You seem to be advocating a
allegiance of scientist as a political voice.  And Amen!
But that goal isn't about science or philosophy.  It's about pragmatics.

David Morris

On Thursday, May 30, 2013, Joseph Tracy wrote:

> No.  I respect and love and admire the creative and inventive
> possibilities released by scientific inquiry. But science and scientists do
> also get used for, and sometimes actively participate in some real bad
> shit. What I was meaning to say and I can see how easily I could be
> misunderstood was that we have many global problems that seem to require
> the immediate attention and investment of modern science: global warming,
> toxic materials in food air and water, rampant hunger and disease,
> deforestation, etc. but instead of applying the  powers of science to those
> issues we are spending money on hadron colliders and giant space
>  telescopes looking for the beginning of the universe.   The thing is there
> is really no need to rush these extremely expensive  and/or theoretical
> projects and every reason to rush to find better solutions for some of the
> major issues of immediate planetary concern.
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2013, at 5:46 PM, MalignD at aol.com wrote:
>
> > So Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, Newton, et al are to be held
> responsible for AIDS, ebola virus, Lyme disease, etc.  I admit, I hadn't
> considered that.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> > To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 11:45 pm
> > Subject: Re: Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.
> >
> > I think part of the point though is that there is growing evidence that
> science
> > is up against the limits of empiricism and has moved it's brightest
> physicists
> > toward spewing out untestable multidimensional string theory and spending
> > billions to collide beams in  search of Higgs's God particle. Is this
> not some
> > kind of pseudo scientific holy grail that is as much philosophy as
> physics? Will
> > a unified interpretation follow? How real is the thing they may or may
> not have
> > found and what exactly is the question being answered? Cuz it's getting
> mighty
> > hot around here, lots of people with malaria, aids, Lymes, Ebola Lots of
> > children starving, species disappearing,  fibers in the web of life
> breaking,
> > lot's of carbon and methane in the wind, toxic shit floating  down the
> > river,arsenic in the rice, radioactive towns, a great deal of it thanks
> to the
> > scientific revolution.
> > On May 29, 2013, at 6:31 PM,
> > MalignD at aol.com
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > Must disagree.  Shallow, strawman arguments that seem ignorant of the
> fact
> > that disagreement, challenge, sometimes piecemeal answers are part of
> science
> > and a large part of what makes it powerful.
> > >
> > > The questions he mentions are tough, and certainly there are no easy
> answers.
> > But to suggest we're going to philosophize our way to them is ... well:
>  good
> > luck.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Keith Davis <
> > kbob42 at gmail.com
> > >
> > > To: Joseph Tracy <
> > brook7 at sover.net
> > >
> > > Cc: P-list List <
> > pynchon-l at waste.org
> > >
> > > Sent: Wed, May 29, 2013 3:24 pm
> > > Subject: Re: Pynchon knows this, I say. Sorta always known.
> > >
> > > Amen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Joseph Tracy <
> > brook7 at sover.net
> > > wrote:
> > > This is an excellent, brief but substantial rebuttal to the tidy
> mathematical
> > models of Hawking and his presumptions about the meaning and explanatory
> power
> > of those models. Hawking sees himself as part of the clear-headed
> data-based
> > scientific revolution, when he is largely a conservative voice defending
> a
> > particular POV that has been around with variations since the
> Enlightenment. I
> > often feel that science has been politicized into the same name-calling
> and two
> > party divisions which dominate political thought. It's a matter of
> survival,
> > allies in a tough market place rather than truly independent thinking .
>  All of
> > this is discussed in Pynchon's essay( Is it O.K. to be a Luddite?)
> referring to
> > CP Snow's lecture- "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution" .
> > >
> > > Mostly it looks a lot like talking monkeys heaving shit at each other
> when
> > they/we reach the limits of their/our ability to  explain, know or
> understand.
> > To me part of the mindset I have imperfectly come to ( I still throw
> shit from
> > time to time), is a willingness to live with many unanswered questions.
> I feel
> > less hardened in this space, and I feel Pynchon and many artists occupy
> this
> > space and ask us to try it out.  It allows for the deepest kind of
> curiosity
> > without promising answers. I think it allows for taking philosophic ,
> spiritual,
> > or moral positions without being self -righteously blind to the
> inconsistencies
> > or problems in our model.
> > >
> > >
> > > On May 27,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130530/395d7bc6/attachment.html>