From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9511" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 1:18 PM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 11:51:17 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Welcome from Moderator Welcome. Forty people signed up for Science-as-Culture on the first day, so I feel optimisic that we will have an active and interesting forum. It is associated with the quarterly journal of the same name, so I hope people will feel inclined to subscribe and to contribute articles, essays, thoughts and queries. Contributions which are longer than is appropriate to an email forum are encouraged and suitable ones will be placed on a web site for reading, downloading, discussion. It is not a requirement that submissions to the hard copy journal should go to the web site, but we think it a new and interesting procedutre that some should be put there for constructive comment and criticism, which the author can take into account before revising the piece for publication. Longet contributions of any kind should be sent to me by email (no more than 24k per message; longer ones should be sent in parts) or as attachments (which will retain formating). If in doubt about submittirng something, write to me and we can discuss it. I can sometimes advise about problems in sending things. (For example, if you don't know about attachments, they are an option on the Message menu of Eudora.) I very much hope that the subscribers to the forum will take the trouble of writing a paragraph about themselves so that e can have some idea who we are. Let's go, Bob Young __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 11:51:25 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: _Science as Culture_ quarterly journal _Science as Culture_ 26 Freegrove Road London N7 9RQ, England tel.0171-609 0507 fax 0171-609 4837 email pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk _Science as Culture_ explores the role of expertise in shaping the values which contend for influence over the wider society. The journal analyses how our scientific culture defines what is rational, and what is natural. SaC provides a unique, accessible forum for debate, beyond the boundaries of academic disciplines and specializations. Contributors have included: Vincent Mosco, Donna Haraway, Richard Barbrook, Langdon Winner, Michael Chanan, Sarah Franklin, Michael Shortland.Steve Best & Douglas Kellner. Roger Smith, Mary Mellor, Scott L. Montgomery, Roger Silverstone, Bruce Berman, Ashis Nandy, Jack Kloppenburg, Jr, Les Levidow, Christopher Hamlin, Philip Garrahan & Paul Stewart, Maureen McNeil, Barbara Duden, Andrew Ross, Dennis Hayes, Kevin Robins & Frank Webster, David Pingitore, Jon Turney, Stephen Hill & Tim Turpin, Chunglin Kwa, Joel Kovel, David Hakken, Robert M. Young. The journal has published articles on mass-media representations of expertise, the political role of radio, human and agricultural biotechnologies, cultures of workplace automation, the metaphors central to scientific knowledge, artificial intelligence, images of the scientist in film and theatre, etc. _Science as Culture_ is published quarterly, and each issue contains 160 pages. Subscription may begin with any issue. (=A31.00 =3D $1.60) Subscripti= ons for United Kingdom: =A325 individual for four issues, =A342.50 for eight issues; =A350 institutional for four issues, =A385 for eight issues Overseas= : =A330 for four issues, =A350 for eight issues. All prices include postage. A= ir Mail =A310 extra. Orders to Science as Culture, Worldwide Subscription Service Ltd., Unit 4, Gibbs Reed Farm, Ticehurst, TN5 7HE, England. Tel. +01580 200657 Fax. +01580 200616. Payment should be in sterling or US dollars or by credit card (Visa/Barclaycard/MasterCard/Access). If payment is made in another currency, add the equivalent of =A35. to cover conversion charges. Subscriptions for the USA, Canada/Mexico: $30 individual USA, $45 Canada/Mexico; $65 institutional USA, $80 institutional Canada/Mexico. All prices include postage. Order from Guilford Publications, Inc., 72 Spring Street, New York, N. Y., USA. Tel. (212) 431 9800; (800) 365 7006; Fax. (212) 966 6708. Payment should be in US dollars or by credit card (American Express/MasterCard/Visa). Send for a free sample copy and for a free list of contents of all issues, specifying which are still available. Back issues are =A37.50 each for non-subscribers, =A34.00 for subscribers; =A310.= 75 for institutions. Available from Science as Culture, 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ. Tel. +0171 607 8306 Fax. +0171 609 4837 email pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk. Science as Culture 26 Freegrove Road London N7 9RQ tel.0171-609 0507 fax 0171-609 4837 All back issues are still available @=A37.50 /=A34 to subscribers as follows= : pilot issue Star Wars is already working (Vincent Mosco); Science, poetry and utopia:Humphrey Jennings' Pandaemonium (Kevin Robins); A new way of talking: community radio in 1980s Britain (Richard Barbrook); The scientist as guru: the explainers (Robert M. Young); Sex selection in India: girls as a bad investment (Les Levidow. SaC 1 'Play it again, Sony': the double life of home video technology (Ben Keen); Alan Turing on stage (Tony Solomonides); Nostalgic naturalism: Granta on science (Sally Shuttleworth); 'Choice' in childbirth (Grazyna Baran); Making chips with dust-free poison (Dennis Hayes); Socially useful production (Pam Linn). SaC 2 The home computer (Leslie Haddon); Science shops in France (John Stewart); Counting on the cards: a blackjack system (Holly Gamble); High-tech mining and the new model miner (Joe Bohen & Nick Wroughton); Science-fiction utopias (Barbara Goodwin); Electronic surveillance -- or security perverted (Bertrand Giraux). SaC 3 Athens without slaves... or slaves without Athens? (Kevin Robins & =46rank Webster); Piano studies (Michael Chanan); Life Story: the gene as fetish object on TV (Sarah Franklin); Non-Western science, past and present (Les Levidow); Romancing the future (Peter Hulme). SaC 4 Wonder stories in Alienland (Michael Shortland); Watching television (Steve Best & Douglas Kellner); The trials of forensic science (Roger Smith); The female in scientific biography (Sylvana Tomaselli); Looking backward at the socialist utopian (Patrick Parrinder); Chernobyl: nobody's to blame? (Les Levidow). SaC 5 Robocop and 1980s sci-fi films (Fred Glass); The embracing vision of Joseph Needham (Joel Kovel); Charles Darwin: man and metaphor (Robert M. Young); TechnoCity: symbolic utopia and status panic (Vincenzo Ruggiero). SaC 6 Nuclear emergency: an 'unusual event (Patricia Kullberg); Turning green: whose ecology? (Mary Mellor); The cult of jargon (Scott L. Montgomery); The operating theatre as degradation ritual (Larry O'Hara); Television: text or discourse? (Roger Silverstone); Black Athena: two views (John Gabriel and George W. Stocking, Jr). SaC 7 The computer metaphor: bureaucratizing the mind (Bruce Berman); AIDS culture (John Fauvel); Science as a reason of state (Ashis Nandy); The telephone as romance in Hollywood film (George Custen). SaC 8: Post-Fordism Post-fordism and technological determinism (Eloina Pelaez & John Holloway); Management-by-stress in the US auto industry (Mike Parker & Jane Slaughter); Foreclosing the future (Les Levidow); Mistranslations: Lipietz in London and Paris (Richard Barbrook); Scientism in the history of management theory (Robert M. Young); Rationalism, irrationalism and Taylorism (Bill Schwarz). SaC 9 Monstrous nature or technology? (Ian Barns); The double helix as icon (Greg Myers); Woman, nature and the international division of labour (Maria Mies interviewed by Ariel Salleh); Repressive tolerance in science policy (Philip Bereano); Nuclear accidents by design (Les Levidow); Darwinism and the division of labour (Robert M. Young). SaC 10 Science as kitsch: the dinosaur and other icons (Scott L. Montgomery); India's human guinea pigs (Vandana & Mira Shiva); 'Mathophobia': Pythagoras and roller-skating (Richard Winter); Women who make the chips (Les Levidow). SaC 11 Cervical screening, medical signs and metaphors (Tina Posner); Chaos and entropy: postmodern science and social theory (Steven Best); Technological cultures of weapons design (Perry Morrison & Stephen Little); Reclaiming experience (Richard Gunn). SaC 12: Deadly science as culture Exterminating angels: morality, violence and technology in the Gulf War (Kevin Robins & Asu Aksoy); Some are mathematicians (Mike Siddoway); Codes and combat in biomedical discourse (Scott L. Montgomery); The culture of Star Wars (Edward Reiss); Postmodern politics in Los Angeles (Don Parson); The anti-nuclear campaign on the Ganges (Dhirendra Sharma). SaC 13: Genes 'n' Greens Alternative agriculture and the new biotechnologies (Jack Kloppenburg, Jr); Green meanings: what might sustainable agriculture sustain? (Christopher Hamlin); Cleaning up on the farm (Les Levidow); The social side of sustainability (Patricia Allen & Carolyn Sachs); Biodiversity and food security (Alistair Smith); India's Green Revolution in crisis (Praful Bidwai); Surviving development (Sarah =46ranklin). SaC 14 The Bird and the Robot at Walt Disney World (Stephen Fjellman); =46IAT's cultural revolution (Sheren Hobson); Otherworldly conversations; terran topics; local terms (Donna Haraway); The virtual unconscious in post-photography (Kevin Robins); Genes and racial hygiene (Deborah Steinberg). SaC 15 Science, ideology and Donna Haraway (Robert M. Young); Science in China and the West (Matthew Gutmann); British radio in the 1980s (Richard Barbrook); The constructed female in women's science fiction (Debbie Shaw). SaC 16 Working for Nissan (Philip Garrahan & Paul Stewart); Why people die (Lindsay Prior & Mick Bloor); Darwin's metaphor and the philosophy of science (Robert M. Young); Roger Penrose and the critique of artificial intelligence (Bruce J. Berman); Social constructivism: opening the black box and finding it empty (Langdon Winner); Agricultural biotechnology: whose efficiency? (Les Levidow). SaC 17: Procreation Stories New reproductive technologies: dreams and broken promises (Maureen McNeil); The gender character of in vitro fertilization (Marta Kirejczyk); Postmodern procreation: representing reproductive practice (Sarah Franklin); Visualizing 'life' (Barbara Duden); The public foetus and the family car (Janelle Sue Taylor). SaC 18 The world according toNational Geographic (Scott L. Montgomery); Japan: panacea or threat? (Ron Mitchinson); Technology assessment in German's biotechnology debate (Bernhard Gill); Powders, pills, bodies and things (Tony Kirman); The new smartness (Andrew Ross); The emperor's new genes (Pat Spallone). SaC 19 Family medicine in American culture (David Pingitore); Evolution, ethics and the search for certainty (Martha McCaughey); Thinking about the human genome project (Jon Turney) Gravity's Rainbow and the Newton/Goethe colour controversy (Megan Stern) SaC 20 Academic research cultures in collision (Stephen Hill & Tim Turpin); Modelling technologies of control (Chunglin Kwa); Desmond and Moore'sDarwin:: a critique (Robert M. Young); De-reifying risk (Les Levidow). SaC 21 Demolition derby as destruction ritual (Stephen C. Zehr); Electronic curb cuts and disability (David Hakken); Te(k)nowledge & the student/subject (James McDonald); The zoo: theatre of the animals (Scott L. Montgomery). SaC 22: Science on Display Making nature 'real' again (Steven Allison); Supermarket science? (Sharon Macdonald); Realism in representing race (Tracy Teslow); Nations on display at Expo '92 (Penelope Harvey). SaC 23 Body wars, body victories: AIDS and homosexuality in immunological discourse (Catherine Waldby); Animal experiments: scientific uncertainty and public unease (Mike Michael & Lynda Birke); Reading the human genome narrative (Josie van Dijck); What scientists need to learn (Robert M. Young); UK Consensus Conference on plant biotechnology (Ian Barns). SaC 24 Haitians, racism and AIDS (Laurent Dubois); The social construction of farm pollution (Philip Lowe and Neil Ward). Brains from space (Jeffrey Sconce); Laughing gas: democracy without feeling (Santiago Colas); Vannevar Bush: an engineer builds a book (Larry Owens). Back issues are =A37.50 each for non-subscribers, =A34.00 for subscribers; =A310.75 for institutions. Available from Science as Culture, 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ. Tel. +0171 607 8306 Fax. +0171 609 4837 The journal is published quarterly, and each issue contains 160 pages. Subscription may begin with any issue. Subscriptions for United Kingdom: =A325 individual for four issues, =A342.50 for eight issues; =A350 instituti= onal for four issues, =A385 for eight issues Overseas: =A330 for four issues, =A3= 50 for eight issues. All prices include postage. Air Mail =A310 extra. Orders t= o Science as Culture, Worldwide Subscription Service Ltd., Unit 4, Gibbs Reed =46arm, Ticehurst, TN5 7HE, England. Tel. +01580 200657 Fax. +01580 200616. Payment should be in sterling or US dollars or by credit card (Visa/Barclaycard/MasterCard/Access). If payment is made in another currency, add the equivalent of =A35. to cover conversion charges. Subscriptions for the USA, Canada/Mexico: $30 individual USA, $45 Canada/Mexico; $65 institutional USA, $80 institutional Canada/Mexico. All prices include postage. Order from Guilford Publications, Inc., 72 Spring Street, New York, N. Y., USA. Tel. (212) 431 9800; (800) 365 7006; Fax. (212) 966 6708. Payment should be in US dollars or by credit card (American Express/MasterCard/Visa). A full catalogue of Process Press publications is available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html It can also be sent via air mail if you have trouble with the web site. Write to pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 09:00:01 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Douglas Kellner Subject: Re: Welcome from Moderator In-Reply-To: <199511051155.FAA03615@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Nov 5, 95 11:51:17 am I'll open up Bob Young's request to begin introductions on the SaC list: I'm a Prof of philosophy at the Univ of Texas, Austin, and I've been on the SaC editorial board for some time. I just published this year a book on MEDIA CULTURE with Routledge and am concluding a book with Steven Best, THE POSTMODERN ADVENTURE that follows up our earlier book POSTMODERN THEORY. I'm currently studying the impact of media and computer technology on all aspects of society and am very interested in the use of media and computers to promote progressive agendas, hence my interest in this list. I like Bob's suggestion that prospective articles to SaC be posted on list, or a Website, and that people comment, generate discussions, etc. This is a wonderful new opportunity for intellectual exchange so let's make use of it! Douglas Kellner kellner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 16:59:51 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Welcome from Moderator >I'll open up Bob Young's request to begin introductions on the SaC list: > >I'm a Prof of philosophy at the Univ of Texas, Austin, and I've been on the SaC >editorial board for some time. I just published this year a book on MEDIA >CULTURE with Routledge and am concluding a book with Steven Best, THE > POSTMODERN ADVENTURE that follows up our earlier book POSTMODERN THEORY. >I'm currently studying the impact of media and computer technology on all >aspects of society and am very interested in the use of media and computers >to promote progressive agendas, hence my interest in this list. >I like Bob's suggestion that prospective articles to SaC be posted on list, >or a Website, and that people comment, generate discussions, etc. This is >a wonderful new opportunity for intellectual exchange so let's make use of >it! >Douglas Kellner >kellner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Doug, Tell us a bit about your line and about your experience in the media, esp tv, please. Bob __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 14:19:45 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Douglas Kellner Subject: Re: Welcome from Moderator In-Reply-To: <199511051705.LAA09607@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Nov 5, 95 04:59:51 pm Bob Young just asked me to comment on my TV work: Part of my approach to technology is to attempt to devise ways that technology can be used positively to promote social change. Accordingly, for over 18 years I've co-produced a public access television program called ALTERNATIVE VIEWS which is produced here in Austin and shown all over the US. I've written about this project in my book TELEVISION AND THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY and several articles, including one SaC project. The project was to produce a venue for voices excluded from mainstream media, ranging from the relatively famous (Ramsey Clark, CIA critic John Stockwell) to local labor organizers, gay activists and other progressives usually excluded from mainstream media. We also showed leftist documentaries and other material sent to us from around the world (i.e. raw footage of guerilla war in El Salvador, raw footage of US Nazis assassinating labor organizers in North Carolina. More recently, I have become interested in computer activism, in how computers can be used for social change and would be interested in people's postings on this issue. Douglas Kellner kellner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 03:19:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Giacobbe Subject: Introduction Dear SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE List members, I am John A. Giacobbe, a physical anthropologist and archaeologist by vocation, and one of the aspects of human culture I study is the role of science and technology as an adaptive strategy. I am currently working for a commercial resource management firm in New Mexico, USA (Western Archaeological Services, Inc.). My research may take a different perspective to the study of science as culture, in that I approach the concept from a diachronic perspective, that is, how science and technology have changed the form and function of culture, as an adaptive strategy, over time. I hope to be able to learn from others in different fields on this list, and contribute in some small way my possibly divergent perspectives. Up until this point I was not familiar with the SaC journal, or Website, but I agree that such a format is beneficial, if not vital, for the full intellectual exchange any scientific endeavor must have. I look forward to future discussions. John A. Giacobbe catalinus@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:46:03 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Television as a dense medium & a technology I am responding to Doug Kellner's posting about television. He has concentrated on the problem of access. I am equally interested in tv and other technologuies as media which are not transparent. I worked for a number of years making documentaries about science, technology & medicine, and in the end felt defeated by the labour process and the medium itself. I was so shattered that I went into analysis and was so helped by psychoanalysis that I became a psychotherapist! It took me a long time to feel able to think and write about that happened. I have done three recent essays, all of which can be downloadd from my web site: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html 'What Scientists Have to Learn' 'What I learned at Summer Camp: Experiences in Television' 'A Place for Critique in the Mass Media' I would be glad to have comments about the issues raised in these essays. In particular, I argue that television is a dense (not transparent) medium and that the way it reproduces existing relationships of work and of knowledge and the way it pre-structures what can be said and how, makes it very hard , indeed, to say things which do not go with the grain of how science and technology are treated in the broader culture. Those ways are built into television itself. I also argue that it's strange that we do not empower ourselves more to make our own programs without passing through the filters of the centralised programming bodies (something that can be done more easily in the US than Britain, because we don't have local tv in Britain. We do have casettes, though!). My argument is a version of the peosition that technologies embody social relations. That doesn't mean - s Doug Kellner's programs show - that you can't use them for counter-hegemonic purposes, but I am here to tell you that it's damned hard to do from inside the belly of the beast. Bob Young __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:01:56 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Science-as-culture can do a ton We're over a hundred now. If you want to know who, email to: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu Body of message: review sci-cult Please, could each of us say something about herself/himself and what is hoped from the list. Bob Young robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ, England 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:44:31 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: email forums of potential interest I am posting a list of forumsof potential interest to sci-cult subscribers. Will others please do the same. I am particularly interested in ones on cultural studies. please always supply address to write to in order to subscribe and the message for subscribing. Thanks, Bob Young EMAIL FORUMS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST TO SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE SUBBSCRIBERS Science and Technology Studies To: listproc@kasey.umkc.edu Body of message:subscribe sci-tech-studies YOUR NAME **************** History of Medicine To:mailserv@beach.utmb.edu Body of message: subscribe Cadeuceus-L **************** Comparative Science & Literature To: majordomo@coombs.anu.edu Body of message: subscribe Comparative-Sci-L Youremailaddress **************** History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science To: listserv@Qucdn.queensu.ca Body of message: subscribe HPSST-L forstname lastname **************** History of Science (mostly UK) To: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk Body of message: join mersenne your name ************** Philosophy of the Social/Human Sciences To:listserv@nosferatu.cas.usf.edu Body of message: subscribe COCTA-L Yourname ************** To discover the forums served by the listserve software in a given area of interest, send a message to: listserv@umdd.bitnet Body of message: lists global Then add the subject, e.g., politics, history, anorexia or whatever. Send a new message for each topic. e.g., lists global sex *************** The Clark/Morville CLearinghouse list of philosophy lists, and links to all the other lists of lists, philosophy sites and such like are at Liverpool University: http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/philos.html There are list for more philosophers than you could shake a stick at. *************** The "Philosopher's Internet Resource Kit," a fairly comprehensive listing of, well, what it says it lists: ftp://raz.mc.duke.edu/pub/pirk ************** SOCRATES SOCRATES is an email forum for persons interested in the theoretical and philosophical foundations of psychology. SOCRATES deals with such topics as categorization, consciousness, evolution, hermeneutics, language, mental representation, metapsychology, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science. HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: Send an email message to: LISTSERVER@PMC.PSYCH.NWU.EDU. In the body of your message say: SUBSCRIBE SOCRATES Your_First_Name Your_Last_Name. **************** Hot List for Critical Approach to Cultural Studies http://polestar.facl.mcgill.ca/burnett/HotList.html **************** The Spoon Collective has forums on a number of philosophers & topics: avant-garde bataille baudrillard blanchot cybermind fiction-of-philosophy deleuze-guattari feyerabend film-theory foucault frankfurt-school french-feminism image habermas heidegger bakhtin-dialogism technology lyotard marxism nietzsche postcolonial ontology While most of the listnames are straightforward, some are not. Cybermind is concerned with the psychology and philosophy of cyberspace. Fiction-of-philosophy is a space for both theoretical and creative texts. Image is a list in which avant-garde art meets binary .wav and .gif files. Bakhtin-dialogism deals with Bakhtin's works as well as scholarship based on his ideas. To subscribe to a Spoons list such as bakhtin-dialogism, send an email message:> To: majordomo@jefferson.village.virginia.edu Body of message: subscribe bakhtin-dialogism yourusername@your.host.site or in simpler terms: subscribe listname your internet address To send a message to the list itself (do not send subscribe messages to the list address), send your message to: bakhtin-dialogism@jefferson.village.virginia.edu I also have a list of forums related to psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, psychiatry, radical psychology, mental health and related matters. Write to me privately. Robert M. Young robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 15:45:07 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Death of Deluze and of Gellner Not a jolly day. Deluze died Saturday - now Gellner Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:06:51 GMT Reply-To: srlclark@liverpool.ac.uk Originator: philos-l@liverpool.ac.uk Sender: philos-l-request@liverpool.ac.uk Precedence: bulk From: Stephen Clark To: Members of the list Subject: Ernest Gellner is dead X-Comment: Philosophy in Europe MIME-Version: 1.0 > From: David Miller > > > I have just received this message from John Watkins. > > Sad news. Gaye rang just now to say that Ernest Gellner > died last night. It seems to have been very sudden; he had > seemed okay shortly before. Presumably a heart attack. > > __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:08:27 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Net sites, etc. on literature & science Here's a message I saved in the summer which is full of information about links between science and literature and related mattters. Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 19:36:30 -0400 Reply-To: "Society for Literature and Science - philos., tech., cyber discussion" Sender: "Society for Literature and Science - philos., tech., cyber discussion" From: Andrew Russ Subject: Science and Literature sites on the web summary. (second try) To: Multiple recipients of list LITSCI-L A couple months ago i solicited information on web sites pertaining to literature and science. I got a number of replies, which i checked out, and found a couple interesting sites, some boring ones, and some that were either interesting or boring but off the topic i had in mind. There was also an occasional site of interest to some in SLS, but not me (e.g. literature and medicine). I've collected these responses below, listing only the URLs and some comments either by me or by the person who sent the message originally. Links to the most interesting (to me) of these sites are on my own home page, which is at: http://www.phys.psu.edu/~endwar More on my site (it's mostly links and a few lists of references and a couple book reviews) is towards the end of this message. So here are the various sites i've found, in no significant order: http://mchip00.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/medhum.html This looks like it is useful if you're interested in literuature and medicine, which is not my specialty. http://coombs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/ASAP/WWWVL-HSTM.html This is a pretty major site in Australia. Definitely worth looking at as it's general in scope. http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/chass/mds/psts.html This is the NC State site, which has about 100 links, about 80-90% of which are to science sites (e.g. American Physical Society, National Science Foundation, US Department of Education), but a few useful links. This URL has changed twice since it was sent to me! This one should work. Deanna Dunn wrote: >A few months ago an interesting (free) newletter previewed a couple of >samples on the SLS. It is called INTERNET-ON-A-DISK. You can join by >contacting samizdat@tiac.net and simply asking to be added to the list. It >focuses mostly on opening up access to the internet for small schools and >has more of a literature flavor. In the process, however, it gives a good >synopses of new & interesting addresses, some of which have electronic >books on line. And here's their URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/samizdat Basically a good source for books on line, more than anything. Not much on Science and Literature, or science studies, or that kind of thing. But good if you're looking for Last of the Mohicans or Moby Dick in a computer file, this is the place for you. From: Elliot McGucken >Hello, a great WWW site for both science and literature is the Beaconway >Press Home Page @, "http://sunsite.unc.edu/owl/home.html" >Also, a great monthly e-journal for cool literature is The Jolly Roger. >You can subscribe to it by sending the message, "subscribe drakeraft your >name," to listserv@unc.edu. Have fun! Mr. McGucken runs the Beaconway Press, at least in part. This site is basically for promoting a literary journal, so it is a bit off-topic. >I just found a new environmental web site with a large glossary and free >conects to the CFR's. Dial http://www.gate.net/solutions. This site collects information on environmental regulations, primarily. There's a search engine. This is basically pure science, as opposed to pure literature as above. From: "Mark A. Turian" >And, slightly off topic, have you checked out the Principia Cybernetica >pages? I think they would be a great model for organizing a new web site. >Let me hop over to my PPP accound and get you some URL's. >Here is Principia Cybernetica's URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Default.html Apparently this was at one time changed to http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/, but the next to last time i tried it, i didn't connect. The last time i tried it, the only option i had was downloading the homepage to my own directory, which rendered the links useless (they have relative filenames). I did get over there once before and it is a very informative site when it works as designed. This page would be of interest to those interested in cyperpunk of future related things. The Principia Cybernetica is a philosophy of/for the future (in their own description) You might try http://134.185.35.101/INTRO.html This seems to work for the Principia Cybernetica, but is slow. >For an individual's home page, check out: >http://groucho.gsfc.nasa.gov/joslyn/joslyn.html This person is on the Principia Cybernetica board (or something), and i got the updated URL from this site, but it still didn't work. http://www.webscope.com/project_mind/project_mind.html This site is dedicated towards the establishment of a higher creativity think-tank, rooted in the ideas of one T. Kun. Apparently a sort of new-age Kabbalistic philosophy or something. >Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:14:45 PDT >From: Bart Simon Subject: Re: SSSS list >"sci-tech-studies" >Sorry to add to the confusion, but the 4S (society for the social study of >science) list sci-tech-studies is now located in Kansas. >To subscribe send a message to listserv@kasey.umkc.edu and in the body of >the message type >subscribe sci-tech-studies firstname lastname >This list moved from UCSD in January >if you have any other questions about this list feel free to contact me. The tentative SLS conference program posted a few weeks ago by Jay A. Labinger is now available on the World-Wide Web under the following URL: http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/projects/sls/program.html >It's currently not listed from any of the other pages on our web server, >so you will need to type in, or copy-and-paste this URL, into your Web >browser's "Location:", "Open Location" or "Open URL" window. Needless to say, this is a relevant site for all SLS members. andrew russ In addition, my own web page is up at http://www.phys.psu.edu/~endwar The front page has some physics stuff at the top, then science studies in the middle, some art/literature/music towards the bottom, and leftover stuff at the very bottom. Actual links to other sites are generally in separate files, and the ones of most interest here would probably be under sociology of science (http://www.phys.psu.edu/~endwar/socsci.html). There's also some links in nonlinear science and information theory, and so on. Some of these links: http://snorri.chem.washington.edu/ysnarchive/index.html -- this is the current site for the Young Scientists Network. There are some case studies of nontraditional job paths taken by PhDs forced out of their field by the current tight job market. http://www.eff.org/ -- The Electronic Frontier Foundation -- devoted to privacy and civil rights issues in cyberspace. http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html -- access to archives of the Red Rock Eater mailing list operated by Philip Agre. It covers some of the same area as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/readlist.html -- a reading list on physics education maintained at the University of Maryland. http://phenom.physics.wisc.edu/~shalizi/hyper-weird -- Weird science? An attempt to replicate High Weirdness by Mail onthe web, but comes close to being a pretty useful selective index of topics. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~edis/skeptic_biblio.html -- a Skeptical guide to weird science on the web. http://www.liv.ac.uk/!larvar/intersci.html -- science and philosophy at Liverpool university. http://www.umkc.edu/ac/sci-stud/ -- science studies at University of Missouri at Kansas City http://www.ualberta.ca/~slis/guides/scitech/kmg.htm -- University of Alberta. One of these last two, i think the U of Alberta, had information as well as links. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:54:31 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: File: Our subscribers: 147 people, 24 countries OUR SUBSCRIBERS * Australia: andrea@ASAP.UNIMELB.EDU.AU Andrea Barnes RIG@FS3.BALLARAT.EDU.AU Rob Greig dgoldman@LAUREL.OCS.MQ.EDU.AU David Goldman kcregan@SILAS.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU Kate Cregan pgmcgarr@SILAS.CC.MONASH.EDU.AU PG Mcgarrity robm@TIGER.VUT.EDU.AU Rob McCormack Stewart_Russell@UOW.EDU.AU Stewart Russell * Belgium: Koen.Hendrickx@PING.BE Koen Hendrickx * Canada: SFRIGON@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA Jean-Sylvain Gauthier cgordon@CCS.CARLETON.CA Charles Gordon goughn@EDUC.QUEENSU.CA Noel Gough ctchir@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Connie Tchir sungook@EPAS.UTORONTO.CA Sungook Hong abramsob@ERE.UMONTREAL.CA Bram Abramson susan@FREENET.NPIEC.ON.CA Susan Wheeler rdeltche@GPU.SRV.UALBERTA.CA Roumiana Deltcheva frohmann@JULIAN.UWO.CA Bernd Frohmann ES051352@ORION.YORKU.CA Karl-Michael Nigge cmassey@SDRI.UBC.CA Christine Massey mgurst@SPARC.UCCB.NS.CA Mike Gurstein apattana@TIKVA.CHEM.UTORONTO.CA Arjendu Pattanayak pmurray@UWINDSOR.CA Pat Murray lerner@WATSERV1.UWATERLOO.CA Sally Lerner * Finland: MARKO@FINUJO Marko K. Toivanen kimmonen@UTU.FI Kari Immonen * France: bjurdant@ISIS.U-STRASBG.FR Baudouin Jurdant * Germany: fu03c2dj@ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE Sunkyo Kwon ule@ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE Ulrich Brinkmann * Great Britain: alastair.dickson@ALMAC.CO.UK Alastair Dickson PHLGJNG@ARTS-01.NOVELL.LEEDS.AC.UK Graeme Gooday prosen@BRIDGE.ANGLIA.AC.UK Paul Rosen ben@COCHRANE.EPI.BRIS.AC.UK Ben Toth keith@COGSCI.ED.AC.UK Keith Stenning T.Schmidt@EXETER.AC.UK Thomas Schmidt mspaul@FORD.ANGLIA.AC.UK Martin Spaul SUEKER@GEO2.POPTEL.ORG.UK Susan Kerrison soa01ds@GOLD.AC.UK Don Slater bja1000@HERMES.CAM.AC.UK Bridie Andrews owen@IOE.AC.UK Charlie Owen A.Soyland@LANCASTER.AC.UK John Soyland robert@RMY1.DEMON.CO.UK Robert Maxwell Young B.Marsden@UKC.AC.UK Ben Marsden dc11@UKC.AC.UK David Cowie UHYL005@VMS.RHBNC.AC.UK Adrian Machiraju * Greece: mariosn@LOGOS.HOL.GR Marios Neophytou * Iceland: thv@RAUNVIS.HI.IS Thorsteinn Vilhjalmsson * Ireland: STED8012@BUREAU.UCC.IE Seamus O Tuama * Israel: nordell@CCSG.TAU.AC.IL David Nordell * Italy: tonelli@DADA.IT Sergio Tonelli quadrant@IOL.IT Curci Danilo * Japan: andyman@SAKURA.CC.TSUKUBA.AC.JP Andy Barfield * Korea: sjlee@CIMCENTER.SNU.AC.KR SeongJik Lee * Netherlands: martijn.de.waal@LET.UVA.NL Martijn de Waal * Norway: henrik.dvergsdal@HIBO.NO Henrik Dvergsdal kallerud@OSLONETT.NO Egil Kallerud * Saudi-Arabia: GRAD016@SAKSU00 Ahmed Al-Ahmry * Singapore: ellibst@LEONIS.NUS.SG Ismail Talib edmonds@SINGNET.COM.SG D. Edmonds * Sweden: Kalle.Grandin@IDEHIST.UU.SE Karl Grandin andreas.carter@PI.SE Andreas Carter mats@TEKHIST.KTH.SE Mats Fridlund * Switzerland: agnes@KRISTALL.ERDW.ETHZ.CH Agnes Miklos Illes * Taiwan: palma@PHIL.CCU.EDU.TW Ap Palma * Thailand: fribk@MAHIDOL.AC.TH Ilyas Baker * USA: eric.dean@AASC.COM Eric Dean Catalinus@AOL.COM John Giacobbe Dadboy4@AOL.COM Earl Jackson JEFKMD@AOL.COM Jeffrey Kramer JINDEJINAK@AOL.COM James Koller Ljay5031@AOL.COM Lynda Bruce JMD@ASU.EDU Jon Drnjevic smuppid@BGNET.BGSU.EDU Sundeep Muppidi DONOFRIO.AMELIO_A@BROOKLYN.VA.GOV Amelio D'Onofrio kiernan@CAIS.COM Vincent Kiernan lennymo@CASBAH.ACNS.NWU.EDU Lenny Moss Mathew.B.Forstater@CC.GETTYSBURG.EDU Mathew Forstater kmcmillan@CCMAIL.EDC.ORG Katie McMillan JHOFMANN@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Jim Hofmann kellner@CCWF.CC.UTEXAS.EDU Douglas Kellner kkato@CHGDSS10.CHGD.MED.UMICH.EDU Kazuo Kato 71203.3312@COMPUSERVE.COM Paul Hamburg hacker1@CORAL.LLNL.GOV Bart Hacker DOVERBYE@DELPHI.COM Dennis Overbye ione@DEMOG.BERKELEY.EDU Amy Ione mstrong@DEPT.ENGLISH.UPENN.EDU Michael Strong tmonahan@DEWEY.CSUN.EDU Torin Monahan cathorn@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU Chris Thorn dalec@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Dale Carrico JEHRMANT@GEMS.VCU.EDU John Ehrmantraut morrison@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU James Morrison pflewis@GROVE.UFL.EDU Patricia Lewis burch@HAWAII.EDU Mark Burch klemmer@HAWAII.EDU Fred Klemmer bssimon@HELIX.UCSD.EDU Bart Simon rhart@HUSC.HARVARD.EDU Roger Hart cavers@IDS2.IDSONLINE.COM Jane Cave lletton@IGLOU.COM Lucy Letton jag5287@IS2.NYU.EDU Judith Geiger jjhoag@IX.NETCOM.COM J. Hoagland watts@KHAN.TAM.CORNELL.EDU Duncan Watts gad@KSU.KSU.EDU Greg Dyer acostvm@MAIL.AUBURN.EDU Veronica Acosta-Deprez jlpoxon@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU Judith Poxon MICHAEL@MB1.MISC.PDX.EDU Michael Flower blustein@MCS.COM Bonnie Bluatein eunja@MOE.COE.UGA.EDU Eunja Kim drummond@MSMARY.EDU John Drummond twaters@MSN.FULLFEED.COM Tom Waters Satoru_Aonuma@MTS.CC.WAYNE.EDU Satoru Aonuma rcz@NAS.ORG Rita Zurcher ANDREW.J.BUTRICA@NASAMAIL.SPRINT.COM Andrew Butrica smithm@NICCO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU Marc Smith pwoody@PIPELINE.COM Paul Woodworth fboyd@POBOX.COM Florian Boyd stricker@SABLE.ADELPHI.EDU George Stricker bnelson@SALUS.MED.UVM.EDU Brenda Nelson mthompso@SAS.UPENN.EDU Michael Thompson weissert@SJUPHIL.SJU.EDU Thomas Weissert DRZ@SJUVM Bob Zenhausern HAMLETT@SOCIAL.CHASS.NCSU.EDU Patrick Hamlett pbrown@SPICER.COM Peter Brown fharvey@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Francis Harvey llanta@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Jan Zientek olson@U.WASHINGTON.EDU Jeffrey Olson VISLYONS@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sherrie Lyons V391W9RN@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Gina Camodeca rjune@UCLINK2.BERKELEY.EDU Raymond June MSAJ@UCS.INDIANA.EDU Maia Saj Schmidt 6500benb@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU Benjamin Bratton. jstewart@UHAVAX.HARTFORD.EDU John Stewart ghazi@UIDAHO.EDU S.M. Ghazanfar lshartsi@UMABNET.AB.UMD.EDU Leon Suskin johnson@UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU Bob Johnson Umass/Boston djford@UMICH.EDU Danielle Ford sbolduc@UNLINFO.UNL.EDU Steven Bolduc joao@UTEP.EDU Joao Ferreira-Pinto gallaher@UXA.ECN.BGU.EDU Sheryl Gallaher WHITEHRE@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU Rob Whitehead RBFST1@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU Robert Faux Lana.A.Spence@WILLIAMS.EDU Lana Spence vikram@WORLD.STD.COM Vikram Sethi * Country could not be determined for: john@DOGCENSUS.WIN-UK.NET John Watt sufi@GATE.NET Sue Fishalow carosue@IGUANA.RURALNET.NET Susan Crites cherie@MIND.NET Cherie Rawlins linari@REDCOM.SATLINK.NET Alejandro Iuliani vrc@TIAC.NET Maynard S. Clark * * Country Subscribers * ------- ----------- * Australia 7 * Belgium 1 * Canada 15 * Finland 2 * France 1 * Germany 2 * Great Britain 16 * Greece 1 * Iceland 1 * Ireland 1 * Israel 1 * Italy 2 * Japan 1 * Korea 1 * Netherlands 1 * Norway 2 * Saudi-Arabia 1 * Singapore 2 * Sweden 3 * Switzerland 1 * Taiwan 1 * Thailand 1 * USA 77 * ??? 6 * * Total number of users subscribed to the list: 147 * Total number of countries represented: 24 * Total number of local node users on the list: 1 * ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 13:56:04 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Cherie Rawlins Subject: introduction I am Cherie Rawlins. I am a child and family psychotherapist in rural Southern Oregon, USA. My special interest is in providing services to the youngest children - birth through three to five years and their parents. My roots are in psychoanalytic - psychodynamic - object relations theories of human development. I have an unending curiosity about human behavior, brain function including trance states, social psychology, culture and ethnicity, mind-body-spirit connections, "reality" and alternative views on such... I also am curious about the natural world, the heavens, how things work and on and on. I often think I have little to contribute and feel embarrassed about that, so when I am asked to introduce myself, I become anxious. I think I am a learner and a teacher... and I suppose a lurker in internet terms... However, I am endlessly interested in what others are doing and what others have to say. I am grateful for this forum and hope for the best for us all. Best Regards, Cherie `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Cherie Rawlins, MSW Post Office Box 939 email: cherie@mind.net Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA (514) 482-6545 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:27:46 GMT+1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Greig Subject: Introduction Hi! I am Rob Greig and I am Head of Food Technology and Biotechnology at the University of Ballarat in Australia. I am a Food Scientist according to my initial training but, after 20 rather disappointing years as a scientist I changed "camps" and retrained in the Sociology of Science and Technology. My major research interests (apart form science which pays the mortgage) are in the influence of cultural and social conditions on the development of technological systems (with a special interest in the food industry) and the local nature of knowledge production. The list looked interesting and I am looking forward to discussions commencing. Regards Robert Greig School of Science University of Ballarat Ballarat, VIC 3353,Australia E-mail: rig@fs3.ballarat.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:53:16 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Parzival Subject: Introduction Hello all-- My name is Greg Dyer, and I am a temporary instructor, teaching "Written Communication for Engineers" and Expository Writing I and II, at Kansas State University. I finished my MA here in May, and was fortunate enough to get a temporary position...hoping to enter a Ph.D program in the fall of '96. My MA is in creative writing and literature, and I've been very interested in hypertext for some time. Since starting to teach technical writing, my interest in science has been kind of reborn. I have no particular area of concern to put forth at this time, but I'm hoping to pick everyone's brain and maybe offer my own two cents when appropriate. I'm looking forward to further discussion. Greg +------ Greg Dyer ** gad@ksu.ksu.edu ** http://www.ksu.edu/~gad ------+ | | | "This is the time of tension between dying and birth | | The place of solitude where three dreams cross | | Between blue rocks" | | | +-------------------- T.S. Eliot ** "Ash-Wednesday ---------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:20:04 -0600 Reply-To: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511070005.SAA27097@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> My name is Sheryl Gallaher. I am the director of the Office of Economic Education at Governors State University in Illinois. Our office trains teachers to teach economics to students in grades K-12; we serve especially the south suburbs of Chicago. I look forward to participating in the discussion of issues which are impacted by people's reaction to scarcity and their analyses of costs and benefits. In the long run, decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources th regarding the allocation of scarce resources have determined many of the great movements in history. Today's concerns about health care, the environment, alcohool and drugs are often related to the supply of and demand for goods and services. The possibilities for discussion should be interesting. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:45:35 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Crites/Caroline Hedge Subject: Re: email forums of potential interest >I am posting a list of forumsof potential interest to sci-cult subscribers. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ I think this is great! If I am going to belong to a cult, this is the one for me! Susan >From Susan (the Neon Nurse) Crites and/or Caro Hedge, At The Sign of the Three White Cats aka House of Unruly Fish aka House of 1,000 Unfinished Projects. Accept No Substitutes! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:45:25 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Crites/Caroline Hedge Subject: Re: Science-as-culture can do a ton >Please, could each of us say something about herself/himself and what is >hoped from the list. Hi! I will probably mostly lurk. I am a knowledge junkie, and this looked like a really interesting source! On the other hand, I may be able to cross reference something else from time to time, Serendipity willing. Or maybe just have a regular person sort of observation to make! Susan >From Susan (the Neon Nurse) Crites and/or Caro Hedge, At The Sign of the Three White Cats aka House of Unruly Fish aka House of 1,000 Unfinished Projects. Accept No Substitutes! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:19:12 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Crites/Caroline Hedge Subject: Re: Introduction >My name is Greg Dyer, and I am a temporary instructor, teaching "Written >Communication for Engineers" and Expository Writing I and II, at Kansas >State University. And may the deities help you.... Susan >From Susan (the Neon Nurse) Crites and/or Caro Hedge, At The Sign of the Three White Cats aka House of Unruly Fish aka House of 1,000 Unfinished Projects. Accept No Substitutes! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:19:24 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Crites/Caroline Hedge Subject: Re: File: Our subscribers: 147 people, 24 countries >* Country could not be determined for: >carosue@IGUANA.RURALNET.NET Susan Crites Add me to the USA...sorry about that! Susan >From Susan (the Neon Nurse) Crites and/or Caro Hedge, At The Sign of the Three White Cats aka House of Unruly Fish aka House of 1,000 Unfinished Projects. Accept No Substitutes! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 21:30:55 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Hamburg <71203.3312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: introduction: as a new member of this forum, let me introduce myself: I'm a psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School in Boston. My research interests are the applications of philosophy and modern cultural theory to the practice and teaching of psychotherapy. In my clinical practice I treat many patients with eating disorders, and have written and thought some about the intersection of personal and cultural history represented by the symptoms of anorexia and bulimia nervosa. In collaboration with a colleague, Dr. Ann Becker, who is an anthropologist & psychiatrist I am writing a series of papers regarding the concept of body image, including the role of the mass and scientific media in promoting and perpetuating ideals regarding body shape and its active transformation by exercising, dieting and other directed practices. I look forward to learning from the diverse membership of this forum. paul hamburg md e-mail: phamburg@A1.Mgh.Harvard.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:47:58 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Introduction ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:09:46 +0700 (GMT) From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Introduction Hello, I'm Ilyas Baker. I teach graduate students in the field of environmental social science.My professional interests are the social impact of technology,public participation in technological decisionmaking,public perceptions of risk, nuclear energy. I have degrees in sociology, social work, and urban and regional planning but feel I cannot honestly describe myself as a sociologist,social worker or planner. I guess I am a generalist--I know a little about a lot but not much about anything! I am a Muslim,definitely not fundamentalist, more Sufi oriented and believe that my attitude towards most things are informed by this belief system and the body of ethics which accompanies it.Life is a story told by "God", our own story telling is a vague reflection of this. Science and culture are stories we tell each other and act out. We need to do that but unfortunately some of our stories, e.g. some forms of psychanalysis, religious fundamentalism, evolutionism etc prevent us from hearing further stories, perhaps better ones. Sometimes we even think our story is the BIG one and so stop looking for the BIG one. I don't intend, you'll be glad to know, to repeat this stuff ad nauseum, but I thought I'd reveal my true colours at the start. Anyway I'll probably end up being King Lurker. I look forward to hearing your stories. One last thing, I'm also very interested in documenting the way that scientific or technological discoveries tend to precipitate the closure of potentially complementary(social or personal) ways of solving problems, eg if doctors can diagnose at a distance through telecommuncations systems will intuition still have a chance to participate; if electronic surveillance systems are put in the homes of the elderly who live alone--to make sure that they're fine--will we stop looking for companions/visitors for them? Regards, Ilyas ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 08:15:11 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: eating disorders >as a new member of this forum, let me introduce myself: > >I'm a psychiatrist at the Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School >in Boston. My research interests are the applications of philosophy and modern >cultural theory to the practice and teaching of psychotherapy. In my clinical >practice I treat many patients with eating disorders, and have written and >thought some about the intersection of personal and cultural history >represented >by the symptoms of anorexia and bulimia nervosa. In collaboration with a >colleague, Dr. Ann Becker, who is an anthropologist & psychiatrist I am writing >a series of papers regarding the concept of body image, including the role of >the mass and scientific media in promoting and perpetuating ideals regarding >body shape and its active transformation by exercising, dieting and other >directed practices. I look forward to learning from the diverse membership of >this forum. > >paul hamburg md >e-mail: phamburg@A1.Mgh.Harvard.edu Very interesting. Any papers available? My partner, Em Farrell, has written a new book on anorexia and bilimia. You might, in particular, be interested in her work on vomit as a transitional object, which is also the subject of a separate paper. Go to: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/emf.html for more information. Please let me have a list of what you have written in this area and email any papers you can. Thanks, Bob Young Ps Do you come across Andrew P Morrison. If so, please give him my best regards. B __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:22:01 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: Introduction My name is Andy Barfield; teach English at Tsukuba University in Japan; doing research in second language teacher education; heading up a university curriculum development project; coordinating a growing body of teacher educators across Japan. Am interested in how teachers 'construct' learners, and how twentieth- century techno-culture dehumanizes people's relationships with each other; I'm wondering how to re-find 'soul' in education/learning/teaching, and what that means for how we both relate to each other, and how we construct/share/understand received wisdom and knowledge. Am concerned that our material progress and growth in GNP's are missing the basic point of living on this planet. And yet here I am on e-mail ... Andy Barfield andyman@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:42:49 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Quotation from Lukacs >From time to time, in the service of stimulating discussion, I hope people will post thoughts, quotations, puzzles. Here is an example, a passage which I have continued to ponder since I read it almost a quarter of a century ago. 'Nature is a societal category. That is to say, whatever is held to be natural at any given stage of social development, however this nature is related to man and whatever form his involvement with it takes, i.e., nature's form, its content, its range and its objectivity are all socially conditioned.' -Georg Lukacs, _History and Class Consciousness_ (1923) London: Merlin, 1971, p. 234. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 07:13:24 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Judith L. Poxon" Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511062231.RAA07389@mailbox.syr.edu> Hello. I'm a PhD student in a religion department, writing a dissertation on the implications of Gilles Deleuze's philosophy for feminist theological thinking. I don't imagine I'll have a whole lot to say on this list, but my reading of Deleuze--and the increasing amount of time I spend on the net--has awakened an interest in the intersection of science, culture, and politics that I never would have imagined I'd feel a few years ago. In particular, I'm curious about complexity and chaos theory, and the implications that might have for my project, which has a lot to do with interrogating the binary categories of gender that we (mostly still) take so much for granted. Glad to find a list like this, and looking forward to being a part of it. Judith Poxon Syracuse University, Dept. of Religion jlpoxon@mailbox.syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 12:13:47 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Martin Spaul Subject: Re: Science-as-culture can do a ton In response to the request to 'reveal' ourselves from Bob Young. I teach information systems at a predominantly teaching university, but I have a long-standing interest in critical theory and the philosophy of technology. My current interest is in trying to mould long-standing Frankfurt School arguments about 'technoscience' and the mass media so that they have something useful to say about the new communication technologies (I'm not arrogant enough to think that I can make much of a dent in this problem, but it interests me). I felt that this list would help me broaden the intellectual background which I brought to this project. Martin Spaul Anglia Polytechnic University, UK ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 06:50:55 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Cherie Rawlins Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs Bob quoted: >'Nature is a societal category. That is to say, whatever is held to be >natural at any given stage of social development, however this nature is >related to man and whatever form his involvement with it takes, i.e., >nature's form, its content, its range and its objectivity are all socially >conditioned.' > -Georg Lukacs, _History and Class Consciousness_ (1923) > And I observe: I've thought similarly about weeds... Who defines weeds? Seems to me that a plant is a "weed" only if we don't want it in our garden... Best, Cherie `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Cherie Rawlins, MSW Post Office Box 939 email: cherie@mind.net Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA (541) 482-6545 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:05:55 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Christopher A. Thorn" Subject: Intro Hi, I'm doing post-doc research looking at the spread cooperation in the = high-tech electronics sector. I'm pulling together some of the = organizational behavior research on the culture of high-tech firms and = looking for new forms of collective goods. It's a sort of political = economy-sociology of technology mushy squishy sort of topic. I work with = a group of Sociologists based at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. = I'm looking here for a bit of feedback and some new perspectives on my = research.=20 Cheers, Chris Christopher A. Thorn, Dr. Soc. (608)-262-5715 (Office)=20 University of Wisconsin-Madison (608)-265-3233 (Fax) La Follette Institute of Public Affairs 1225 Observatory Drive =20 Madison, WI 53706 cathorn@facstaff.wisc.edu (Email) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 07:35:23 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Cherie Rawlins Subject: Re: Introductions Bob and others: Is it possible to save and make available on a web site these intros? My experience on other groups is that latecomers never know information that we have all shared... also, sometimes I would like to connect with someone in a particular field or with particular interests long after I have forgotten the name of that person. Also we could update our intro and address from time to time when it seemed appropriate. What do others think? Best, Cherie `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Cherie Rawlins, MSW Post Office Box 939 email: cherie@mind.net Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA (541) 482-6545 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:48:01 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Faux Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs Hello all, I was struck by the Lukacs quote and thought this would be a good time to comment on that and introduce myself. I am an ABD at the University of Pittsburgh in the Dep't. of Psychology in Education. My dissertation research will focus upon the use of problem-based learning in the acquisition of content knowledge, in this case engineering design. The theoretical base is primarily Bransford et al.s concept of anchored instruction. I am also a research associate in the Univ. of Pittsburgh Medical Center. The research project I am working on is a longitudinal study looking at teaming regular ed children with children who are physically challenged, primarily hearing impaired. The goal is to get the challenged kids "socialized" into the regular ed classroom and to be accepted by their peers. Having said all this, my primary interests lie in the history and philosophy of science and psychology. I hope to pursue these interests further once I have completed by dissertation. Concerning the quote, it reminds me a bit of Dewey and Vygotsky. Vygotsky argued that learning and development were social in nature. That learning occured through the discourse between a teacher and student, or between two peers, one of whom is more capable. The knowledge that is shared on what Vygotsky called the interpsychological plane is "internalized" and moves to the intrapsychological plane where it becomes a part of ones's cognitive repertoire. I'm looking forward to interesting discussions. Bob Faux Department of Psychology in Education University of Pittsburgh rbfst1@vms.cis.pitt.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:13:34 +0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dr. Ovsei Gelman-Muravchik" Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs At 11:42 AM 7/11/95 +0000, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > Sorry to tell this but I was not lucky to get the quatations. That is all that I got. I wonder if I am alone in the disgrace. Ovsei +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. Ovsei Gelman-Muravchik, Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Disaster Research +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, | Ed. 12, Instituto de Ingenieria, Programa Interinstitucional | Apdo.P. 70-472, Ciudad Universitaria de Prevencion de Riesgo | Mexico, DF, 04510, MEXICO y Monitoreo Industrial, | Phone: (525) 622-8132 till 37 Universidad Nacional | Fax: (525) 622-8091 Autonoma de Mexico | E-mail: ogm@pumas.iingen.unam.mx =========================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:23:51 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs & Douglas >Bob quoted: >'Nature is a societal category. That is to say, whatever is >held to be >>natural at any given stage of social development, however this nature is >>related to man and whatever form his involvement with it takes, i.e., >>nature's form, its content, its range and its objectivity are all socially >>conditioned.' >> -Georg Lukacs, _History and Class Consciousness_ (1923) > > >And I observe: I've thought similarly about weeds... Who defines weeds? >Seems to me that a plant is a "weed" only if we don't want it in our >garden... Best, Cherie Mary Douglas, in _Purity and Danger_, points out that from the point of view of anthropological relativism, 'Dirt is matter out of place'. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:24:05 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Introductions >Bob and others: Is it possible to save and make available on a web site >these intros? My experience on other groups is that latecomers never know >information that we have all shared... also, sometimes I would like to >connect with someone in a particular field or with particular interests long >after I have forgotten the name of that person. Also we could update our >intro and address from time to time when it seemed appropriate. What do >others think? Best, Cherie >```````````````````````` The list is to be archived at St Johns. Bob Y __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:46:38 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Introduction Hi, I'm Matthew Weinstein. I'm director of secondary education at Macalester College in St. Paul (just finished the PhD) and a long time SaC subscriber. My dissertation, while just completed (hoorah!!!) under the aegis of the school of eductation, would be better described as the anthropology of sci/tech. I did ethnographic work at a hands-on science museum for tourists in a tourist-town called the Wisconsin Dells (picture New York state's Niagra Falls in the U.S. midwest). Themes I dealt with in my study included the relationship of the reproduction of scientific discourse in schools and museums to its production in labs and universities, the way that "science as culture" encourages certain forms of embodiment, gender and science (again a lot of "body" issues), and the way that the ubiquitous linking of wonder with science works as ideology. BTW Anyone going to DC for the Amer. Anthro. Assoc. conference? Tea? Coffee? Wine? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:52:37 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noel Gough Subject: Introducing myself I'm a professor in education, normally based in Australia, but currently on sabbatical in Canada. My teaching and research interests are in curriculum inquiry, educational research methodologies, and environmental education. My particular slant on these areas draws heavily on narrative theory, poststructuralist criticism, and popular media studies (especially science fiction and more recently detective fiction). Among other things I'm the Australian Editor of the _Journal of Curriculum Studies_, and an Executive Editor of the _Australian Educational Researcher_. Much of my recent writing has been concerned with issues of textuality and textual authority in educational research, including some efforts toward reconceptualizing environmental education research as a postmodernist textual practice. I subscribe to very few lists, even as a lurker, but I have found lit-sci (and much else that comes from the Society for Literature and Science) among the most generative resources in my work. For purposes associated with my work on sabbatical, I have an annotated list of my recent publications dealing with aspects of fiction in educational inquiry available that I could transfer by email to anyone who's interested. Some title that might be of interest to people on this list include: Gough, Noel (1993) Environmental education, narrative complexity and postmodern science/fiction. _International Journal of Science Education_ 15 (5): 607-625. Gough, Noel (1993) _Laboratories in Fiction: Science Education and Popular Media_ (Geelong: Deakin University Press). Gough, Noel (1994) Playing at catastrophe: ecopolitical education after poststructuralism. _Educational Theory_ 44 (2): 189-210. Gough, Noel (1995) Manifesting cyborgs in curriculum inquiry. _Melbourne Studies in Education_ 29 (1): 71-83. Noel Gough Contact details for 1 September-30 November 1995: Noel Gough MSTE Royal Bank Fellow Faculty of Education Queen's University Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada Internet: goughn@educ.queensu.ca (613) 542 6275 (home) (613) 545 6000 extn 7242 (office) (613) 545 6584 (fax) After 30 November 1995: Noel Gough Associate Professor Faculty of Education Deakin University 662 Blackburn Road Clayton Victoria 3168 Australia Internet: noelg@deakin.edu.au Telephone area code: 03 (International: +61 3) 9244 7368 (desk) 9244 7286 (messages) 9562 8808 (fax) 9836 8241 (home) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:54:08 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs >And I observe: I've thought similarly about weeds... Who defines weeds? >Seems to me that a plant is a "weed" only if we don't want it in our >garden... Best, Cherie Yup, weeds are a sort of vegetable dirt! As M. Douglas writes (in one of my favorite passages): As we know it, dirt is essentially disorder. There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder. If we shun dirt, it is not because of craven fear, still less dread or holyt terror. (Purity & Danger, p. 2) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 12:15:53 EWT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Maia Saj Schmidt Subject: Re: Introduction I am a doctoral student in English and American Literature at Indiana University in Bloomington. I am writing a dissertation about illness narratives and contemporary culture. I hope to see a wide-ranging discussion of science, culture and society on this list. I am currently teaching a literature course about science technology and society and in the spring I will be teachinga course in the literature of medicine and ethics. Maia Saj Schmidt Ballantine Hall Indiana Uiversity MSAJ@Indiana.Edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:06:42 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE ARCHIVES Cherie Rawlins wrote: >Bob and others: Is it possible to save and make available on a web site >these intros? My experience on other groups is that latecomers never know >information that we have all shared... also, sometimes I would like to >connect with someone in a particular field or with particular interests long >after I have forgotten the name of that person. Also we could update our >intro and address from time to time when it seemed appropriate. What do >others think? Best, Cherie Answer: Access to archives has always been available via standard listserv commands. To get an overview and tutorial, send mail to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the command: get list analysis __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 12:26:10 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs In-Reply-To: <199511071648.LAA20706@mailbox.syr.edu> just a quick response. I _just_ joined this list. I am happy with the prospects. hence, i am instantly projecting my voice. As to the learning issue, see Durkheim, Piaget (of course) and some of the research put under the category of 'constructivism' and learning. Also, work within the Social Reproduction school of thought comes to mind. I just came from the Revival in Pragmatism conferrence at CUNY this weekend, and i found little discussion of education, when talking along such lines of philosophy of science and people such as Dewey. This frustrates me. About me: i am a doctoral student at syracuse university, studying sociology and philosophy of education. I am generally interested in the 'school choice' debates, yet, philosophy and sociology of science is central to my thinking. 'The politics of explanation' remain central to my studies and inquiry. Having been deeply moved by Bruno Latour's work, i wonder if anyone has some insights or intuitions as to how a general notion of 'the politics of explanation' can be extended into movements of social reform, legistration, and community action? The link between political philosophy and legal DISCOURSE is a vital seed for me, yet, my understanding of material out there is limited. Take care, jude hollins ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:09:08 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lynda Bruce Subject: Re: Science-as-culture can do a ton Greetings to All: I have BA in philosophy (emphasis in epistemology) and am currently in graduate school toward a Ph.D. in psychology (clinical). In psychology it seems to me that epistemlogical issues are cast in the debate/discussion of qualititative vs. quantitative research. Currently, I have an internship in a mental health clinic serving Native Americans in Central California. My interests are in psychology, epistemology, theories of language and reference, cross-cultural /alternative epistemologies or "ways of knowing," feminist epistemologies, qualitative vs. quantitative debates, Continental philosophy----and how this all relates to clinical psychology. I am writing from Fresno. Ca. (USA) Look forward to discussions. I don't normally participate much, because of shyness but also because my studies frequently interfere with my consistent participation. Lynda Bruce ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:56:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Abramson Bram Dov Subject: Re: Science-as-culture can do a ton In-Reply-To: <199511061306.IAA08557@cyclone.ERE.UMontreal.CA> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Nov 6, 95 01:01:56 pm > Please, could each of us say something about herself/himself and what is > hoped from the list. Hello all, I'm a graduate student in communications here at Universite de Montreal, and am especially interested in how science and technology 'interface' with the national form. I am slowly (!) moving towards a dissertation on space policy in Canada and Quebec (as two state apparatuses) in which I hope to interrogate the relations between governments, technology, and nationhood, by looking at how science and technology -- specifically, outer space -- is constituted as the object of "national needs" (and desires), and how technologies of outer space are called into service to help consolidate national spaces. This means looking at technology policy, and trying to argue that it *should* be looked at vis-a-vis cultural policy, inasmuch as technologies structure and are structured across a cultural field. Technology in the enterprise of national identities, then. I'm looking forward to discussion, and especially to hearing about areas of the literature that I haven't yet had a chance to move in to. Bruno Latour, for instance ... Bram Abramson (abramsob@ere.umontreal.ca) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 18:40:02 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Lukacs quote From: Paul Hamburg <71203.3312@compuserve.com> To: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs Message-ID: <951107141529_71203.3312_GHL99-1@CompuServe.COM> <<'Nature is a societal category. That is to say, whatever is held to be natural at any given stage of social development, however this nature is related to man and whatever form his involvement with it takes, i.e., nature's form, its content, its range and its objectivity are all socially conditioned.' -Georg Lukacs, _History and Class Consciousness_ (1923) London: Merlin, 1971, p. 234.>> What seems so remarkable about this quote is the time and context in which it was made. Looking at diverse territories of thought today in terms of social construction is such a contemporary fashion---it is sobering that a post-WWI Marxist could so readily deconstruct "nature" and the fable of the "natural." __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:58:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GINA CAMODECA Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: eating disorders Hi, I've got a question, so I guess I'll introduce myself. I'm Gina Camodeca, ABD grad at SUNY@Buffalo. I'm writing a dissertation re: American 19th c. lit and medical discourse. I'm particularly interested in the way characterization of fictional characters remits, transfigures, and ultimately works to produce medical "truths" regarding symptoms and morally-predicated generatives of illness for women. I've begun the work, but I'm largely still in the hunter-gatherer stage. I've joined a gaggle of listserves looking for others w/ like interests and information; but I've discovered that one of my primary weaknesses is web-site illiteracy. I've spent days screwing around trying to pull things from addressed that begin something like hhtyz///;;: and after much frustration and "badly formed address" messages, I usually have forgotten what I wanted in the first place. Thus, could Bob (can I call you Bob?) give a bit more information about vomit as a transitional object? I would love the title and publisher of that new book! Thanks, Gina ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 18:40:44 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Introducing myself Noel Gough, Could you share with us some key references on narrative theory and paerhaps one or two summing up recent debates in the field? I, for one, would be grateful. Bob Young __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:07:45 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lori Wagner Subject: Re: Introduction reply In-Reply-To: <199511071816.NAA33072@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "Maia Saj Schmidt" at Nov 7, 95 12:15:53 pm Hi, I got your message through the sci-culture group. I am looking for panelists for a proposed session on disease and lit. for a science and lit. conference. If you are interested, please contact me at lwagner@ccat.sas.upenn.edu. Thanks. Lori W ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:20:47 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Science-as-Culture Archive s and Digest You might want to save this. If anyone is ever interested in reading messages that have been previously posted, this can be easily done. Just send a message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the command index sci-cult This will return a file showing what files are stored on the list. These will include the welcome message and the header messages, but more importantly, the logged messages that have been posted. They will be listed by date and will have a name "logxxx". To get one, simply send another message to the same address with the command get sci-cult logxxx. with the logxxx being the name of the log file. This will be a list of those postings that were made during that time. You can also set you account so that you _only_ receive digests rather than individual messages. These are daily files that contain all of the messages posted. To do this, send a message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the command set sci-cult dig Thats all you need to do. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Best wishes, Bob Young __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:15:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: James L Morrison Subject: On the Horizon I enjoy reading the introductions to this list as well as the messages. I edit a newsletter, moderate a list, and manage a web site, all focusing on the future of education. I want to take advantage of the talent on this list by asking participants to consider writing for educational leaders through our publications. Below is our call for manuscripts describing our activities: * * * CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS * * * On the Horizon provides educational leaders with an interactive platform for discussing emerging trends and potential developments in the social, technological, economic, environmental, and political (STEEP) sectors and their implications for education. The interactive platform is via a print publication and an Internet list called Horizon List where past and potential STEEP articles from the newsletter are posted to focus discussion. Some of the resulting list discussion is also published in On the Horizon, thereby allowing the list and the print publication to supplement and reinforce each other. In addition, we have a World Wide Web (WWW) site, Horizon Home Page, where Internet users have easy access to past issues of On the Horizon, a futures planning database, and text discussion strings from Horizon List, many of which respond to articles published in On the Horizon. On the Horizon articles take two forms: abstracts of one or more articles/books/Internet postings that have implications for education or essays on emerging trends or developments that may affect the future of education. A unique feature of abstracts or essays in On the Horizon is that authors speculate on the specific implications of these "signals of change" in the macroenvironment (the STEEP sectors) for educational leaders. Abstracts and essays are brief (800 to 1,000 words); our readers are busy leaders who want to get to the bottom line quickly. If you have not seen the newsletter, write for a review copy or browse our WWW pages at the URL address: http://sunsite.unc.edu/horizon. We currently have the preview issue and Volumes I through III posted. Please send your abstracts or essays to me via U.S. mail or e-mail. If your article is accepted for publication, we will also need a two or three sentence summary of the article, your picture and a biographical sketch (up to two pages) for insertion on our Web site in the section announcing the issue in which your article will appear. (We do not have sufficient space to provide biographical information in the newsletter, but we do make this information available to readers via Horizon Home Page beginning with Vol IV, No 1.) -- James L. Morrison Morrison@unc.edu Editor, On the Horizon 919 962-2517 (office) Professor of Educational Leadership 919 962-1533 (fax) CB 3500 Peabody Hall UNC-CH Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Horizon Home Page http://sunsite.unc.edu/horizon ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 11:39:24 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Francis Harvey Subject: Introducing myself In-Reply-To: <9511071918.AA11448@mx5.u.washington.edu> Hi, My name is Francis Harvey, currently a PhD. geography student at the University of Washington. I find this collection of statements from list subscribers more than interesting. It really gives me a feeling who is involved, and seems to be "community" building. I'll just add a little bit to the mini-bio I just wrote for our department's WWW site attached below. Since I'm primarily a geographer, most of the text deals with my 'geographical' development, but geography is very encompassing, so there are many other facets. First, though I would add that I've always been fascinated by technology, but after some very meaningful cross-cultural experiences, which made me very critical (and for a while I rejected the growing influence of technology), and I became aware of the importance of culture in mediating our science and technology. I might even go so far to say our basic understanding. I've been reading Science as Culture since I first discovered it and was always hoping to have a chance to discuss these affairs with similarly interested people. From earlier postings it is clear this is a very diverse group and I am keen for discussions on a variety of topics. Francis Harvey (More info about me and my research is at http://weber.u.washington.edu/~fharvey/fhmain.html. Please note these WWW pages are permantly under construction, so things may change without notice.) A small biographical sketch (taken from my WWW pages): Through June 1996, I'm a geography graduate student at the University of Washington, spending most of my time stirring the dissertation brew and working on a low-level radioactive waste project. I'm looking forward to finishing and finding a university teaching and research job to move on to. Seattle has been home only for three years, and it isn't the first or last place where I've lived for several years. Before Seattle, home was in Germany and Switzerland for 10 years. I'm still strongly connected to these places, and through the other side of the family have many contacts to Eastern Europe too. My attachment to people and places in Europe and North America makes me acutely geographicly conscious. I travel enough this way that I don't need to do much tourism. I prefer the longer stay in a place I can relate to, surreptitiously extending my own geographical and social knowledge. Growing up in Chicago I was astonished to discover the white spaces in my developing mental map of the city were actually black. Racial differences segregated a free and open space I had been otherwise taught about. Maybe it was this contradiction that led to my spatial awareness. In any case, I was keenly interested in social studies and geography as far back as I can remember. Later in Europe, I discovered other ways to approach the division of earth into distinct geographies. They are fundamental parts of every culture. My interest was thereafter always in understanding the cultural influence of geographic understanding. In my academic work, the focus revolves less around understanding differences in how we utilize or understand space, and even less around overcoming discrepancies. Mostly I am interested in the use of technologies that extend, enhance, and simultaneously delimit our understanding. It's a sort of double hermeneutic of geography. In a sense, we produce space through technologies such as maps and geographic information systems (GIS). These in turn influence our understanding of space, that impacts our developement of technologies. . . It's a never ending circle, that is commonly approached through theory. Theory alone may be fascinating, but only rarely does it provide the necessary insight for real issues we face. At present in the dissertation I am looking at this connection in terms of a frequently reoccurring theme in geography: integration. Looking at from the cultural perspective, there are several elements and developments that stand out. When we identify them, we can more readily include culture as the essential part of society, that so frequently is but tacitly acknowledged. Culture has a meaning beyond here and now, it is part of our history that stretches back thousands of years. I do not pretend to examine this all, but I have been able to show how systems thinking is a fundamental part of geography. Approaching integration as a system, we have different approaches and results then Alexander von Humboldt, Carl Ritter, and others. Although I will finish my dissertation in the near future, many issues remain open. My interest in understanding these issues, teaching about them and presenting them, means I still have much to do. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:25:25 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noel Gough Subject: Narrative theory Bob Young writes: >Noel Gough, >Could you share with us some key references on narrative theory and >paerhaps one or two summing up recent debates in the field? I, for one, >would be grateful. Bob Young Here goes. For a thorough overview up to the late 1980s it is hard to go past: Coste, Didier (1989) _Narrative as Communication_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). However, that's about as far as I got into "pure" narrative theory -- following Spinoza's orientation to definitions, I want to know how narratives work, and what they do, but not what they are. Thus, I tend to work with literature that uses narrative theory in areas allied to my own research and teaching interests. So in relation to education I'd recommend: Lemke, Jay L. (1995) _Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics_ (London: Taylor & Francis). Because of my interests in the ways in which the discourses of science wield narrative authority in wider cultures, two really useful texts (in addition to everything that Donna Haraway and Kate Hayles have ever written!) have been: Levine, George (ed.) (1993) _Realism and Representation: Essays on the Problem of Realism in Relation to Science, Literature and Culture_ (Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press). Ormiston, Gayle L. and Sassower, Raphael (1989) _Narrative Experiments: The Discursive Authority of Science and Technology_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Another very useful collection that sums up recent debates about narrative in the context of one particular narrative genre (viz., autobiography) is: Ashley, Kathleen, Gilmore, Leigh and Peters, Gerald (eds) (1994) _Autobiography and Postmodernism_ (Amherst MA: The University of Massachusetts Press). I could go on, but that might suffice for starters... Noel Gough Contact details for 1 September-30 November 1995: Noel Gough MSTE Royal Bank Fellow Faculty of Education Queen's University Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada Internet: goughn@educ.queensu.ca (613) 542 6275 (home) (613) 545 6000 extn 7242 (office) (613) 545 6584 (fax) After 30 November 1995: Noel Gough Associate Professor Faculty of Education Deakin University 662 Blackburn Road Clayton Victoria 3168 Australia Internet: noelg@deakin.edu.au Telephone area code: 03 (International: +61 3) 9244 7368 (desk) 9244 7286 (messages) 9562 8808 (fax) 9836 8241 (home) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:42:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: sundeep muppidi Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511071723.MAA07441@falcon.bgsu.edu> Hi, I am Sundeep Muppidi. At present I am enrolled in the doctoral program in Mass Communication in Bowling Green State University. I am from India and have had experience in teaching development and mass communication theory and video production. At present I am working in the political economy of telecommunications. I did start out intending to do quantitative research but am now shifting to qualitative research (especially constructivist methodology). I am also interested in cultural studies, post-coloniality and basic communication theory. That's my introduction. Any questions welcome! Sundeep .............................................................................. Email: smuppid@bgnet.bgsu.edu ..::''''::.. Voice: 1-419-353-4504 .:::. .;'' ``;. .... 1-419-372-0202 (FAX) ::::: :: :: :: :: ,;' .;: () ..: `:::' :: :: :: :: ::. ..:,:;.,:;. . :: .::::. `:' :: .:' :: :: `:. :: '''::, :: :: :: `:: :: ;: .:: : :: : : :: ,:'; ::; :: :: :: :: :: ::,::''. . :: `:. .:' :: `:,,,,;;' ,;; ,;;, ;;, ,;;, ,;;, `:,,,,:' :;: `;..``::::''..;' ``::,,,,::'' .............................................................................. Sundeep R. Muppidi 104, West Hall School of Mass Communication, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. USA - 43403. .............................................................................. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 15:49:20 +0001 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sarah W Salter Subject: Re: Introductions In-Reply-To: <199511072030.AA04011@world.std.com> Hello to the community. I teach law - computer law, tax, intellectual property, international trade - from the general viewpoint of the critical legal studies movement. The responses of law to technology changes is one of my teaching interests, especially where difficulties reveal underlying cultural/linguistic patterns that diverge. Sarah Salter New England School of Law 154 Stuart Street Boston, MA 02116 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:36:33 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Conference on Psychoanalysis and the Public Sphere 18-19 Nov. This conference is occurring next week. Bob Y PSYCHOANALYSIS AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE 9TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 'RECOVERING A FUTURE' Sponsored by Free Associations journal Department of Applied Psycho-Social Studies, University of East London The Human Nature Trust Saturday & Sunday, 18-19 November 1995 University of East London Conference Centre Duncan House, High Street, Stratford, London E15 The keynote speakers this year will be Gordon Lawrence Director, Imago East-West, author of To Surprise the Soul: Psychoanalytic Explorations of Groups, Institutions and Society in the Bion-Tavistock Tradition 'Tragedy: Private Trouble or Public Issue?' Anthony Elliott University of Melbourne, author of Social Theory and Psychoanalysis in Transition: and Psychoanalytic Theory: An Introduction 'Psychoanalysis and Postmodernism: Containing the Future' This conference is established as the major forum in Britain for exploring the inter-relationships between psychoanalytic theory, politics, culture, social identity and psychotherapeutic practice. As in previous years, the intention is that the conference should provide the opportunity for creative exchange among psychoanalytically-oriented practitioners and theorists and others active in thinking, writing and working in the public sphere. The conference is regularly attended by people from all sorts of disciplines in the helping professions. The 7th and 8th conferences dealt, respectively, with the themes 'Losing and Finding Values' and 'Thinking Under Fire'. These themes acted as umbrellas for papers and discussions which responded to crises in thinking, practice and politics, attacks on values and attempts to think, create and work in a hostile or reactionary climate. This year, the theme of the conference will be 'Recovering a =46uture'. In many spheres attempts can be detected to rethink, to redefine and construct new models. New forms of protest, resistance and imagination are emerging with the surfacing of new preoccupations in science, technology, morality, politics, art, helping professions and social theory. There is also a tension, however. Can the touchstones of theory and traditions of thought and ethics which in the past guided and inspired such hope in radical enquiry, some psychoanalytic thinking and social action now guide our understanding of these attempts to envisage the new? What is the relationship between tradition and these new imaginings and discourses? Can continuity be sustained as we look forward or are we to vacillate between fin-de-si=E8cle nostalgia and romantic or naively iconoclastic attachment to the new? Speakers in parallel sessions: Pru Chamberlaine, 'Cultures of Care: East Germany and Britain' Denis Brown, 'Glyn Maxwell: Aestheticising Place-Myth' Andrew Cooper, 'Desire and the Law: Child Abuse, Social Anxiety and the Symbolic Order' Adam Curle, 'Peace' Angela Foster, Naomi Landau, Viv Igel, 'The Management of Community Health Teams: Integration or Fragmentation' Dick Blackwell, 'Living Our Own Exile- Towards a Decoloniisation of the Inner World' Sue Reid, 'From Despair to Hope: The Journey of an Autistic Girl' Elish Davar, 'Containment, Surviving and Living' Julian Lousada, 'Anti-Racism: The Adoption of an Idea' Sandra Lovell. 'The Loss and Recovery of the Superego' Deborah Marks, 'Disability and Disavowal' Rosalind Minsky, '"Women Have Got It Made": Womb Envy and Cultural Cha= nge' Caroline New, 'Kleinian Theory and the Environmental Threat' Helen Morgan and Nick Benefield, 'Bare Earth, Blue Sky: Risking Innovation in Mental Health' Martin Ryle, 'Literary Subjects' Les Levidow, 'Agricultural Biotechnology: Splitting and Simulating Mother Nature' Andrew Samuels, 'Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibili= ty' Amal Treacher, 'Childrens' Myths of Origins and Destiny' Robert M. Young, 'Psychoanalysis and/of the Internet' A paper by Michael Rustin and Andrew Cooper, reflecting on the history and future of the conference and related activities, will be pre-circulated to all who register in advance. Other speakers will include Karl Figlio, Michael Rustin, Tara Weeramanthri, Gerald Wooster, Ivan Ward, Margaret Rustin (titles to be confirmed) Prices: L75 (British pounds)for two days L45 for one day & concessions Write to: Psychoanalysis and the Public Sphere Conference Dept. of Applied Psycho-Social Studies University of East London Longbridge Rd. Dagenham Essex RM8 2AS England Tel. +0181 590 7722 ext. 2767/2785 email amal@uel.ac.uk __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. 44 171 607 8306 fax. 44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html | 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 22:31:38 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ulrich Brinkmann Organization: Freie Universitaet Berlin Subject: Introduction (Another one) Hello, my name is Ulrich Brinkmann. Call me Uli. It is interesting to be summoned to introduce oneself so insistently. Since there's only two members in Germany (both of them on the same machine but I don't know the other) I feel the urge of representativity to leave my habitual lurker's shell to tell you "who I am". I am doing a dissertation in American Studies on, let's put it broadly, Literature and Tourism. My M.A. topic was on tourism, too. I created a narrative of how insufficient the old liberal criticism of mass tourism as superficial was in terms of cultural analysis and promoted a semiotic approach, following critically Dean MacCannell. I am planning to relate literature and tourism on this basis. I'll try to find out how and if literature (alas, I've chosen Henry James to represent that one) or fiction, as I rather view it, can serve as a paradigm for explanations of tourism. Tourism, that is, depends on narratives that instill the urge to verify oneself in the presence of the tourist attraction. Somehow literature is a paradigmatic, but not the only complement in this touristic system. I'll have a lot of difficulties to overcome to make that a sound argument. Right now I'll try to get beyond the cultural models that have so far dominated the approaches on the subject. Those are the Bourdieu model of the sociology of taste, and of the post-colonialist mode. What I mean by "beyond" is a close analysis of the status of ((literary, touristic) fictional) texts, and taking this as a basis for a reconstruction of the cultural fields. Theoretical concepts that will be crucial in the construction of the cultural field (context, matrix, whatever) are Castoriadis's Society as Imaginary Institution, some reader-oriented theory by Iser et al,, mingled with semiotics (I'll have to find out what color I prefer of that). That's gonna be a nice cocktail. I'm sorry if this was too specific. I have serious difficulties in globalizing my concerns. After all, that is a translation in which I sometimes feel the important thing gets lost. Apart from that I am interested in the medium I writing this in. That is, the computer, networking, and related distributed concepts. The computer made me get into programming (I am taking a perl course right now). I'd rather talk about computing as a practitioner. Because what you are doing when you are programming is very tangible. It is more tangible than a lot of theory about it. I would theorize programming as a hybrid form of authorship where you actually do overcome some limitations in authoring traditional fictions, while on the other hand you pay the price of restricting yourself semantically to a closed universe (of the bits and bytes). You will have to restrict yourself to the role of the medium in providing a tangible experience to the --- user (no more reader). The user does what the programmer allows for, but he has a choice. And the programmer preconceives what the user wants to do, he constructs a world in which the program makes sense and has a function and is a success. There must be a point where all this collapses into fiction... All this proves, to return to the context of this mail, that literature and the computer are another pair of mutually informing cultural practices which I am interested in. Maybe I'll introduce my other selves another time. That's it for the introduction. I'm looking forward to an interesting lurker's feast of inspirations. I was really amazed at the amount of mail this list generated in the first hours of its existence. I hope the momentum is steady, selfish as I am. I am very bad at keeping up communication. (This is another interesting phenomenon, you hear me thinking, the vanishing of threads and entire lists in the big nowhere, rather, silence). Regards Uli ------ Ulrich Brinkmann on and off the net at random Freie Universitaet Berlin fone +49-30-615 76 78 visit my homepage! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:45:16 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Bruno Latour In-Reply-To: <199511071924.OAA12841@mailbox.syr.edu> two particular works which center my mind in times of utter despair: _Science in Action_ Harvard (1987) _We Have Never Been Modern_ Harvard (1993) "Even at the worst moments of the Western imperium, it was never a matter of clearly separating the Laws of Nature from social conventions once and for all. It was always a matter of constructing collectives by mixing a certain type of nonhumans and a certain type of humans, and extracting in the process Boyle-style objects and Hobbes-style subjects (not to mention the crossed-out God) on an ever-increasing scale" - We Have Never Been Modern; page 132 :) rings like the earlier quote from Lukacs in my mind. His basic argument is that we have been thinking and talking along the lines set by Modernity, while developing complex hybrid nature-social-etc empires. Likewise, he places modes of discourse and explanation within such contexts. I could go on for ever, yet, i really do suggestthese two works. I am extremely curious about reactions to ideas. Someone want to talk about positivism? seems comman definitions and understanding would be very useful... when i hear the word 'technology' (or 'culture', in the original of the coining of this expression) i reach for my gun, and i think of the term signifying a wide range of relations and objects. From the technical aspects of this language to this complex information system made of computers and fibers, i mark all as technology. "That a delicate shuttle should have woven together the heavens, industry, texts, souls and moral law- this remains uncanny, unthinkable, unseemly." Ibid, p 5 yeah, this basis for having professional educators remains at the heart of my despair. Being an 'educator,' no less professional, strikes me as a very critical station in the complex world we inhabit, etc. It seems that any profession carries a moral contractual wieght which is sinking among the political incommensurabilities of modern life. ok, i stop. jude ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:57:55 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Growth of list We have just crossed the 200 mark in subscribers - in four days from a standing start. Nice. Bob Young __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 14:04:03 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "S.M. Ghazanfar" Subject: Re: Introductions In-Reply-To: <199511072049.MAA08469@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu> Dear Cohorts: I am long-time economics faculty at the University of Idaho. Over the years I have taught and published in various areas within economics--lately, teaching international development and public finance. However, my interests always, especially in recent years, have extended beyond pure economics; I usually claim to have a broader, interdisciplinary focus on things. In fact, it worries me that there is such intense overspecialization of knowledge--as though human beings can be neatly categorized as specialized robots! Lately I have been publishing and presenting papers on the contributions to economic thought by the Arab-Islamic medieval scholastics--and there is so much to discover--during what Joseph Schumpeter unfortunately dismissed as the "great gap" period of "blank" centuries (from Aristotle to St. Thomas Aquinas)!. And, so much of that contribution, through various mechanisms, transmitted and became absorbed in Europe and facilitated European Renaissance. I also worry about technology overpowering the human element (including this impersonal, `dehumanized' means of `community' formation--the e-mail!). The hardware and the software, broadly speaking, have such strong social implications, negative and positive, for the human condition. Are we to become mere robots eventually? As an academic, I worry about the growing use of technology in teaching for what is often labelled as "teaching enhancement!" Maybe reading-writing will become extinct and being "dumb and mediocre" will become increasingly fashionable--and we will go full circle!! Such social forces worry me much. Not only I worry about things too much--I also talk too much!! Warm best wishes. Ghazi Dr S M Ghazanfar, Professor and Chair, Department of Economics College of Business and Economics University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83843 Tel: (208) 885 7144 Fax: (208) 885 8939 On Tue, 7 Nov 1995, Sarah W Salter wrote: > Hello to the community. > > I teach law - computer law, tax, intellectual property, international > trade - from the general viewpoint of the critical legal studies movement. > The responses of law to technology changes is one of my teaching interests, > especially where difficulties reveal underlying cultural/linguistic > patterns that diverge. > > Sarah Salter > New England School of Law > 154 Stuart Street > Boston, MA 02116 > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 17:15:00 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ron Goldsmith Subject: more intros Hi. Ron Goldsmith here. I'm a geographer at Ryerson Polytechnic University in Toronto. My teaching is mostly in "cultural geography", very VERY loosely defined. I'm intrigued by the role(s) that science has played, or has been claimed to play, in the evolution of world views of western and non-western cultures. My interest in this theme was provoked initially when I was dabbling in some research on cultural constructions of Nature, and Ian Barbour's book (1970-ish) "Myths, Models, and Paradigms" pushed me into the area in a more serious manner. Looking forward to some good discussions. RonG ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 16:30:59 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Benjamin Bratton <6500benb@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU> Subject: intro.. Hello all, My name is Benjamin Bratton. I am a graduate student in the department of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. I also co-edit the web publication, SPEED: An Electronic Journal of Technology, Media and Society. SPEED can be found at http://www.arts.ucsb.edu/~speed Recent issues, "Myths of Electronic Living" and "Science and Re-Enchantment," have included articles and interviews by Kathy Acker, Sandy Stone, Mark Leyner, Akira Lippitt, Mark Pesce, Laura Grindstaff and others. Our forthcoming issues, "Malls and Airports,"a double issue that will be available around the beginning of the year, and our special issue on Paul Virilio are currently under construction. Please see our callsfor papers at SPEED's web site under SPEEDFuture. My own work deals with the spatial character of media and society. Specifically, my research concerns the role of mass media in the Algerian war and the events of May 1968, and the transformations of Parisian architecture subsequent to those crises in the "coherence" of the French imagined community. This ongoing project is called "Sous Les Paves... Les Halles." I am in Paris this year doing research. My recent articles and conference papers include "Real Stories of the Information Superhighway Patrol," "Where the Bank Has Your Body Right Now," "God in the Age of Digital Reproduction," "Airport Sociographies: Access, Architectual Inertia and the Critical Dystopia," "Mythology, Cultural Tradition and the Imagining of Electronic Public Space: The Case of Le Minitel Rose in France, 1983-1987," "The Futurology of Device, or Screening the Social Geographies of Tomorrow," "The Politics and Poetics of the Fantastic in an Age of Machines," and "Derrida's Liquor Store: Artificial Intelligence and Model of the Sign" I'm looking forward to a lively discussion.... p.s.-- anyone who wishes to view yesterday's Liberation and their story on Gilles Deleuze's suicide can do so by pointing their browsers to http://www.netfrance.com/Libe/une.p this requires an Acrobat browser, which can be downloaded from http://www.adobe.com b. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 20:17:37 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GINA CAMODECA Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: email forums of potential interest Correction: the history of Med. list is CADUCEUS-L Gina Camodeca ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 00:35:00 +0100 Reply-To: ALASTAIR DICKSON Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ALASTAIR DICKSON Organization: ALMAC : Grangemouth, Scotland : +44 (0)1324 665371 Subject: Re: INTRODUCTIONS I was going to sit this one out but have been struck by disparity between my own perspective and those posted to the list, so... Most other introductions have been framed in terms of position vis-a-vis educational institutions. My own direct experience of post-school institutions is limited to a technical college computing course some 20 years ago. Interest in critical theory followed after that, and has followed its own course, for better or worse. More recently, my interest/involvement in education is in explicitly anti-institutional forms: e.g. through the Glasgow Free University Network in the late 80s and, more recently and domestically, in our son's home education. That last situation has all kinds of interesting features: - in the interesting ways in which he grasps and uses various operations in his own way and time; - in pondering and comparing the different perspectives of the few families who home-educate here (and finding the shifting grounds for co-operation); - and in the extent to which it places one outside the contemporary educational debate (in comparison with let's say the Illichian one of 25 years ago, it's now a curiously arid one which comes down to resource bargaining by professional specialists). Overall, I'd say "anti-managerial" describes the key to what I regard as important at the moment. So I'll be interested in the extent to which discussions on this list retain and develop an awareness of how professionalising groups establish issues to their own advantage. __________________________________________________________________ -- Alastair Dickson, Stirling, Scotland -- --- * Orator V1.14 #31 * ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:56:00 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Crites/Caroline Hedge Subject: Re: Introductions >I also worry about technology overpowering the human element (including >this impersonal, `dehumanized' means of `community' formation--the e-mail!). >The hardware and the software, broadly speaking, have such strong social >implications, negative and positive, for the human condition. Are we to >become mere robots eventually? As an academic, I worry about the growing >use of technology in teaching for what is often labelled as "teaching >enhancement!" Maybe reading-writing will become extinct and being >"dumb and mediocre" will become increasingly fashionable-- Actually, it seems to me the likelihood is for 'net society to go the other way. There is already a standard developing that sets those who can communicate well, especially with humor and intelligence, as the 'elite' others should strive to emulate. Reading and writing are still behaviors, even when the medium is electronic instead of paper. I for one am looking forward to the Second Renaisance! And as for community, the ability the 'net is giving us to reach others with similar interests or goals despite their geographic location is far from 'dehumanizing'. You should check out some of the support groups--they give a daily reminder of some of the best traits of humanity; kindness, empathy and grace in the face of tragedy and disaster. Just a little food for thought from a different dish! Susan ..."You may say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one." John Lennon. >From Susan (the Neon Nurse) Crites and/or Caro Hedge, At The Sign of the Three White Cats aka House of Unruly Fish aka House of 1,000 Unfinished Projects. Accept No Substitutes! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:09:24 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: SeongJik Lee Subject: Introduction Hello, I'm SeongJik Lee, a graduate student in Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. My major is computer database, and I'm interested in the social changes brought by computer technology, especially by CMC. Currently, I'm studying the democratic potential of the Net and planning some real activities with my friends. If you have any interest in the computer activism in Korea, drop by SING (SNU Information Networking Group) web site - http://power1.snu.ac.kr:8080. -Seong ===================================================================== Seong Jik Lee Email: sjlee@cimcenter.snu.ac.kr Knowledge and Data Eng. Lab. sjlee@well.com Seoul National University Tel : 82-2-880-8370 ===================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:14:25 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs In-Reply-To: <199511071145.SAA28118@mucc.mahidol.ac.th> On Tue, 7 Nov 1995, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > > 'Nature is a societal category. That is to say, whatever is held to be > natural at any given stage of social development, however this nature is > related to man and whatever form his involvement with it takes, i.e., > nature's form, its content, its range and its objectivity are all socially > conditioned.' > -Georg Lukacs, _History and Class Consciousness_ (1923) London: > Merlin, 1971, p. 234. Some thoughts, by no means original, but offering a different perspective: This "whatever" (in this case nature)to be conditioned must have a pre-conditioned state. Yes? The question is: Can we know this pre-conditioned state? I guess most social scientists will say no, perhaps the new breed of physicists will also say no. According to Islamic metaphysics we can know things in their pre-conditioned state only through the Universal Intellect ('aql-i kulli') and not through the partial intellect('aql-i-juzwi'), generally referred to as reason. It is this Universal Reason that can "see things as they are" and is associated with revelation. Hence, for most of us the answer is generally that we have to deal with things in their conditioned state. But this "potential"of knowing something in its pre-conditioned state strikes me as a compelling reason, or at least inviting us, to treat things with a certain amount of humility and making sure that our actions are not one way streets. Hence, in terms of biological nature, conserving biodiversity would seem to be the right thing to do. " The intellect is of two kinds: The first is acquired. You learn it like a boy at school, >From books, teachers, reflection and rote, from concepts and from excellent new sciences. Your intellect becomes greater than that of others, but you are heavily burdened because of your acquisition... The other intellect is a gift of God. Its fountainhead is in the midst of spirit. When the water of knowledge bubbles up from your breast it will never become stagnant, old or discoloured. If the way to its outside source should become blocked, there is no reason to worry since the water keeps on bubbling up from within the house. The acqiured intellect is like a stream led into a house from outside. If it's way be blocked, it is helpless. Seek the fountain from within yourself! -Jalaludin Rumi (See: The Sufi Path of Love:The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi by William C. Chittick, SUNY Press, 1983) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:01:18 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: History of Medicine forum - CADUCEUS A couple of people have pointed out that my list of forums mis-spelled the name of this forum. The version below is from the forum's own announcement, so maybe it will be correct. Sorry. Bob Young How to Deal with CADUCEUS-L For new subscriptions, cancellations, and changes of address, send e-mail to: Mailserv@Beach.UTMB.Edu and type in the message line: subscribe CADUCEUS-L To begin new subscription unsubscribe CADUCEUS-L To cancel your subscription For changing your e-mail address, unsubscribe from your old address and subscribe from your new address. Please send all announcements and responses to: CADUCEUS-L@Beach.UTMB.Edu. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:01:22 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Medicine in movies >From hist med forum: There is an good source on medicine in movies which I recommend to people looking for medicine-related films: Michael Shortland. MEDICINE AND FILM: A CHECKLIST, SURVEY AND RESEARCH RESOURCE. Oxford: Wellcome Unit, 1989. (Research Publication of the Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, Oxford; No. 9) __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 09:12:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lori Wagner Subject: Re: reply In-Reply-To: <199511080120.UAA35920@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "GINA CAMODECA" at Nov 7, 95 08:17:37 pm Hello, Thank you for your reply concerning a sci/lit panel. I am happy for your interest. I will get back to you soon with a description to see if you might be interested. Lori W ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:12:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "eric.dean" Subject: Introductions Hello to all. I manage software development for systems that run on a large private global network. I've been in the systems business for the last 16 years or so. My intellectual interests tend to be philosophical (Heidegger, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein) and literary (Proust, Sterne, Dickens, James; or Rex Stout, Sara Paretsky, Sue Grafton...). I find that those interests (OK, maybe not the murder mysteries) intersect constantly and pervasively with problems that arise in developing, implementing, operating and using technology. It's the link between the technical, philosophical, literary and institutional/cultural that drew me to this list. I live and work in Chicago but wish I was back in New Mexico where I grew up. I'm very much looking forward to the discussions here. Eric Dean ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 23:09:51 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Koen Hendrickx Subject: introduction I'm Koen Hendrickx. I studied Germanic Philology and Social and Cultural Anthropology at the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium. I've written a dissertation on Computer-dystopias (how John Barth has reworked the icon of the central computer in fifties and sixties science-fiction in his Giles Goat-Boy) and I am still very interested in all topics concerning computers and culture. I too am looking forward to interesting discussions, but I hope that this list won't result in an avalanche of mailings like the cybermind-list does. I was subscribed to that list for one day and had to digest more than ninety messages, most of them about three lines long. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 09:08:14 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Spirit in education,alternative cosmologies etc. I'm not quite sure where this list is going at present. There seem to be quite divergent interests.Perhaps some theme will emerge that energises a large number of participants.I'm basically responding at the moment to Bob Young's invitation to post quotes etc to see if it gets things rolling but I'm also bearing in mind the members of the list who indicated an interest in the subjects identified in the subject field of this posting. Unless there is any expression of interest, ie follow-up postings I will lay off this topic and wait until someone else posts something that engages me. Anyway for the moment here is another quote from the same 14th century Islamic mystic that I quoted in my last posting. It comes from the same book referred to in that posting: " These people who have studied or are now studying imagine that if they attend faithfully here they will forget and abandon all their knowledge. On the contrary, when they come here their sciences all acquire a spirit. The sciences are all paintings. When they gain spirits, it is if a lifeless body receives a spirit. The root of all these sciences is from Yonder, but they have been transported from the world without sounds and letters into the world of sounds and letters." -Jalaludin Rumi ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 23:42:48 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Paul L. Woodworth" Subject: Introduction Fellow seekers, I wanted to drop a few lines of introduction, but I am somewhat intimidated. Each of you has displayed academic credentials that I don't have. Then I thought, isn't the effect of technology on the common man just as far reaching. I have spent over twenty years in telecommunications and computers, giving me a good understanding of the sciences and applied technology. I joined this list to discuss the interaction of societal groups, through the evolution and proliferation of technology, or applied science. Cultural change is at the core of my career. Consider the effect of the internet on the cultural development of the President's Information Super Highway, or is it the other way around. I am excited to have this opportunity to communicate with such a distinguished group. Furthermore, I am excited to apply my cognitive skills to the issues uncovered here. Glad to be aboard!! Peace my new friends, -- Paul L. Woodworth pwoody@pipeline.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 10:01:05 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ellen Herman Subject: introduction Dear all, Since everyone seems to be introducing themselves, so will I. I'm a modern U.S. historian, I teach in the Social Studies program at Harvard University, and my own work to date has been mainly on the history of psychological expertise in the 20th-century. I published a book earlier this year titled THE ROMANCE OF AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY, from the University of California Press and have also written about sexual science. I'd be very interested in hearing from any list subscribers who have done work on (or who are aware of interesting work on) the historical development of technologies peculiar to the helping professions: various types of individual and family assessment instruments, tests, and studies; diagnostic tools; psychotherapies, etc. Are there any clinicians and practitioners on this list with interests in these areas? Ellen Herman Social Studies, Harvard 59 Shepard St. Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 496-5177 eherman@husc.harvard.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 10:21:28 +0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Michael North (by way of mnorth@nyam.org Michael North)" Subject: Medical Trade Catalog Exhibition THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF MEDICINE LIBRARY A NEW EXHIBITION "MODERN MEDICINE COMES OF AGE: TECHNOLOGY & THE MEDICAL TRADE CATALOG, 1830-1930" The new exhibition at the New York Academy of Medicine Library highlights its collection of illustrated medical trade catalogs. The catalogs tell the story of the dramatic changes which took place in medicine in the century from 1830 to 1930, including the introduction of anesthesia, the rise of the hospital, and the acceptance of germ theory. The exhibited catalogs form one of the most comprehensive collections of medical trade catalogs in the United States: the Academy holds over 1400 examples, including 651 in pamphlet format, dating from 1831 to 1964. The subjects of the catalogs are as varied as medicine itself: medical and surgical instruments, dental and ocular equipment, pharmaceutical products, and veterinary instruments and supplies. The catalogs are themselves art, organized by type of instrument or pharmaceutical, often with brilliant illustrations which show the products in use and help to explain their function. Many catalogs contain scholarly articles or abstracts showcasing products, and they often included testimonials from satisfied customers, both physicians and patients. Included in the exhibition are instruments and other items selected from the Academy's museum collections which bring the catalogs to life. Included are a drug kit from the Civil War era, early versions of the ophthalmoscope, and photographs of nineteenth century operating theaters, hospital wards, and x-ray images. The exhibition is free and open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday in Woerrishoffer Hall until December 22, 1995. The New York Academy of Medicine is located at 1216 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY. This exhibition is made possible through the generosity of Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson, Inc.; the New York State Program for the Conservation and Preservation of Library Materials; and Carl Zeiss, Inc. For further information, please contact Lois Fischer Black, Acting Curator of Special Collections, at 212/ 876-8200, ext. 311. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:43:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Charles G. Gross" Subject: introduction In-Reply-To: <199511091528.KAA02967@ponyexpress.Princeton.EDU> I am a neuroscientist working mostly on vision and the brain. I am also very interested in the history of neuroscience and have written on such matters as the hippocampus minor debate, Alhazen, Aristotle and right and left.. At the mment I am working on Swedenborg's theories of brain function. Charlie Gross, Dept. Psychology, Princeton University. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 13:44:10 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Donald J. Yankovic" Subject: Re: introduction My first posting to this list is to direct your attention to the most recent edition of The Network Observer, which seems to be right on topic. To get your copy send a message: To: rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu Subject: subscribe This volume is quite long, so I have not quoted much beyond the header. Whatever.... Yank >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/869 >X-Loop: rre@weber.ucsd.edu >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > T H E N E T W O R K O B S E R V E R > > VOLUME 2, NUMBER 11 NOVEMBER 1995 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "You have to organize, organize, organize, and build and > build, and train and train, so that there is a permanent, > vibrant structure of which people can be part." > > -- Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This month: Designing genres for new media > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Welcome to TNO 2(11). > > This month's issue consists of a single long article, an informal > manifesto on sociocentric design that I wrote for an introductory > Internet class and presented at a recent publishing symposium in > Portugal. The WorldWide Web makes everyone a publisher in some > basic sense, and new media in general vastly expand the scope > of potential innovation in communications between individuals > and groups. My experience, though, is that too many people, > both professionals and amateurs, try to design for new media > through an unarticulated sense of what they "like". My argument > is that design for new media (which, these days, really means all > media) requires some mapping of the social relationships around > a g *************************************************************************** Donald J. Yankovic (360)378-2878 P.O.Box 1583 Friday Harbor WA 98250 yankovic@pacificrim.net ********** Its Never Too Late To Have A Happy Childhood ***************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:05:37 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: introduction I'm a clinical psychologist with an interest in culture and history, but time forbids that I add any new enterprises. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 11:52:56 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young In one week since it came on line, this forum has attracted 300 subscribers from 29 countries. Congratulations to us. Now let's get on with discussing the role of expertise - of all kinds - in culture and society. I hope that those who have not yet introduced themselves will soon do so. Best wishes, bob Young __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 12:42:34 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John Soyland (Dr A J Soyland)" Subject: Re: Quotation from Lukacs Okay, okay, Bob, I'll stop lurking and give an introduction - then I'll come back to the quotation you posted some days ago. I'm called John, but publish as A.J. Soyland (the silent A is part of my Norwegian background, but I am actually Australian). I work in a Psychology Department, but was hired to teach on the then new Culture & Communication degree scheme at Lancaster University, UK. My first 3 degrees were in Psychology, my PhD in History & Philosophy of Science. An expanded version of the PhD thesis appeared last year as Psychology as Metaphor (London: Sage): most of the book consists of case studies: neuropsychology, childhood development, accounts of emotion, the IQ debate, and theories of mind. Most of my work so far has been studies of rhetoric in the psy-sciences: psychiatry, psychoanalysis, and most of the branches of psychology. There, will that do? Bob Young asks us to reflect on the following: >'Nature is a societal category. That is to say, whatever is held to be >natural at any given stage of social development, however this nature is >related to man and whatever form his involvement with it takes, i.e., >nature's form, its content, its range and its objectivity are all socially >conditioned.' > -Georg Lukacs, _History and Class Consciousness_ (1923) London: >Merlin, 1971, p. 234. If there is any thing s'prising about this one, it is the date it was published. But within the culture that is science-as-culture-studies, this has become something of a common-place. A rock is only an example of 'reality-out-there' through the rhetorical achievement of appearing to make a non-discursive act. The 'natural' is only what is maintained within that category, which takes work - and very little of it has remained stable between accounts. Take sexuality as an example: lots of studies coming out now (no jokes) suggesting that sexuality is a kind of core of identity, and biological at that. But, before 1892, we had terms to describe acts, but no term to describe a preference for same sex activity. The biological is parasitic on the social/cultural. So, let's agree with Lukacs, and get on with it. Cheers, John __________________________________________ A. J. Soyland Lecturer in Culture & Communication __________________________________________ Department of Psychology | Email: psa003@cent1.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University | Phone (office): (01524) 593887 Lancaster, LA1 4YF | Fax (department): (01524) 593744 UK | ___________________|______________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 11:18:33 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: expertise In-Reply-To: <199511111200.HAA28505@mailbox.syr.edu> After reading _The Reflective Practitioner_ by Donald Schon, this summer, I have come to be extremely fascinated by the history of the professions. Clearly, each 'profession' has provided a set of ethical guides, and has claimed guild-like rights over science-based skills and knowledge (Do we still think of theology as a profession?). In the US, we constantly question the particular experts, yet, never question the professions. I mean, when a doctor or any type of expert speaks in the media, we grant a special priviledge to their title, yet, become skeptical if the person speaks their personal opinion. What kind of social security would remain in my heart if i did not assume that the professionals had some moral commitment to the Truth and Knowledge their role makes claims on? Yet, how reasonable is it to assume that any professional carries such a MORAL commitment in their heart? I do not simply mean duty when i say moral. I refer to general loyalties, attachments, subtleties of value, etc. etc. Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers and lawyers and physicists who CARE? jude ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 17:25:44 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bonnie Blustein Subject: introduction This is Bonnie Blustein. I am a historian of science and medicine... have worked mostly on history of neurology in the US ... Now teaching (maths) at a Chicago high school. I have also been active in opposing the US goverment's "violence initiative" (search for "crime gene" etc). I'e also been talking to a number of people about the possibilities of (re)activating a "left" presence at meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and other venues where the politics of science are "out there." ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 19:14:42 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Re: expertise In-Reply-To: <199511111639.XAA18145@mucc.mahidol.ac.th> On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Jude L. Hollins wrote: > > Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers > and lawyers and physicists who CARE? I think the basis of expertise is having a body of knowledge that will get the task done whether it be saving our souls, fixing our roof, mending our pipes, curing our disease etc and a commitment to using that body of knowledge to the best of one's abilities.Possibly the origins of the guild system lie in these facts ie designed to ensure transmission and accountability. That probably worked well (historians please comment)when the body of knowledge was limited, when the citizens/professionals more or less shared common values and when the economic system didn't have such a stranglehold on people.With regard to the first item on this "list",the body (bodies) of knowledge is ( are ) now so complex that a higher degree is insufficient preparation for the situations one will face in professional life and I mean this in a broad sense. For example a social worker or therapist is not only faced with a plethora of ,often competing, theories to help him/her explain the reality of the client but it is all carried out with reference to social, legal and administrative structures.I think as layman we might have to see professionals as more limited than we would like and as professionals we have to be more humble in how we serve people . I like the idea of a professional as an enabler and entering into a dialogue with clients, a partnership if you like. Saying something like:" I have certain skills and knowledge, so do you. Let's apply them together to try to achieve your objective." Most of you will be familiar with the sociological spin on professions ie as a body of people furthering their own interests(largely economic) by exclusion.I don't think this is totally true as I think the old guild spirit mentioned earlier still exists to a degree.Enough from me! Regards, Ilyas ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 00:48:11 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Goldman Subject: intro By way of introduction: I am a clinical/forensic psychologist located in inner-city Sydney. Half my working week I spend as a police psychologist mainly doing critical incident debriefing, counselling and training. The rest of the time I conduct a psychotherapy practice and do some formal research on the dynamics of trauma in various areas of policing as well. Looking forward to the list with interest. dgoldman@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 12:52:26 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Donald J. Yankovic" Subject: Re: expertise jude: Now is a time when I wish that I didn't use the delete key so often so fast. Within the past few days there was a review on H-REVIEW describing how many academic fields became corrupted during the Nazi period in Germany. You might find it via a message to LISTSERV@msu.edu. Yes, I would like to think that the practitioners of any profession are virtuous, but unfortunately that trust is often misplaced. I do remember being part of a project at a university that was introducing special "business ethics" and "ethics for health care professionals", etc. To this economist and some of my colleagues, the substance of these courses boiled down to "how to use ethical arguments to justify any course of action you choose and how to cover your ass when challenged". I also remember spending an afternoon with some EMT students who were studying for their certification exam. Virtually none of their conversation had to do with, e.g. stoping bleeding or starting hearts; their concern was about which law or regulation would be violated if they took this or that course of action. While we can expect all entrants to a professional socialization program (graduate school) to be acting in their self interest, there is really no way to sort out which are selfish. This is why self policeing in the professions is so very important. It is possible, e.g., to fire a tenured academic for moral turpitude such as plagerism, but it is seldom done on the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" principle. Is all of this too cynical??? >After reading _The Reflective Practitioner_ by Donald Schon, this summer, >I have come to be extremely fascinated by the history of the >professions. Clearly, each 'profession' has provided a set of ethical >guides, and has claimed guild-like rights over science-based skills and >knowledge (Do we still think of theology as a profession?). In the US, >we constantly question the particular experts, yet, never question the >professions. > >I mean, when a doctor or any type of expert speaks in the media, we grant >a special priviledge to their title, yet, become skeptical if the person >speaks their personal opinion. > >What kind of social security would remain in my heart if i did not assume >that the professionals had some moral commitment to the Truth and >Knowledge their role makes claims on? Yet, how reasonable is it to assume >that any professional carries such a MORAL commitment in their heart? > >I do not simply mean duty when i say moral. I refer to general loyalties, >attachments, subtleties of value, etc. etc. > >Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers >and lawyers and physicists who CARE? > >jude > > *************************************************************************** Donald J. Yankovic (360)378-2878 P.O.Box 1583 Friday Harbor WA 98250 yankovic@pacificrim.net ********** Its Never Too Late To Have A Happy Childhood ***************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 06:42:10 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: expertise In a message dated 95-11-11 11:26:38 EST,Jude Hollins writes: >Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers >and lawyers and physicists who CARE? Sure, but care about what? I hope that my surgeons to worry too much about me as a person, but care a great deal about themselves and what they profess. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:00:25 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kjell Jonsson Subject: Introduction First of all: cogratulation to the list I've just entered. Let me introduce myself. I am a professor at the department of History of Science and Ideas , Umea university, in the north of Swedan. Also doing research at the Institute for future studies, Stockholm (intellectual discourse on media and popular culture) and the editor of _Tvarsnitt_, a popular (well) journal of the Council for research in the humanities and social sciences. Since my dissertation, _The Limits of Science _ (1987, in Swedish), I've been studying the relation between religion and science and the cultural dimensions of science: popular science, science journalism and science as "Welsanschauung" in the early 20th century/See fx. Kjell Jonsson, "Physics as Culture", in _Center of the Periphery_, ed. S. Lindqvist, Canton, MA: Science history publ, 1993/. Hope I could contribute to the discussion on the list in the future. Best, Kjell kjell.jonsson@idehist.umu.se ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:59:51 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Annette Gough Subject: Introduction My name is Annette Gough and, although my current (until 30 November) email address is Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada I normally can be found at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. My interests in science-as-culture are related to my teaching and research interests in the Faculty of Education where I teach undergraduate and postgraduate courses in science education and environmental education. In these courses I draw upon the work of people like Sandra Harding and Carolyn Merchant to develop notions of the socially constructed gendered nature of science and environment and to address how these constructions can be handled in primary school and high school classrooms as well as our daily lives. My doctorate was a feminist poststructuralist analysis of some of the foundations of the environmental education movement and my current research interests are in developing poststructuralist, feminist and postcolonial perspectives in science education and environmental education. I tend to lurk on lists, but I hope to get better at being more obvious! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:01:24 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: expertise X-To: Iljas Baker - SH In-Reply-To: <199511130617.AAA26730@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Perhaps it is NOT furthering of one's own interests at the expense of others in the negative economic sense, but rather the specialization in a field of expertise and the exchange of other expertise for the advancement of everyone's self interest. Adam Smith said it more than 200 years ago, and the invisible hand does still exist. We all exchange our skills in specifid areas for compensation or incentives of one sort or another. Thus, those whose skills are more scarce or more valuable may receive a larger economic reward. This should encourage others to obtain the skills and knowledge to make them more competitive. My two cents. Sheryl On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Iljas Baker - SH wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Jude L. Hollins wrote: > > > > > Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers > > and lawyers and physicists who CARE? > > > I think the basis of expertise is having a body of knowledge that will > get the task done whether it be saving our souls, fixing our roof, > mending our pipes, curing our disease etc and a commitment to using that > body of knowledge to the best of one's abilities.Possibly the origins of > the guild system lie in these facts ie designed to ensure transmission > and accountability. That probably worked well (historians please > comment)when the body of knowledge was limited, when the > citizens/professionals more or less shared common values and when the > economic system didn't have such a stranglehold on people.With regard to > the first item on this "list",the body > (bodies) of knowledge is ( are ) now so complex that a higher degree is > insufficient preparation for the situations one will face in professional > life and I mean this in a broad sense. For example a social worker or > therapist is not only faced with a plethora of ,often competing, theories > to help him/her explain the reality of the client but it is all carried > out with reference to social, legal and administrative structures.I > think as layman we might have to see professionals as more limited than > we would like and as professionals we have to be more humble in how we > serve people . I like the idea of a professional as an enabler and > entering into a dialogue with clients, a partnership if you like. Saying > something like:" I have certain skills and knowledge, so do you. Let's > apply them together to try to achieve your objective." Most of you will > be familiar with the sociological spin on professions ie as a body of > people furthering their own interests(largely economic) by exclusion.I > don't think this is totally true as I think the old guild spirit > mentioned earlier still exists to a degree.Enough from me! > > Regards, > > Ilyas > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:29:03 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: _Science as Culture_ quarterly journal I very much hope that the subscribers to this forum will also want to subscribe to the hard copy journal of the same name. _Science as Culture_ has, we think, a distinguished history dating back to the ferment of the 1960s and the journal from which it grew, _Radical Science Journal_ (copies of which are still available, as is the collection, _Radical Scienc Essays_ - ask me). We also hope that forum members will contribute to the journal both on the net and for the hard copy version. Comments, articles and other matrials are hereby invited for either version or both. Write to me: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk. Subscriptions (see below) are supposed to be sent to Guilford for US & Canada or to Worldwide (rest of world), but I'd be grateful if you'd drop me a note as well, so we know who has come via this forum. Thanks, Bob Young (editor) _Science as Culture_ explores the role of expertise in shaping the values which contend for influence over the wider society. The journal analyses how our scientific culture defines what is rational, and what is natural. SaC provides a unique, accessible forum for debate, beyond the boundaries of academic disciplines and specializations. Contributors have included: Vincent Mosco, Donna Haraway, Richard Barbrook, Langdon Winner, Michael Chanan, Sarah Franklin, Michael Shortland.Steve Best & Douglas Kellner. Roger Smith, Mary Mellor, Scott L. Montgomery, Roger Silverstone, Bruce Berman, Ashis Nandy, Jack Kloppenburg, Jr, Les Levidow, Christopher Hamlin, Philip Garrahan & Paul Stewart, Maureen McNeil, Barbara Duden, Andrew Ross, Dennis Hayes, Kevin Robins & Frank Webster, David Pingitore, Jon Turney, Stephen Hill & Tim Turpin, Chunglin Kwa, Joel Kovel, David Hakken, Robert M. Young. The journal has published articles on mass-media representations of expertise, the political role of radio, human and agricultural biotechnologies, cultures of workplace automation, the metaphors central to scientific knowledge, artificial intelligence, images of the scientist in film and theatre, etc. Editor: Robert M. Young Managing Editor: Les Levidow Board: Sarah Franklin, Pam Linn, Maureen McNeil Advisory Panel: Tom Athanasou, Roger Cooter, Ruth Schwartz Cowan, Stephen Cross, Norman Diamond, David Dickson, Karl Figlio, Marike Finlay, Donna Haraway, Ludmilla Jordanova, Anne Karpf, Douglas Kellner, Sonia Liff, Vincent Mosco, Dorothy Nelkin, David Noble, Don Parson, Barry Richards, Eveleen Richards, Kevin Robins, Roger Smith, Tony Solomonides, Judy Wajcman, Gary Werskey, Judith Williamson, Langdon Winner _Science as Culture_ is published quarterly, and each issue contains 160 pages. Subscription may begin with any issue. (L1.00 British pound Sterling =3D $1.58) Subscriptions for United Kingdom: L25 individual for four issues, L42.50 for eight issues; L50 institutional for four issues, L85 for eight issues Overseas: L30 for four issues, L50 for eight issues. All prices include postage. Air Mail L10 extra. Orders to Science as Culture, Worldwide Subscription Service Ltd., Unit 4, Gibbs Reed Farm, Ticehurst, TN5 7HE, England. Tel. +44 1580 200657 Fax. +44 1580 200616. Payment should be in sterling or US dollars or by credit card. Credit card orders should include name, mailing address, expiry date. (Visa/Barclaycard/MasterCard/Access/Amex). If payment is made in another currency, add the equivalent of L5. to cover conversion charges. (Credit card orders are easiest for us.) Subscriptions for the USA, Canada/Mexico: $30 individual USA, $45 Canada/Mexico; $65 institutional USA, $80 institutional Canada/Mexico. All prices include postage. Order from Guilford Publications, Inc., 72 Spring Street, New York, N. Y., USA. Tel. (212) 431 9800; (800) 365 7006; Fax. (212) 966 6708. Payment should be in US dollars or by credit card (American Express/MasterCard/Visa). Back issues (see below) are L7.50 each for non-subscribers, L4.00 for subscribers; L10.75 for institutions. Available from Science as Culture, 26 =46reegrove Road, London N7 9RQ. Tel. +44 171 609 0507 Fax. +44 171 609 4837 email pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk. _Science as Culture_ 26 Freegrove Road London N7 9RQ tel.0171-609 0507 fax 0171-609 4837 All back issues are still available @L7.50 /L4 to subscribers as follows: pilot issue Star Wars is already working (Vincent Mosco); Science, poetry and utopia:Humphrey Jennings' Pandaemonium (Kevin Robins); A new way of talking: community radio in 1980s Britain (Richard Barbrook); The scientist as guru: the explainers (Robert M. Young); Sex selection in India: girls as a bad investment (Les Levidow. SaC 1 'Play it again, Sony': the double life of home video technology (Ben Keen); Alan Turing on stage (Tony Solomonides); Nostalgic naturalism: Granta on science (Sally Shuttleworth); 'Choice' in childbirth (Grazyna Baran); Making chips with dust-free poison (Dennis Hayes); Socially useful production (Pam Linn). SaC 2 The home computer (Leslie Haddon); Science shops in France (John Stewart); Counting on the cards: a blackjack system (Holly Gamble); High-tech mining and the new model miner (Joe Bohen & Nick Wroughton); Science-fiction utopias (Barbara Goodwin); Electronic surveillance -- or security perverted (Bertrand Giraux). SaC 3 Athens without slaves... or slaves without Athens? (Kevin Robins & =46rank Webster); Piano studies (Michael Chanan); Life Story: the gene as fetish object on TV (Sarah Franklin); Non-Western science, past and present (Les Levidow); Romancing the future (Peter Hulme). SaC 4 Wonder stories in Alienland (Michael Shortland); Watching television (Steve Best & Douglas Kellner); The trials of forensic science (Roger Smith); The female in scientific biography (Sylvana Tomaselli); Looking backward at the socialist utopian (Patrick Parrinder); Chernobyl: nobody's to blame? (Les Levidow). SaC 5 Robocop and 1980s sci-fi films (Fred Glass); The embracing vision of Joseph Needham (Joel Kovel); Charles Darwin: man and metaphor (Robert M. Young); TechnoCity: symbolic utopia and status panic (Vincenzo Ruggiero). SaC 6 Nuclear emergency: an 'unusual event (Patricia Kullberg); Turning green: whose ecology? (Mary Mellor); The cult of jargon (Scott L. Montgomery); The operating theatre as degradation ritual (Larry O'Hara); Television: text or discourse? (Roger Silverstone); Black Athena: two views (John Gabriel and George W. Stocking, Jr). SaC 7 The computer metaphor: bureaucratizing the mind (Bruce Berman); AIDS culture (John Fauvel); Science as a reason of state (Ashis Nandy); The telephone as romance in Hollywood film (George Custen). SaC 8: Post-Fordism Post-fordism and technological determinism (Eloina Pelaez & John Holloway); Management-by-stress in the US auto industry (Mike Parker & Jane Slaughter); Foreclosing the future (Les Levidow); Mistranslations: Lipietz in London and Paris (Richard Barbrook); Scientism in the history of management theory (Robert M. Young); Rationalism, irrationalism and Taylorism (Bill Schwarz). SaC 9 Monstrous nature or technology? (Ian Barns); The double helix as icon (Greg Myers); Woman, nature and the international division of labour (Maria Mies interviewed by Ariel Salleh); Repressive tolerance in science policy (Philip Bereano); Nuclear accidents by design (Les Levidow); Darwinism and the division of labour (Robert M. Young). SaC 10 Science as kitsch: the dinosaur and other icons (Scott L. Montgomery); India's human guinea pigs (Vandana & Mira Shiva); 'Mathophobia': Pythagoras and roller-skating (Richard Winter); Women who make the chips (Les Levidow). SaC 11 Cervical screening, medical signs and metaphors (Tina Posner); Chaos and entropy: postmodern science and social theory (Steven Best); Technological cultures of weapons design (Perry Morrison & Stephen Little); Reclaiming experience (Richard Gunn). SaC 12: Deadly science as culture Exterminating angels: morality, violence and technology in the Gulf War (Kevin Robins & Asu Aksoy); Some are mathematicians (Mike Siddoway); Codes and combat in biomedical discourse (Scott L. Montgomery); The culture of Star Wars (Edward Reiss); Postmodern politics in Los Angeles (Don Parson); The anti-nuclear campaign on the Ganges (Dhirendra Sharma). SaC 13: Genes 'n' Greens Alternative agriculture and the new biotechnologies (Jack Kloppenburg, Jr); Green meanings: what might sustainable agriculture sustain? (Christopher Hamlin); Cleaning up on the farm (Les Levidow); The social side of sustainability (Patricia Allen & Carolyn Sachs); Biodiversity and food security (Alistair Smith); India's Green Revolution in crisis (Praful Bidwai); Surviving development (Sarah =46ranklin). SaC 14 The Bird and the Robot at Walt Disney World (Stephen Fjellman); =46IAT's cultural revolution (Sheren Hobson); Otherworldly conversations; terran topics; local terms (Donna Haraway); The virtual unconscious in post-photography (Kevin Robins); Genes and racial hygiene (Deborah Steinberg). SaC 15 Science, ideology and Donna Haraway (Robert M. Young); Science in China and the West (Matthew Gutmann); British radio in the 1980s (Richard Barbrook); The constructed female in women's science fiction (Debbie Shaw). SaC 16 Working for Nissan (Philip Garrahan & Paul Stewart); Why people die (Lindsay Prior & Mick Bloor); Darwin's metaphor and the philosophy of science (Robert M. Young); Roger Penrose and the critique of artificial intelligence (Bruce J. Berman); Social constructivism: opening the black box and finding it empty (Langdon Winner); Agricultural biotechnology: whose efficiency? (Les Levidow). SaC 17: Procreation Stories New reproductive technologies: dreams and broken promises (Maureen McNeil); The gender character of in vitro fertilization (Marta Kirejczyk); Postmodern procreation: representing reproductive practice (Sarah Franklin); Visualizing 'life' (Barbara Duden); The public foetus and the family car (Janelle Sue Taylor). SaC 18 The world according toNational Geographic (Scott L. Montgomery); Japan: panacea or threat? (Ron Mitchinson); Technology assessment in German's biotechnology debate (Bernhard Gill); Powders, pills, bodies and things (Tony Kirman); The new smartness (Andrew Ross); The emperor's new genes (Pat Spallone). SaC 19 Family medicine in American culture (David Pingitore); Evolution, ethics and the search for certainty (Martha McCaughey); Thinking about the human genome project (Jon Turney) Gravity's Rainbow and the Newton/Goethe colour controversy (Megan Stern) SaC 20 Academic research cultures in collision (Stephen Hill & Tim Turpin); Modelling technologies of control (Chunglin Kwa); Desmond and Moore'sDarwin:: a critique (Robert M. Young); De-reifying risk (Les Levidow). SaC 21 Demolition derby as destruction ritual (Stephen C. Zehr); Electronic curb cuts and disability (David Hakken); Te(k)nowledge & the student/subject (James McDonald); The zoo: theatre of the animals (Scott L. Montgomery). SaC 22: Science on Display Making nature 'real' again (Steven Allison); Supermarket science? (Sharon Macdonald); Realism in representing race (Tracy Teslow); Nations on display at Expo '92 (Penelope Harvey). SaC 23 Body wars, body victories: AIDS and homosexuality in immunological discourse (Catherine Waldby); Animal experiments: scientific uncertainty and public unease (Mike Michael & Lynda Birke); Reading the human genome narrative (Josie van Dijck); What scientists need to learn (Robert M. Young); UK Consensus Conference on plant biotechnology (Ian Barns). SaC 24 Haitians, racism and AIDS (Laurent Dubois); The social construction of farm pollution (Philip Lowe and Neil Ward). Brains from space (Jeffrey Sconce); Laughing gas: democracy without feeling (Santiago Colas); Vannevar Bush: an engineer builds a book (Larry Owens). Back issues are =A37.50 each for non-subscribers, =A34.00 for subscribers; =A310.75 for institutions. Available from Science as Culture, 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ. Tel. +44 171 609 0507 Fax. +44 171 609 4837 A full catalogue of Process Press publications is available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html It can also be sent via air mail if you have trouble with the web site. Write to pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:04:20 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Satoru Aonuma Subject: intro Hello all, My name is Satoru Aonuma, a grad student in communication at Wayne State University in Detroit. I did my undergraduate work in Japan, received MA from University of Iowa where I was exposed to a lot of "rhetoric of science" stuff, and I started PhD just this fall here at Wayne. Being a scientifically semi-illiterate myself, I am interested in looking at the working of scientific and expert discourses in public. I previously presented papers on the "Velikovsky affair" and rhetorical dimensions of medical care practice at rhetoric/communication conferences. Right now, I am working on a paper in which I (try to) explore the (potential) role that public museums (Smithsonians, science museums in Boston, Toronto, etc.) play as a discursive, public sphere. Any suggestion or information relevant to this topic would be greatly appreciated. ______________________________ Satoru Aonuma/Wayne State University Tel: 313(832)5778 E-mail: Satoru_Aonuma@mts.cc.wayne.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:53:37 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bernd Frohmann Subject: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511131731.MAA05824@julian.uwo.ca> I'm very happy that Bob Young has created this list, and I'm looking forward to lively discussions. I come from philosophy (doctorate at University of Toronto) and have been led to literature on science as discourse via teaching the literature of science & technology to graduate students in library & information science. Like some others on this list, I'm a reader of Latour et al, and the journal Social Studies of Science. I'm especially eager to learn from other list participants about issues relating to the many ways in which the discourses of science exercise power through the mediation of social relations. Bernd Frohmann, Associate Professor & Acting Dean Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1H1 voice: (519) 679-2111 ext. 8510 | fax: (519) 661-3506 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 13:37:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lori Wagner Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511131716.MAA18753@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Nov 13, 95 04:29:03 pm I just realized, I haven't really introduced myself properly. My field is in 18th and 19th century German/Austrian science and literature, primarily the developing disciplines of mathematical logic and geology in German romanticism and realism. I am also interested in science as cultural study and the relationship between science and literature both in the current 'American school' as well as in the German tradition. Lori Wagner U. of Pennsylvania lwagner@ccat.sas.upenn.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 13:49:44 -0500 Reply-To: John Watt Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Watt Subject: Content? Does this list consider (or wish to consider): 1. The impact of food technology or science in the world? 2. The methods of influencing science - is it honest? 3. Teleological factors in science? Thanks John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 13:50:08 -0500 Reply-To: John Watt Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Watt Subject: Re: History of Medicine forum - CADUCEUS Is this list anything to do with the magazine of the same name published in the UK (from Coventry)? John ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:58:52 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Donald J. Yankovic" Subject: Re: expertise >In a message dated 95-11-11 11:26:38 EST,Jude Hollins writes: > >>Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers >>and lawyers and physicists who CARE? > >Sure, but care about what? I hope that my surgeons to worry too much about >me as a person, but care a great deal about themselves and what they profess. > Some years ago I had some surgery in Australia when Holistic Medicine (treat the person, not the ailment) was the fad. I'll never forget what the surgeon said: "Look, I'm only 36 years old and hardly know who I am, let alone you. I'll stick to my knives." Clearly I had placed my trust in an honest professional.> *************************************************************************** Donald J. Yankovic (360)378-2878 P.O.Box 1583 Friday Harbor WA 98250 yankovic@pacificrim.net ********** Its Never Too Late To Have A Happy Childhood ***************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 11:24:47 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Greg Nigh Subject: Intro Always looking to arrive fashionably late on any scene, here is my brief introduction. My name is Greg Nigh and I am the co-founder of AIDS Authority, a fledgling non-profit organization which seeks to oppose the use of science and medicine to pursue political ends. More specifically, here is the introductory statement, to be found on the AIDS Authority home page: "AIDS Authority views disease and medical research into its causes and its cures as serving a clear political, economic and ideological function both here in the US and around the globe. AIDS Authority is founded on the belief that the enormously increased prominence of medicine as a social institution is a dangerous trend toward the use of science to infringe upon fundamental individual rights, including the right to biological sovereignty. "And AIDS Authority is committed to resisting this trend in every way possible." My interest in the issue of science is certainly not from any anti-technology position. My belief, and that reflected in the objectives of AIDS Authority, is not that science/medicine is bad, or inherently abusive. But certainly there are dangers in an unregulated pursuit of technology. And as science/medicine become more ingrained in the everyday experience of people, many of those dangers become accepted without scrutiny, as though they are inevitable and even necessary. I think that the most profound exmample of such dangers is to be found within the HIV/AIDS scientific establishment. The vested interests are almost too numerous to enumerate. And AIDS represents not only a scientific problem, but a social and cultural tool. People become laboratories for experimental procedures, foreign countries are testing grounds for drugs and vaccines too dangerous to get past the FDA, etc. The list goes on and on. But it certainly doesn't stop with AIDS. Genetic research, vaccine research and implimentation, and many other activities are now accepted as part of a legitimate scientific enterprise, though many of the implications of these practices are lost in the jargon of progress. The direct impact of "progress" on individuals; the surrendering of privacy concerning various biological states (CD4 counts, various types of 'antibody positive', genetic testing/screening, etc); the *forced* use of medications (such as on homeless people with TB) or the *coerced* use of medications (such as when physicians *strongly encourage* pregnant women to take AZT, experimental in its use as HIV-transmission prevention, which has now caused developmental defects and deaths in babies so exposed); these are all matters of serious concern for those not willing to trust that science will operate in a vaccum, not willing to trust that science pursues its various goals free from ideological leanings or alterior political objectives. I am interested in this list to get ideas of how *hard scientists* perceive their own pursuits. And perhaps even more interesting, I would like to see how the social scientists see their role in bridging the gap between the scientific and the social. Science can go several ways. One option is to pursue technology as an end in itself, and to let the offshoot of those pursuits filter into our culture. Some of these offshoots will be valuable, others probably not so. Alternately, science might go the way of the scientific-industrial complex, driven by larger interests, with research directions that reflect such interests. And, obviously, those other interests are *not* politically neutral. Much of this is apparent already, and to even point it out is almost too obvious to mention. But it seems to me as perilous to neglect to expose these relationships as they form and operate as it would be to neglect to evaluate science as it proceeds overall. By way of background, I am currently working as a computer consultant and manage a consulting lab on the campus of Arizona State University. I received my Master's degree in the Humanities in December, '94. The title of my thesis was "The Study of an Epidemic: Science, Society and the (Re)Presentation of AIDS." I am planning to enroll in naturopathic school in Toronto in the fall of '96. I look forward reading the thoughts on this list. peace greg nigh gnigh@asu.edu -------- AIDS Authority Web Site...... http://www.aidsauthority.org My Tragically Un-hip but Continuously Improving Home Page, Containing The Full Key To The Revolution, Which Due To A Conflict In Scheduling Should Start Around Noon (A Concession To The Late-Sleeping Revolutionaries) Two Weeks From Next Monday.................. http://imagine.inre.asu.edu/~gnigh --------------- "A scientifically ordered society has little room for democracy because rationality is inevitably totalitarian." Mary Dixon 1812 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 12:43:52 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerald Sussman Organization: Urban and Public Affairs Subject: Introduction Hello, My name is Gerry Sussman. I am teaching at Portland State University in Portland, OR, Depts. of Urban Studies & Planning and Speech Communication. This mix has to do with my joint interests in urban politics (more in international political economy) and communication and information technology. My work has been largely in the area of third world development, focussing on information tech. issues within a transnational context. More recently involved in the political economy of communications and information within the U.S. and am completing a book on the subject (Communication, Technology and Politics) due to be in print next year. I'm developing a new course called The Information City and would welcome any suggestions and discussion in presenting such a construct. Looking forward to discussion on the network. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:28:53 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Rooney Subject: Introduction Hi, my name is David Rooney and I am a graduate student working on the history of technology in music. It may not tell you much to say this but I am a kind of hybrid historian part cultural and part economic historian. My research is informed by the Seamless Web theorists such as Bijker and also Foucault's discussion of technology in an essay called Technologies of the Self. I'm looking forward to lots of good discussion on this list. David Rooney Faculty of Humanities Griffith Universtiy, Brisbane, Australia ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 15:29:35 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Introduction Hi-all, I am Lisa Rogers, a graduate student in anthropology at U.Utah in Salt Lake City. My undergrad is biology, emph. in evolution and ecology. "Evolutionary ecology" aka "behavioral ecology" is still my field, now applied to humans within my sub-field within anthropology. I am interested in relations of science within society, and I am eager to find more stimulating views and analyses than the anti-science pomo stuff that I keep running into, in some Leftish circles, in archeological theory and other places. Usually, useless and annoying conversation about science and society seems to include _no actual scientists_, which may make it easy to caricature "science." But I'm sure that there is much more and better conversation possible, and here I am, looking for it and ready to engage. Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:13:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Judith A. Geiger" Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <9511132046.AA27100@is2.NYU.EDU> Hi. My name is Judith Geiger. I'm a grad student in Politics at New York University. My research is in national and regional science policy making in Africa with particular focus on the influence of epistemic communities. I will not be able to participate much as I have my comprehensives coming up in January. I look forward to actively contributing thereafter. regards, Judith ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:34:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bob Frost Subject: Re: Introduction At 5:29 PM 11/13/95, Lisa Rogers wrote: > [...] I am >eager to find more stimulating views and analyses than the >anti-science pomo stuff that I keep running into, in some Leftish >circles, in archeological theory and other places. Usually, useless >and annoying conversation about science and society seems to include >_no actual scientists_, which may make it easy to caricature >"science." Hmmmm... didn't take long for the culture wars to start on a new list, did it? Can we dispense with the name-calling and derisive labelling for once, please? (IMHO, it's better to put it civilly in this fashion than to say that the defenders of "big science" tend to be mediocrities who dream of a world "out there" that's as simple as their controlled laboratory situations). My point here is that we can all engage in smarmy rhetorical mud-wrestles, and while it might help raise the adrenaline of our sedentary academic corporealities, it really accomplishes little else. So please, discuss, don't dis. ********************************************************************** * Robert L. Frost * * Department of History rfrost@umich.edu * * University of Michigan (313) 764-2434 * * Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1045 fax: (313) 747-4881 * * * * History of Technology, European Social and Economic History, * * Gender History, Technology Studies, Modern France * * * ********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:02:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Re: expertise In-Reply-To: <199511130608.BAA24776@mailbox.syr.edu> On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Iljas Baker - SH replied: > > Is not the basis of having expertise in society that of having plumbers > > and lawyers and physicists who CARE? > > > I think the basis of expertise is having a body of knowledge that will > get the task done whether it be saving our souls, fixing our roof, > mending our pipes, curing our disease etc and a commitment to using that > body of knowledge to the best of one's abilities.Possibly the origins of > the guild system lie in these facts ie designed to ensure transmission > and accountability... yes. For me, i do wonder if professional knowledge is what it is about. Granted, this is what those who ask/claim for the status of expertise espouse. Yet, were guilds simply about skills? (historical experts, enter stage right, please) Likewise, what are the nicely defined tasks and skills? There seems to be a sacred hall, where only professionals can define and critique what comes under their 'tasks', responsibilities, and knowledge. I am not screaming for government regulation, but, simply asking if we have put ourselves in a precarious position, speaking of safety deposit boxes, wherby only experts have the keys... to life, death, sinks, and moral excellence... (the knowledge for dealing with such things). hehehehe likewise, Adam Smith's famous publication The Wealth of Nations (1776!) came in part out of his interest in how humans associate via 'sympathy' (Smith's wording). The work i refer to is The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and is more interested in people's capacity (or disposition) towards social association, attachment, and sentiments. According to Scott Gordon(history and philosophy of social science.1991.oxford), Smith adopted the rational animal notion in The Wealth of Nations 'for heuristic' purposes. Smith himself notes the limitations of the 'invisible hand' metaphor, while holding onto the notion that human sociability leads to spontaneous ordering beyond individual interests... (did i get this right?) I like the metaphor, but, question the reality of any true "free" market (another discussion). Yes, so i still remain confused about the origins and nature of expertise. Self-interest and utility of vocational organization seem somewhat reasonable, yet, there seems to be more. The professions seem to hold a sacred contract with them, beyond the utility such a contract might offer. It would seem that philosophers would have been out of jobs a long time ago if there was not some sacred dimension to it all (of course, many are out of jobs). It seems that the ideal professional might be some impersonal 'knower'. Are professionals just 'knowers'? Does the professional boil down to association with neatly compartmentalized theory? Clearly, tacit knowledge of using various 'instruments' and professional ethics comes into the picture. However, the picture becomes really muddy. Do professional associations and in-house reflection on the sacred practices reflect such a muddy concept? I don't know, and i apologize for the double-barreled question... jude :) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:24:48 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511140929.JAA26523@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Bob Frost" at Nov 13, 95 08:34:35 pm In the last mail Bob Frost said: > At 5:29 PM 11/13/95, Lisa Rogers wrote: > > [...] I am > >eager to find more stimulating views and analyses than the > >anti-science pomo stuff that I keep running into, in some Leftish > >circles, in archeological theory and other places. Usually, useless > >and annoying conversation about science and society seems to include > >_no actual scientists_, which may make it easy to caricature > >"science." > > Hmmmm... didn't take long for the culture wars to start on a new list, did > it? Can we dispense with the name-calling and derisive labelling for once, > please? (IMHO, it's better to put it civilly in this fashion than to say > that the defenders of "big science" tend to be mediocrities who dream of a > world "out there" that's as simple as their controlled laboratory > situations). > My point here is that we can all engage in smarmy rhetorical mud-wrestles, > and while it might help raise the adrenaline of our sedentary academic > corporealities, it really accomplishes little else. So please, discuss, > don't dis. Except that there has been no discussion so far, only dull introductions. Of course, we don't want flame wars, but we shouldn't shy away from any trenchently held opinion just because there is a danger things may perhaps get heated. For my part, I think Lisa is right, there is a lot of modish nonsense talked about science. How often do we have to be told, with a knowing look and a worldly smirk that `science doesn't operate in a vaccuum'? In my experience, if you try to move the debate on from that banal fact and ask how we can reconcile that thought with the better realist arguments, you just get static. By the way, my hat is off to a man who can disparage rhetoric by rhetorical means (smarmy mud-wrestles), having in the previous paragraph said what he would not say because it's too rude! Brendan Larvor ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 21:28:30 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: Re dull introductions At the risk of giving a load of modish nonsense, and without wanting to point the finger at anybody, least of all scientists, I am troubled by the fact that at the end of the twentieth century most of the world's popoulation lives in abject poverty, and that our knowledge(s) is/are just as poor at trying to make this situation better. Does this trouble other people interested in science as culture, or have I got the wrong end of the stick ? Andy Barfield ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:35:00 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Trenchantly held opinions Brendan Larvor says, Except that there has been no discussion so far, only dull introductions. Of course, we don't want flame wars, but we shouldn't shy away from any trenchently held opinion just because there is a danger things may perhaps get heated. Here are some tranchantly held opinions of mine: All facts are theory-laden All theories are value-laden All values redise in an iideology or world view. Science, technology, medicine and other forms of expertise are the embodiment of values in theories and things, facts and artefacts, procedures, programs and products. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:45:49 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Dale Edmonds Subject: Paltry Introduction Um, I actually haven't started varsity yet. I *was* there earlier this year doing political science, but fell asleep in too many lectures, so I dropped out. Next year I'm going to do health sciences or physics depending on which I prefer at Otago University. I'm seventeen, so I'm probably the lurker baby, but I run another mailing list called BloodQuill devoted to novels and readers- as the blurb says, words gone mad. In my year off, I'm working at a cyber cafe setting up their web site and trying to figure out CGI and learn how to set up my own BBS next year. Right, you all look intelligent and educated so I shall slip back into lurking until I have something constructive to say. Dale Edmonds whale@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~whale Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. -Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:56:15 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Poverty of knowlege? In-Reply-To: <199511141228.TAA20222@mucc.mahidol.ac.th> On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Andrew Barfield wrote: > I am troubled by the fact that at the end > of the twentieth century most of the world's popoulation > lives in abject poverty, and that our knowledge(s) is/are > just as poor at trying to make this situation better. Surely we have enough knowledge to make a pretty big dent in world poverty? Isn't the problem something else.I guess the something else that this particular list might be interested in is the social control of knowledge and its application.Most research for example is carried out not necessarily to improve the human condition but to make vast profits, and knowledge in the form of medicines is distributed only to those who can pay the vast sums demanded by the pharmaceutical companies.I'm sure other list subscribers can point to countless examples. Oh one last thing : our knowledge is applied very selectively eg World Bank and other such overseas development aid funded projects are often designed to bring the recipients into "the club", some times with disastrous affects, rather than designed to truly benefit local populations. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:26:10 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Iljas Baker - SH Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In-Reply-To: <199511141232.TAA20388@mucc.mahidol.ac.th> On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > > Here are some tranchantly held opinions of mine: > > All facts are theory-laden > All theories are value-laden > All values reside in an ideology or world view. Well we can continue with this sort of thing: all ideologies or world views are shaped(choose a synonym)by(choose a phrase)...We will probably complete the circle. There must be another way to approach this. I am reminded of a quote from Saul Bellow's The Dean's December: " In the American moral crisis, the first requirement was to experience what was happening and to see what must be seen. The facts were covered from our perception. More than they had been in the past?Yes, because the changes, especially the increase in consciousness-and also in false consciousness-was accompanied by a peculiar kind of confusion. The increase of theories and discourse, itself a cause of new strange forms of blindness, the false representations of"communication" led to horrible distortions of public consciousness. Therefore the first act of morality was to disinter the reality, retrieve reality....The language of discourse had shut out experience altogether." p.136 Is anyone troubled by this quote? Inspired by it? I think Bellow(never one for being politically correct) is one of our most perceptive living writers. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:54:44 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Introduction Hello all, my name is Andreas Carter, I am 31, and currently on my way to start up a "virtual" company in Sweden, which is where I am born, and currently live. Through my father I am American, though. My interest in science-as-culture could best be expressed by relating it to my interest in, and study of, the works of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) - although that is only a partial truth. I have here chosen to quote that part of the preface which I have included in the "quite subjectively edited" version of his ethico-epistemological work The Philosophy of Freedom (1894), which can be found on the WWW at http://public-www.pi.se/~the_tank/steiner/preface.htm Cheers, Andreas "A truth which comes to us from the outside always bears the stamp of uncertainty. We can believe only what appears to each one of us in our own hearts as truth. Only the truth can give us assurance in developing our individual powers. Whoever is tortured by doubts finds his powers lamed. In a world full of riddles, he can find no goal for his creative energies." "Today, many people no longer want to merely believe; they want to know. Belief demands the acceptance of truths which one does not fully comprehend. But things not fully comprehended are repugnant to the individual element in us, which wants to experience everything in the depths of its inner being. Knowledge that is subject to external standards, academic or otherwise, cannot really satisfy us." "The realms of life are many. For each one, special sciences develop. But life itself is a unity, and the more deeply the sciences try to penetrate into their separate realms, the more they withdraw themselves from the vision of the world as a living whole. There must be a knowledge which seeks in the separate sciences the elements leading back to the fullness of life. The scientific specialist seeks through his findings to develop awareness of the world and its workings. In this book the aim is a philosophical one - that knowledge itself shall become organically alive." "Philosophy is, in one sense, science. In another sense it is art. All real philosophers have been artists - in the realm of concepts. For them, human ideas were their artists materials and scientific method their artistic technique. Abstract thinking thus takes on concrete individual life, and the ideas become powerful forces in themselves. How philosophy as an art is related to human freedom, what freedom is, and whether we do, or can, participate in it - this is the main theme of my book. Any other scientific discussions are included only to the extent that they throw light on these questions, which are, in my opinion, the most immediate concern of mankind." "All science would be nothing but the satisfaction of idle curiosity if it didn't strive to raise the value of existence for human individuals. The sciences attain their true value only by showing the human significance of their results. The ultimate aim of the individual can never be the cultivation of a single faculty, but only the development of all the capacities that slumber within him. Knowledge has value only in so far as it contributes to the allround development of the whole nature of man." _________________________ andreas.carter@pi.se ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:19:56 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Duncan Watts Subject: Intro Dear science culture-vultures: my name is Duncan Watts and I'm a 3rd year (Australian) grad student currently immersed in mathematical modelling of biological rhythms, at Cornell. However, my interests extend to modelling of social/economic/ecological systems as well as to the philosophy and sociology of science (not to mention the sociology of philosophy, which seems to attract a lot less attention). One thing I've noticed about the blurbs so far is how few practicng scientists there are (one, that I've counted so far) participating in a list which concerns itself with the social impact of (practicing) scientists. I don't wish to start off any rounds of chest-poking, but I find this absence of scientists to be a consistent feature of many science and technology studies-type departments / discussions. More than anything, it seems an indictment of the introverted nature of scientific inquiry, and philosophers / historians / commentators of science really can't be blamed for that. But I can't help but wonder how productive any discussion about science and society can be, without active and widespread interaction BETWEEN scientists and society. Are we all just preaching to the converted? Cheers, Duncan. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 21:25:45 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: expertise >I am not screaming for government regulation, but, simply asking if we >have put ourselves in a precarious position, speaking of safety deposit >boxes, wherby only experts have the keys... to life, death, sinks, and >moral excellence... (the knowledge for dealing with such things). That's good, since it seems that government is very involved in the credentialing and preservation of (post)modern guild societies from teachers (where there is enormous debate about what is the body of knowledge they possess, to lawyers, doctors, et c.) While some of this may regulate the quality of work done, much of it merely provides rituals to demarcate institutionalized expertise: simple entrance exams which have only marginal relation to the practice, bureaucracy qua bureaucracy. One metaphor I come back to again (borrowed from Haraway, no doubt borrowed back further) when I reflect on academic disciplines, which constitute at least one subgenre of expertise, is that of a "power charged conversation." These conversations are carried out through journals, conferences, email networks (like this one), and are constituted and regulated through various modes of power: the money to found journals, or set up computer networks, the credentialing power to designate people as being in or out of particular disciplines, and so forth. --evolving (non teleological) thoughts Matthew Weinstein ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:00:03 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "AUDREY B. DAVIS" Organization: UNIVERSITY OF MD DENTAL SCHOOL Subject: introduction Audrey B. Davis began as a student of the sciences in college and tuaght secondary school science for five years before discovering the history of science. I studied hist. of science and medicine at Johns Hopkins University receiving a Ph. D. in 1969 just before the more skeptical look at science and scientists took off in the academic world. My thesis, which explored the rise of science and its relation to medicine in the 17th c., introduced me to the alchemical and other "non-scientific" ideas which have since been so closely linked with science through a number of scholarly studies. Thus it is easy for me to enter into discussion about the many aspects of science and the questions these raise. I spent 27 years as Curator of Medical Sciences at the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, a humbling experience in facing the many issues of educating "the public" and responding to their many requests, etc. Presently I am happily engaged in preparing the inaugural exhibition for the National Museum of Dentistry located in Baltimore, Maryland. The museum and the exhibition opens April 27, 1996. Briefly what I have read on the internet so far seems ad hoc and reflects the age and experience of the mailers. Sure science is not the bible of life, nor does "idle curiosity" have to be defended and turned into a useful product. None of us experience reality as everyone else does at the same time and we can only hope that what we say will be understood by a few and acted on by even fewer. However one thing I did learn in all my associations with scientists is that there is a vast gap between what a scientist learns and does everyday and what historians, sociologists, etc. learn and do. What seems obvious usually is not. I believe most scientists are horrified to think that they are believed by their research and treatment to intentionally make life more difficult for HIV-AIDS patients. Scientists would do anything to find a cure. They can only react to this disease as they do to every other infection, which calls for precaution and measures to limit its spread. Scientists know that no one group of people create and spread disease, although it may seem like this occurs during a short period of time. Question as you must, but listen very carefully to responses. Audrey B. Davis, National Museum of Dentistry, 666 West Baltimore St., Baltimore, Maryland 21201-1586. FAX: 410 706-8314. Tel: 410 706 8314. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:04:36 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Annette Gough Subject: Re: Intro While I share Duncan Watts' bemusement at the small number of "practising scientists" on this list - which of course begs the question as to what such an entity is anyway - I find solace in a quotation from Marion Namenwirth (1986) which, for me, explains a lot about the silence, or unconsciousness: "Scientists firmly believe that as long as they are not _conscious_ of any bias or political agenda, they are neutral and objective, when in fact they are only unconscious." Our task is perhaps to be more like Donna Haraway, Sandra Harding, Andrew Ross and others and endeavour to stir consciousnesses. This may not happen through lists like this, but then again perhaps, asa result of lurking on such lists, each of us may be inspired in some way to attempt to raise scientists' consciousness levels in other forums. ________________________________ Dr Annette Gough >From 1 September - 1 December 1995 Royal Bank Fellow MSTE Group Faculty of Education Queen's University Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada Ph +613 545 6000 1 7242 (office) Ph +613 542 6275 (home) Fax +613 545 6584 Internet: gougha@educ.queensu.ca Normal address Faculty of Education Deakin University Geelong Victoria 3217 Australia Internet: aggough@deakin.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 15:59:39 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John Soyland (Dr A J Soyland)" Subject: Re: expertise Hi Jude (or should that be Hey Jude? - guess you've never heard that one before...), and others, No, I don't think professionals are just 'knowers' - for one can be one and perhaps not the other. The formation of a profession is about the creation of a category, and one with ethical, financial, and educational implications. Let me try myself as an example (and say hello to the clinical psychologist in Sydney while I'm at it). Professional associations to do with psychology (and psychoanalysis, Bob will point out) are recent, and a good test-case for watching the development of affiliation. I am a member of the British Psychological Society (BPS), and can flash a couple of titles after my name to go along with it. How did I get here? Well, I could have taken an entrance exam to show that I was worthy of membership, but my Australian degrees in Psychology seemed to the panel at the BPS to allow me to avoid this route. That is, my previous education could satisfy the demands of qualification. On becoming a member, I had to read and sign a declaration of ethical conduct in any thing I do whilst calling myself a psychologist (which I never do, but am able to), and I had to pay an amount of money. A few years later, I applied to be a Chartered Psychologist - what that took was additional education in psychology, more money, and the signing of something that looks rather like an oath of professional conduct. I then recived a certificate, to display my professional status - in the same way that medical doctors have various certificates on the wall behind their desks. At the same time, I applied to become an Associate Fellow of the Society: more money, 7 years of additional work in psychology after recieving my first degree, nomiation from 2 people who were already Fellows of the Society and had to write testimonials on my work. Of course, not all of these regulations and procedures existed in the original documents of the society: the profession has gradually become more professional, with more rungs in the ladder to be passed - but there is a kind of 'grandfather clause' such that people who are already members, or associate fellows, or fellows do not have to qualify to the new standards (a bit like professors from earlier generations). That help any? Cheers, John or rather: A.J. Soyland, BA, MA, PhD, CPsychol, AFBPsS __________________________________________ A. J. Soyland Lecturer in Culture & Communication __________________________________________ Department of Psychology | Email: psa003@cent1.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University | Phone (office): (01524) 593887 Lancaster, LA1 4YF | Fax (department): (01524) 593744 UK | ___________________|______________________ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:26:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Re: expertise In-Reply-To: <199511141631.LAA09419@mailbox.syr.edu> Yes, lots of help. I am as interested in the qualifying of plumbers as i am in physicists. The casting of Scientists vs. philosophers might miss an historical dimension. How can we get more 'scientists' onto this list (if it is going to come up as a topic for shooting ourselves/others in the foot)? As i make my way through my doctoral program in sociology and philosophy of education, i get a more complicated view of the nature of this ladder (may i generalize?). Methods and skills seems to be the real emphasis, given vague ethical commitments. Are there other, more experienced than I, professionals out there who could append their introductions with narratives on in-house reflections and training? I would be fascinated to hear the differences and overlaps between professional associations, across seas and disciplines. My gut intuition is that there is more acknowledgement WITHIN scientific/proffesional associations of the politics of knowledge and certainty than in the general discourse within societies at large... ok, a bit more than an intuition... I always wonder why it is fine for Ph.D's to ask the troublesome questions, while 15 year olds (in my experiences) are told to just accept the simplified presentation of science-in-a-vacuum, with expiremental models as Facts. Does one need the big Badge (phD) of a discipline to be legitimately skeptical or critical? How do we think scientific inquiry evolves, anyway? seems the mystics and marginal folks make the best scientists...historically. jude (trying to provoke..) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:05:33 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Don Slater Subject: Introductions In-Reply-To: <199511130633.GAA06820@listserv.rl.ac.uk> LIke a lot of other people I suppose I've been following these intros with great interest -- so...my turn, I guess. I'm a sociologist, though I tend to work on the boundary with economics on the one hand and cultural theory on the other. My main focus is theories of consumer culture. I've been interested in science and technology from a number of angles. These include: 1. Debates about advertising and scientific persuasion (the Vance Packard-type conspiracy arguments)in which advertising is seen to be a problem only when it possesses scientific knowledge/power along a positivist model. 2. At the moment I'm doing some research on boys, men and hobbies which has involved me in Sherry Turkle's work (among others) on relations to objects and games as well as specific technologies like computers, internet, photographic equipment etc. Its partly about hobbies that fetishise technology (trainspotting anyone?) On the second item, I've actually got a query: there seem to have been some discourse in the interwar period and also in the 1950s (particularly US, I think) in which the weight of scientific expertise (mainly psychology) was used to argue that men should take up hobbies firstly (in the 1930s) to mitigate the stress of unemployment, then in the 1950s to mmitigate the stress of employment! Does any have any references or expertise ;-) on this? Along the same lines, does anyone have some critical references on occupational therapy (where I gather hobbies also loom large)? Don Slater Department of Sociology Goldsmiths College University of London Lewisham Way New Cross London SE14 6NW ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:08:32 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <9511132333.AA29904@osf1.gmu.edu> Where is the Foucault essay "Technologies of the Self" published? mark gilbert ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:29:05 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon S Miller Subject: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511140014.SAA42550@mail-hub1.weeg.uiowa.edu> Hello sci-cult e-community. I'm Jon Miller, a graduate student (soon to be ABD) in American literature here at the University of Iowa. I plan to be here on the mailing list, but probably won't have a great deal to contribute. But consider me a member of the audience. (If things get dull, perhaps I'll heckle.) The dissertation I'm working on now is a literary/intellectual/cultural history of drinking in America. I'm here because I'm also interested in the history of science and science culture in written accounts of life in America, and particularly interested, this week at least, in the history of evolutionary thought in North America. And I'm wondering to what degree the latter is the former, at least in literary narratives and their advice for happy living. Jon Stephen Miller University of Iowa jon-s-miller@uiowa.edu "Life is sweet as nitrous oxide" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:38:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In-Reply-To: <9511141237.AA09124@osf1.gmu.edu> Boring Intro: I'm a grad student working on philosophy of culture and philosophy of science. Now for the trenchant stuff: On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > Here are some tranchantly held opinions of mine: > > All facts are theory-laden > All theories are value-laden > All values redise in an iideology or world view. > > Science, technology, medicine and other forms of expertise are the > embodiment of values in theories and things, facts and artefacts, > procedures, programs and products. I agree with the basic constructivist premise as long as it doesn't mindllessly lead to what Lisa Rogers on Mon, 13 Nov 1995 was concerned about: > I am interested in relations of science within society, and I am > eager to find more stimulating views and analyses than the > anti-science pomo stuff that I keep running into, in some Leftish > circles, in archeological theory and other places. Usually, useless > and annoying conversation about science and society seems to include > _no actual scientists_, which may make it easy to caricature > "science." I am not suggesting that Young or his assertion is mindless; far from it, I essentially agree with what he says as far as it goes. In response to his list, I would have to ask, How would we pick out a fact without a theory? Why would we pursue theory if we perceived no value in it? What could a value be without a worldview? In other words, except for a dead myth of god-like objectivity that some may still believe in, where's the trenchancy? None of the above rule out scientific activity that is objective, rational, and efficacious for the production of valued knowledge, as Rogers observes the pomo crowd doing. These points in themselves are no condemnation of science at all, only a rebuttal of certain philosophers and politicians views and uses of science. So any temptation to disparage science on the above grounds (which again, I take it that Young is not) is equally a temptation to disparage all human activity, since it is equally constrained. Nonetheless, given that it is so constrained, it does not at all follow that it is therefore equivalent in all essential features to any other cultural activity, like literature, politics, etc. If you want to argue that position, it will need to be done on other grounds. And I for one, do not believe it can be done. mark gilbert..............................................| mgilbert@osf1.gmu.edu |Need to examine | MarkGil@aol.com |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| |..................................... "...a major advance in quality." -Automotive News ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:51:35 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jose Morales Subject: Re: Introduction Folks, Here's my Intro... I'm Jose Morales, grad student at New York University (matriculated)/UCal San Fran (thesis work) in Environmental Oncology (mostly molecular biology). I coordinate a network for Puerto Ricans called BoricuaNet (on our host IGC). I've been an activist for civil and human rights for years and I've specialized on the issue of environmental racism in urban centers (Latinos in NY). I'm interested in all these issues you folks raised. I got one I'll raise later, right now I'll deal with this one: I particularly like the post... All facts are theory-laden All theories are value-laden All values redise in an iideology or world view. I don't have any problem with the 3 statements, I just want to move from semi-rhetorical statements to actual examples to shove in scientists faces. However, I want to know how that translates in particular instances that you can use with actually practicing scientists--- like fact: TFIID is part of the basal transcription machinery for producing mRNA from most genes--how is this theory laden, where are the values and what is the resulting ideology/world view? Jose ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:16:08 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: schwartz Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions X-To: Robert Maxwell Young In-Reply-To: <199511141239.HAA07677@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu> Introductions on this list clearly require some art. Mine will have to wait. Meanwhile, let me complete Bob Young's circle. He has written: >All facts are theory-laden >All theories are value-laden >All values redise in an iideology or world view. I would add: All ideologies have a predictive component. All predictions are judged confirmed or disconfirmed in accordance with whether they correspond to or contradict the facts. Howard Schwartz Schwartz@Jupiter.ACS.Oakland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:52:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Frayne Subject: digest how does one set this list to digest format? i mean so each days postings come as one email rather than multiple? thanks ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 13:43:29 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: expertise -Reply The true history of guilds is indeed informative on this point, and illustrates a process which operates within other groups of people as well. The formation of guilds I see as a profit-seeking strategy. Guilds acquired power to require any, say, silversmith to belong to the guild or else he could not open shop. Not to mention the women, of course. They were ruled out entirely - got to keep down the competition, right? Only the widows of guild-members in good standing were allowed to continue in the silver business, in which, of course, she was often already running the whole thing. It was about "special interests" politics and lobbying, partly in the form of lavish gifts to the queen and such, which no one artisan/ financier/ rich owner could afford to do alone. This is the way in which Queen Elizabeth got a lot of her fanciest gowns, all embroidered in real pearls and so on. The guilds competed for her favors, such as laws that increased their power to make money! Nowadays it takes a different form, but it still looks partly the same, and there are many examples. The real expertise of having a skill is one thing, but the trappings that are built upon that single difference are another thing altogether. It is when it is mystified and celebrated, invested with power and such, it is no longer just a matter of specialized knowledge, training, experience. Then it becomes much more capable of abuse. And any time those with the social power find it profitable, they are able to hurt others. Lisa Rogers >>> Jude L. Hollins 11/13/95, 06:02pm >>> [snip] i do wonder if professional knowledge is what it is about. Granted, this is what those who ask/claim for the status of expertise espouse. Yet, were guilds simply about skills? (historical experts, enter stage right, please) Likewise, what are the nicely defined tasks and skills? There seems to be a sacred hall, where only professionals can define and critique what comes under their 'tasks', responsibilities, and knowledge. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:25:55 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: world poverty >>> Andrew Barfield [snip]... I am troubled by the fact that at the end of the twentieth century most of the world's popoulation lives in abject poverty, and that our knowledge(s) is/are just as poor at trying to make this situation better. [snip] Andy Barfield L: Are you sure that is a "fact"? Do we [any/all of us] not _know_ what would help, or isn't it a problem of just not getting it done? The lack of "political will" or power or willingness to spend money? or to truly rock the boat and change the power structure? I suspect that "social science" has several good things to offer in terms of understanding the causes of poverty and therefore implying some treatments that may be worthwhile. Of course, we all probably wouldn't agree on what the cure is, so we could compete for funding to see which of our theories will get to be tried out... So I guess I'm suggesting another question, i.e. _is_ it a problem of a lack of "knowledge"? Or something else? Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 14:51:48 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: evolution? >>> Jon S Miller 11/14/95, 11:29am [snip]... I'm also interested in the history of science and science culture in written accounts of life in America, and particularly interested, this week at least, in the history of evolutionary thought in North America. And I'm wondering to what degree the latter is the former, at least in literary narratives and their advice for happy living. L: Do you mean the history of thought about "Darwinian" evolution? I'm a neo-darwinian biologist by training, so I'm curious and interested if that is what you are referring to. Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:53:20 GMT+1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Greig Subject: Re: world poverty >>> Andrew Barfield [snip]... I am troubled by the fact that at the end of the twentieth century most of the world's popoulation lives in abject poverty, and that our knowledge(s) is/are just as poor at trying to make this situation better. [snip] Andy Barfield Lisa Replied Of course, we all probably wouldn't agree on what the cure is, so we could compete for funding to see which of our theories will get to be tried out... So I guess I'm suggesting another question, i.e. _is_ it a problem of a lack of "knowledge"? Or something else? Lisa Rogers Lisa/Andy I do not believe that the original question posed (re poverty etc) is a question of science, social science etc. As a scientist and a sociologist of science, I see the "poverty problem" as a multifaceted problem which will not be solved by throwing more science at it or sending in more social scientists. I also do not believe that the "problem" is a knowledge problem. I have worked for many years in Asia and New Guinea where poverty and hunger are daily occurrences and all the science and social science in the world is not going to correct the poverty/hunger trap until there is a significant amout of political will. Finally - please Lisa - I hope you were being cynical. Let's not turn the problem into a competition for research grant funding. That would be the ulimate obscenity. PS What a great list and great discussion!! Regards Robert Greig School of Science University of Ballarat Ballarat, VIC 3353,Australia E-mail: rig@fs3.ballarat.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:54:52 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Constructivism id not opposed to objectivity: it frames it Mark speculated: So any temptation to disparage science on the above grounds (which again, I take it that Young is not) Correct, accurate, factual, objective. true. Bob Y __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:32:05 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Rooney Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199511141851.EAA10213@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au> Foucault's essay is in L. H. Martin, H. Gutman & P. Hutton (Eds) Technologies of the Self: a seminar with Michel Foucault, tavistock: London 1988. David Rooney Faculty of Humanities Griffith Universtiy, Brisbane, Australia On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Mark L Gilbert wrote: > Where is the Foucault essay "Technologies of the Self" published? > > mark gilbert > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 17:24:30 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: world poverty -Reply >>> Rob Greig 11/15/95, 09:53am >>> [snip] I also do not believe that the "problem" is a knowledge problem. I have worked for many years in Asia and New Guinea where poverty and hunger are daily occurrences and all the science and social science in the world is not going to correct the poverty/hunger trap until there is a significant amout of political will. Finally - please Lisa - I hope you were being cynical. Let's not turn the problem into a competition for research grant funding. That would be the ulimate obscenity. L: Cynical? I never use the word, partly because it's meaning is unclear to me. Ironic? yes, I sometimes forget to put out the "irony alert" sign, but you've got a good eye. Point is, such competition is part of what is already going on, along with the lack of "political will" that you and I both flag. All this and more are in service of the larger point we are agreeing on, that world poverty is not a "lack of knowledge" problem. Is that the same as saying that it's not a "scientific problem"?? Etiquette note: Is everybody okay with the casual use of first names here? Unless requested to do otherwise, that is my preference, or last names when needed to avoid confusion, or either one interchangeably? [Just trying to be polite by asking ...] Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:56:57 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon S Miller Subject: Evolutionary thought In-Reply-To: <199511142237.QAA43176@mail-hub1.weeg.uiowa.edu> Lisa: By the time evolutionary thought gets into novels, it's really watered down -- I'm looking at, for example, Edith Wharton's "Descent of Man" (short story) and all the "tribe" metaphors for the hierarchical and close-knit New York society in \The Age of Innocence\ (1920). Although I think most early 20th-century Americans learned evolutionary thought from Herbert Spencer (who reconciled it to Christianity), the specific type of evolution doesn't really matter, for what I'm looking at. Just a hunch -- how much "evolution" does America at large really know, or understand? (How about Europe? Australia?) Beyond the "ape-man" jokes, is there any understanding or appreciation of the far-reaching implications of Darwinism, of natural selection? Personally I was quite startled by Robert Wright's popular summary of current evolutionary thought (in \The Moral Animal\), but even more surprised to notice that Americans living from 1880 to 1930 were far more "evolutionary" in their thought than, I think, Americans are today. [But this is judging from the fiction -- which may or may not be representative of the larger "currents of thought," in each era.] Jon Stephen Miller University of Iowa jon-s-miller@uiowa.edu "Life is sweet as nitrous oxide" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > >>> Jon S Miller 11/14/95, 11:29am > [snip]... I'm also interested in the history of science and science > culture in written accounts of life in America, and particularly > interested, this week at least, in the history of evolutionary > thought in North America. And I'm wondering to what degree the > latter is the former, at least in literary narratives and their > advice for happy living. > > L: Do you mean the history of thought about "Darwinian" evolution? > I'm a neo-darwinian biologist by training, so I'm curious and > interested if that is what you are referring to. > Lisa > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 21:39:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Grinnell Subject: INTRODUCTION/QUESTION Hi! My name is Fred Grinnell, and I am a practicing scientist -- as long as NIH keeps funding my laboratory. Also, I'm interested in science studies. I've written a book about what doing science entails (The Scientific Attitude, 2nd Edition, Guilford Press, 1992) and am working on a sequel. I have not activately participated in one of these lists before but was very interested in a question that already has been posed, at least indirectly. Namely, why should practicing scientists be interested in this list? I think that people usually do things -- even if they don't admit it -- that are in their own best interest? In what way might participating in such a list advance a scientist's own best interests? For me, this is a personal matter as well as a general question. Except for my closest friends, most of my colleagues in science take my interest in science studies to be eccentric, something that should be done after one retires, not midstream in one's research career. So what should I say to convince my colleagues to want to discuss questions such as meaning of science for culture and vice-versa. Fred Grinnell Dept of Cell Biol and Neuroscience UT Southwestern Med Ctr Dallas, TX ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:43:03 -0500 Reply-To: apattana@tikva.chem.utoronto.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arjendu Pattanayak Subject: Introduction + Hi, First, here's a delayed introduction. I am post-doc in the Chemical Physics Theory Group at the University of Toronto, with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas, Austin. I work in the field known by its buzz-words ``quantum chaos". As for what I am doing on the list, let me just quote myself from something that I tried out on some of the newsgroups a couple of months ago. And apologies for the length of the message. Arjendu ******************** Some of the most fascinating stories I used to read/hear as a kid were creation myths of various sorts. These were the kind that started with "Once .." and finished with "And that's why [insert observed phenomenon, example eclipses] happen". Some were cosmological, some biological, some related to relationships between animals (ecological?!) and so on. Later, as I climbed the education ladder (to ?!), finding out the "scientific" explanation for the phenomenon in class never did detract from the poetry of the original "myth" that I had read/heard. But then, as I got deeper into science (in "gradual" school), I discovered some truly beautiful theories, elegant and imaginative : stuff that really made the mind tingle if one allowed oneself to think about things in a receptive frame of mind, [especially, oh, say sometime around 4:00 in the morning when the caffiene you pumped into yourself to stay awake during the afternoon seminars was finally wearing off and the damn assignment was about as much done as it was likely to get] and there was a rightness and poetry to it that made all the doubts about working in such a "dry" and jargon-filled world lift. And I would try to communicate some of this to my friends from the other side of campus, in excited gestures at the Black Hole (actually, the local pub with great beers on tap -- you got sucked into it if you were within ummm, sightning distance) or over coffee at the friendly neighbourhood cafe or whatever. Sigh. Rarely worked. I discovered that while it was very possible to communicate the rigour and the efficacy and some of the elegance of a given scientific theory, the beauty seemed cloaked behind the years of "technical" training that it seemed I was bringing to my aesthetic response. "It seems", 'cos I dont believe that. But ... So. The point is as follows: what has happened to the poetry of science, of explanations, of the scientific imagination ? Some of the pop--science books that I have read are remarkably good at getting one excited about an idea, or communicating the essence of some complicated thinking with very clever imagery, there are very few that seem to tread the line between poetry and scientific theories where most of the excitement and motivation lies. The best of them explain the ideas pretty well, and some manage to convey the spine-tingling nature of the ideas with which (well, some) scientists live on a daily basis. And more power to that particular genre. But what they rarely do is reach into the ideas themselves and play with them. Part of the [my] scientific experience is the sensation of the mind opening up, of seeing the world in a wholly novel manner. Suddenly, there is an intellectual space that you inhabit (if only for a few moments before lapsing into the mundane world of tracking down that crucial factor of 2 that's bugging you) that has a different look, a different feel from all that you have entered before. [Stuff about personal experiences in this regard witheld, on grounds it would probably make no damn sense: ya hadda BE there]. And your way of thinking and perceiving is altered, albeit with a pretty high decay rate. And that is what most "science writing" does not do: Use the literary/mythological/poetic imagination to inhabit and then populate that world. With stories, with poems, with whatever you please, but with beauty. And that is where (quite a few) scientists live, I am pretty sure, but they are rarely the most articulate of the breed. Perhaps what is bothering me is not the scarcity of poetically explained science (though that's bad enough, I suppose) but more like the absence of a mythology of modern science. Perhaps I should be reading more SF, but most of the time that bores me half to tears (and I am a scientist and an avid reader so I should be a pushover, right? :-)). Sometime one runs across a Primo Levi or an Alan Lightman or Annie Dillard or ... maybe a Timothy Ferris, but not too often. And then I realize that perhaps I know why the people over in sci.research and so on are carrying on about the nerdy depiction of scientists in the media; perhaps I even know why there are those who hate technology. And science along with it. Perhaps not. So. Are there any science poets out there ? Or anyone who can tell me that I have been looking on all the wrong bookshelves ? Or tell me that they have been working on project that includes the mythology of quantum chaos (yep, that's my field. wonderfully catchy term, dont you think ? tends to get all the new-agers and the lotus heads gravitating towards me though. probably doesn't help that I was raised in mysticism land itself -- India) ? I realise that I am struggling to articulate stuff here; perhaps my note/thinking doesn't hang together. So, thanks for lending an ear/eye. I will now resume lurk mode while crunching some more code on the Quantum Cat Map. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:04:48 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerald Sussman Organization: Urban and Public Affairs Subject: Re: world poverty I'd like to respond to Robert Grieg's inviting comments, below, about the role of science in the "poverty problem." I agree that it's not simply a problem of science, but I do think that science, that is, the scientific "establishment." has had a very profound effect on the distribution of income in third world countries (and in the U.S.). I would also say that it's not simply a matter of "political will" but the distribution of political power, itself linked to the organization of scientific capital in the United States and elsewhere, that best speaks to the question of social change. The World Bank employs science and pseudo-science on its side, but it can count real success stories and a lot of social and ecological disasters. In other words, as Joe Weizenbaum of MIT said in his earlier writing, the scientific community has to bear some of the responsibility for the uses to which their research and applications are being put. And the fact that few members of the physical sciences choose to join lists like this one is a reflection of the way that industrial science is divorced from social analysis in American university curricula (the same is generally true of most economics programs in the U.S.). I hope this offers some food for thought and opportunities for further discussion. Gerry Sussman Re: > Lisa/Andy > I do not believe that the original question posed (re poverty etc) is > a question of science, social science etc. As a scientist and a > sociologist of science, I see the "poverty problem" as a multifaceted > problem which will not be solved by throwing more science at it or sending > in more social scientists. I also do not believe that the "problem" > is a knowledge problem. I have worked for many years in Asia and New > Guinea where poverty and hunger are daily occurrences and all the > science and social science in the world is not going to correct the > poverty/hunger trap until there is a significant amout of political > will. > Finally - please Lisa - I hope you were being cynical. Let's not > turn the problem into a competition for research grant funding. That > would be the ulimate obscenity. > Regards > Robert Greig ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:04:29 GMT+1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Greig Subject: Re: world poverty I agree totally with Gerry Sussman's analysis and considered response to my comments. The scientific establishment cannot wipe its hands of the problem because, in many instances, the root causes can be traced back to the science itself and the total lack of any form of social analysis of the science in question. And it is not also the hunger problem - this lack of social analysis and social impact can be found in much of the work undertaken by my scientific colleagues here in Australia. We have as an example here the recent "accidental" release of a rabbit virus on the mainland of Australia despite all the assurances from the scientific community that it could never happen (that may be a topic for a future discussion). I also agree that scientists, for one reason or another, do avoid the social and cultural implications of their work. In fact, I never even considered it until I "discovered" the sociology of science. As a scientist, I went through a very "painful period" when I undertook graduate studies in the sociology of science and technology (although, I firmly believe that my science is much better off because of the further studies and reflective process that I have undergone). Frankly, I think that many scientists are frightened of the sociology of science and technology (I am treated like a social outcast in my department). I also firmly believe that aspects of the sociology of science and technology as well as the philosophy of science should be a mandatory part of all scientific training. As a "young" scientist who has made the cultural leap (well before mid-life or retirement), I have an understanding of why there are so few scientists on this list (or other lists of this type) - the sociology of science and technology shakes the very foundations of the "faith" that we scientists had deluded ourselves into believing were immovable, inviolate and totally isolated from the world around us. Regards Robert Greig School of Science University of Ballarat Ballarat, VIC 3353,Australia E-mail: rig@fs3.ballarat.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 16:14:26 GMT+1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Greig Subject: Re: INTRODUCTION/QUESTION FROM FRED GRINNELL Fred Grinnell wrote..... Except for my closest friends, most of my colleagues in science take my interest in science studies to be eccentric, something that should be done after one retires, not midstream in one's research career. So what should I say to convince my colleagues to want to discuss questions such as meaning of science for culture and vice-versa. Fred Fred, I do not think it is possible to convince our science colleagues - my experiences have been very similar to yours (in fact, my former Dean actually stated that there was no room for ethics in science when he found out that I was writing a thesis on the ethical considerations of bioengineering). I think that you have to wait for the proverbial light to come on like some form of gestalt switch. Anyone else out there with any suggestions - I believe that Fred (and I) would like to see some workable solution (if there is one). Regards Robert Greig School of Science University of Ballarat Ballarat, VIC 3353,Australia E-mail: rig@fs3.ballarat.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 14:39:48 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: Poetics of knowledge Arjendu posted: >I realise that I am struggling to articulate stuff here; perhaps my note / >thinking doesn't hang together. On the contrary! What good new knowledge if it can't be communicated ? For me, Arjendu posted an uplifting message about the beauty of discovery, and the aesthetic thrill of seeing the world in a new way - if ever there was an underlying link between art and science, that's it - a poetics to reinterpret the world by. I've felt the same excitement in linguistics, and also experienced the bedevilling boredom of dry academic discourse. Span. One of the problems is that sounding academic and being remote in what you say has become part of the power structure of the university. It somehow confers status and rank, but from my point of view such a way of communication confuses the complexity of the knowledge with the supposed complexity of communication ... Stepping stones cross deep water. How do people bridge this gap ? As far as I know, discourse studies of lectures, for example, show that there are two streams to what ever is being lectured .... Two planes of discourse, if you like ... One is, for want of a better word 'informational', and the other is the lecturer's commentary on the information ... That commentary will include anecdotes, stories, exemplars, metaphors, images, and so on ... and it is there that the bridge is being made - constructed is a good word - between the audience's exisiting knowledge/expectations and what new information that the lecturer is intending to explain .... in other words, learning is often populist and informal ....and does work at the level of imagery and metaphor and all the other wonderful experiences that we connect with myths and stories ... Andy e-mail: andyman@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 01:49:41 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Giacobbe Subject: Evolutionary Significance of Science Dear Listmembers, Lisa Rogers recently mentioned discussing the role of science in society, and the name of this list clearly implies that others on the list have similar interests. Perhaps I could start off a round of discussion with a specific concept. I am a physical anthropologist and archaeologist and, perhaps predictably, I am interested in the role that science as a cultural attribute has played in the evolution of human culture, and therefore humans themselves. Science, more narrowly defined by its representative technology, is one of the principle means by which archaeologists evaluate a society. Technological development and morphology are even attributes we use to ascribe chronological affiliation to cultures. I realize that science is not strictly limited to the development of technology, but I do think that few would argue that much of sciences "success" as a cultural mode is due to the advancements that the byproducts of its efforts result in, namely technology. My field devotes much energy to the study of change over time. A significant body of work has gone into the refinement of a theory that incorporates a Darwinian model in the elucidation of the significance of cultural attributes in the overall fitness of a cultural group. I believe that any study of culture should try to develop an evolutionary framework because, to me at least, the universe appears to run that way. Humans are life forms that exist within the same sphere as all other life forms, and are therefore effected by evolutionary effects, such as natural selection, as much as any other animal. Natural selection is a force, perhaps a random and mathematically defined force, but a force none the less. I believe culture is humans primary adaptive mechanism. All of the products of culture are created within a universe permeated by selective forces, and must at some level be affected by them. That does not mean all cultural attributes originate as the result of selective pressure, or are even strongly influenced by selection whatsoever. But all culture is subtly influenced by selection. I would define cultural adaptation as a process of alteration of a cultural system in response to change in its coupled environmental and/or somatic systems. Culture is a special kind of adaption that is transmitted via learned, non-genetic behavioral patterns. Sorry this is a bit long, but I wanted to clearly define my argument and open the floor for comment. Well, thanks for listening, and let me know what you think John A. Giacobbe catalinus@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 02:39:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: first name basis In-Reply-To: <9511150135.AA09420@osf1.gmu.edu> On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > Etiquette note: Is everybody okay with the casual use of first names > here? Unless requested to do otherwise, that is my preference, or > last names when needed to avoid confusion, or either one > interchangeably? [Just trying to be polite by asking ...] > > Lisa Fine by me, mark ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:20:37 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In-Reply-To: <199511150221.CAA12258@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Nov 14, 95 12:35:00 pm In the last mail Robert Maxwell Young said: > > Here are some tranchantly held opinions of mine: > > All facts are theory-laden > All theories are value-laden > All values redise in an iideology or world view. > > Science, technology, medicine and other forms of expertise are the > embodiment of values in theories and things, facts and artefacts, > procedures, programs and products. 1) Is this a definition? Do you think that expertise is _nothing but_ an embodiment of values? Or do you think that expertise is _inter alia_ such an embodiment? In other words, do you regard this last paragraph as giving the essence of expertise? 2) What do you mean by values? Your second dictum is often brandished as a means of opening a route to an ethical critique of scientific activity ("scientists must take responsibility for the social consequences of their work" etc). I've never understood how this move works (of course, you are not obliged to explain it if you don't make it yourself). 3) What does your third dictum amount to? Of course my values `reside in' my `worldview'. All that means is that I believe my own ethics. Or have I missed the point? 4) Does all this apply to pure maths? If so, how? Brendan. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:28:15 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: first name basis >On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > >> Etiquette note: Is everybody okay with the casual use of first names >> here? Unless requested to do otherwise, that is my preference, or >> last names when needed to avoid confusion, or either one >> interchangeably? [Just trying to be polite by asking ...] >> >> Lisa > >Fine by me, > >mark My understanding is that first names are normal on the net. Bob Y (Moderator of forum) __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:10:15 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: Poetry of science Arjendu Pattanayak wrote introducing himself to recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE > The point is as follows: what has happened to the poetry of science, > of explanations, of the scientific imagination ? . . . Part of the > [my] scientific experience is the sensation of the mind opening up, of > seeing the world in a wholly novel manner. . . .Perhaps what is > bothering me is not the scarcity of poetically explained science > (though that's bad enough, I suppose) but more like the absence of a > mythology of modern science. A possible answer: the poetry of science is not actually experienced according to its notional availability (in the library or in subjective experience) but mediated by relationships between its ideas and our psycho-social environment that no one knows how to measure or "murder to dissect". In other words, our personal environment governs our capacity to experience the poetry of science. Some authors, e.g. Hubert Reeves find this no great problem. Crudely, in reverse, you probably cannot enjoy the DNA adventure or the starry universe when you have painful piles. > So. Are there any science poets out there ? Or anyone who can tell me > that I have been looking on all the wrong bookshelves ? For me at least, excitement and inspiration come from the literature of science itself (including popularizations as by Reeves, James Gleick or Garrett Hardin) much more often than from literature about science (fiction or "criticism.") The universe discovered by science is so intrinsically wonderful that its description by its explorers is more exciting than 95 per cent of the versions by its exterior fans and critics. -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:23:20 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: Science in popular culture Jon S Miller wrote Nov. 13 re: Evolutionary thought to: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE > By the time evolutionary thought gets into novels, it's really > watered down -- I'm looking at, for example, Edith Wharton's "Descent > of Man" (short story) and all the "tribe" metaphors for the > hierarchical and close-knit New York society in \The Age of Innocence\ > (1920). Although I think most early 20th-century Americans learned > evolutionary thought from Herbert Spencer (who reconciled it to > Christianity), the specific type of evolution doesn't really matter, > for what I'm looking at. This may be no more than half right. Writers 1895-1920 notably H.G. Wells (Time Machine) and E.M. Forster (The Machine Stops) attempted deliberately to present a SF projection of current science, in order to enrich readers intellectually as well as please them, and I'd say they succeeded. > Just a hunch -- how much "evolution" does America at large really > know, or understand? (How about Europe? Australia?) Beyond the > "ape-man" jokes, is there any understanding or appreciation of the > far-reaching implications of Darwinism, of natural selection? > Personally I was quite startled by Robert Wright's popular summary of > current evolutionary thought (in \The Moral Animal\), but even more > surprised to notice that Americans living from 1880 to 1930 were far > more "evolutionary" in their thought than, I think, Americans are > today. [But this is judging from the fiction -- which may or may not > be representative of the larger "currents of thought," in each era.] Miller's question may be unanswerable but at least two things can be noticed. In the related but distinct domain of psychology, Freudianism has obviously diffused widely throughout all current culture. (I'm one of those who thinks Freudian theory a sadly defective total system, but stuffed with individual ideas that are new in history and perhaps intrinsically valuable.) Secondly, since the 1930s, the genre of non-fiction has recaptured a reading audience it had earlier lost, i.e. we now read non-fiction for pleasure as intensively as the Victorians did but probably not those of 1920-60. The trajectories of scientific discovery and newly-published non-fiction seem to be close to each other while, in the 1990s, I see the trajectories of scientific discovery and fiction as diverging (fiction in more than one direction, e.g. Brett Easton, Norman Mailer, Danielle Steel, probably normal for much of the last 150 years.) -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:33:00 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bo Dahlin Hello, I am working at a small Swedish University (Karlstad), teaching and doing research in educational science. Having a background in philosophy I tend to be interested in everything related to it, e.g. the interactions of science and culture. Concerning the thesis that all facts are theory-laden, Jose Morales asked: "However, I want to know how that translates in particular instances that you can use with actually practicing scientists--- like fact: TFIID is part of the basal transcription machinery for producing mRNA from most genes--how is thi= s theory laden, where are the values and what is the resulting ideology/world view?" Well, first of all, how do we know that what goes on on this level of living cells is accurately described as a "transcription _machinery_"? Isn't it a (non-verified) theoretical assumption that the biochemical processes in living cells are analogous to the mechanical processes in a machine? This leads me to the thought that natural science has certainly contributed a lot to what Rorty calls our "naturalistic" image of ourselves. I find it worth quoting him: "The fear of science, of 'scientism', of 'naturalism', of self-objectivation, of being turned by too much knowledge into a thing rather than a person, is the fear that all discourse will become normal discourse [i.e. discourse about objective facts only]. That is, it is the fear that there will be objectively true or false answers to every question we ask, so that human worth will consist in knowing truths=8A" (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, p. 388-89, Blackwell 1993 edition) Isn't this one fundamental influence of science on culture: the "naturalisation" of the human subject? But Rorty continues: "But the dangers to abnormal discourse [i.e. philosophical, edifying, non-systematic discourse] do not come from science or naturalistic philosophy. They come from the scarcity of food and the secret police. Given leisure and libraries, the conversation which Plato began will not end in self-objectivation [=8A] simply because free and leisured conversatio= n generates abnormal discourse as the sparks fly upward." (ibid., p. 389) Science is not to be feared, because as long as we can leisurely converse we will resist naturalistic self-objectivation. I wonder. Why then is so much of our conversations characterised by just this naturalistic self-objectivations? "One reacts like that=8A" "Its only natural to feel tha= t way=8A" And how much do people actually appreciate leisurely abnormal conversations in our culture? My experience tells me such appreciation is rather rare. Why? Because we don't see the point. Why? Becuase we have been used to the idea that science has the facts, the answers, or will get them. One last point: J W Goethe, in his aphoristic comments on philosophy of science actually said "Facts are their own theory". But by that he didn't mean quite the same as the constructivist slogan "all facts are theory-laden". Rudolf Steiner, referred to by Andreas Carter, developed Goethes philosophy of science into a theory of knowledge which still awaits appreciation from modern thinkers. Steiner is actually one of the first philosophers (after Descartes) to have successfully avoided what Bernstein calls "the cartesian uncertainty", and which is Rorty's main argument against traditional epistemology. Cheers Bo Bo Dahlin University of Karlstad S-651 88 Karlstad SWEDEN ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:47:06 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerhard Werner Subject: Professions and Expertise It seems to me that the reference to guilds in the discussion about expertise and professionalism was particularly felicitous since it put the issues under discussion in the appropriate historical context. Coincident with the establishment of guilds, society as a whole acknowledged that certain groups of people are distinct by virtue of having certain skills and knowledge not commonly possessed by the majority of citizens. This gave rise to a largely implicit contractarian agreement that such clusters of people would be granted certain privileges in exchange for a commitment to make their skills available, and monitor internally certain standards of performance, including training of apprentices. The privileges were prestige and independent financial management, both implying a certain power status in society. This is historically the origin of the relative autonomy of professions, an arrangement that persisted unchallenged for a couple of centuries. The #contract# became subject to criticism by society when questions concerning the internal monitoring arose, and when society (probably because of rising standards of education) demanded to be included in the previously unquestioned delivery of the services, and the decisions underlying such delivery. Of course, other factors also contributed. Amongst these, I suggest, the rising awareness of the role of power in society, not in the least associated with Foucault,s work, and other post-modern trends. The Health Professions (at least in US) are a most illuminating example: those of us who are in this profession have seen the dramatic effects of the revocation of the long-standing contract. In part at least, Insurance companies and Governments have led the attack from the commercial side, while patients demand explanations for the previously authoritatively handed down decisions. Consider just as one overt expression of the change in climate: in many health agencies, Patients are now considered customers. In short: society is revoking the old contract, and new ground rules are being developed which will certainly be of more egalitarian nature. Again, consider the HealthProfessions: an increasing number of Physician in US are becoming employees of one organization or another, and are no longer free-standing entrepreneurs. And I take it that in UK, most physicians work under some contractual arrangement with the Government. One more word on expertise:consider how much of our daily language is based on second-hand knowledge which we adopt from others whom we credit with #expertise#. I think that this is a deeper issue than meets the eye, at first glance. But that may be for another time. Gerhard Werner, M.D. Austin, TX. gwer1@bga.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:48:22 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerhard Werner Subject: Ideology and world view Dr. Young has thrown out some #hot potatoes#. While I am not ready to catch them, I would like to at least slightly touch them. I suggest that ideology is a compound notion, strongly colored by social, cultural factors and power alignments. However, any ideology rides on the top of much deeper and all-pervasive presuppositions. These presuppositions are ontological: i.e. the world view; the way the world is construed to be. In Western Thinking, notably since the 17th Century, the dominant ontology is that of objectivism (i.e. there is a world independent of a perceiving subject), of Cartesian Representationalism (we know the world as its (reflected) image in our mind, as surrogate. The objects of this representation are can be manipulated (transformed) by the classical logic that prevailed since Aristotle and shares with all its derivatives the essential aspect of being two-valued (dont be mistaken: fuzzy logic, modal logic etc. are all at bottom two-valued in the sense of having only two logical places available for occupancy). What is the consequence ? The thinking-perceiving-acting subject has no place in this ontology. In fact, we -in the age of rationality and science- pride ourselves of our objectivity, to the point that -if we wish to speak of a subject (including ourselves) we need to address it as if it was an object: our Ontology (and its language games) can accommodate only objects, and we need to objectify ourselves if we wish to occupy a place in it. The moment we wish to #reflect# on ourselves, we trespass into the land of logical paradoxes: two-valued logic cannot accommodate self-reflection. Not only must we think of ourselves as objects, we also must think of other subjects as objects. So, we do live in a world without subjects, i.e. entities than can think about themselves, think about thinking about themselves, and grant others the same privileges. Is this not enough to construe an ideology which is congruent with this ontology ? Gerhard Werner, M.D. Austin TX, gwer1@bga.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:14:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ellen Herman Subject: response to Don Slater and Jon Miller for Don Slater: On men and hobbies, you might try Barbara Ehrenreich's THE HEARTS OF MEN. It's not a recent book, but if my memory serves me correctly, it links your two stated interests: masculinity and consumer culture. for Jon Miller: You might be interested in contacting Sarah Tracy, who wrote a dissertation on the medicalization of drink and the emergence of what we now think of as alcoholism. Last I knew, she was on a postdoc at the Rutgers Institute of Health. If she's no longer there, they may have a forwarding address. best, Ellen Herman Social Studies, Harvard University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:44:09 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Donald J. Yankovic" Subject: Poverty >I suspect that "social science" has several good things to offer in >terms of understanding the causes of poverty and therefore implying >some treatments that may be worthwhile. Of course, we all probably >wouldn't agree on what the cure is, so we could compete for funding >to see which of our theories will get to be tried out... > Ever since there have been humans people have investigated the "causes of poverty". As a result of those investigations, we have been able to create a whole bunch of that stuff. It was Adam Smith who turned the question on its head. He wrote a book titled "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the WEALTH of Nations". Once we know how wealth is created, then we can go out and create a bunch of that stuff! For what it's worth... ....Yank *************************************************************************** Donald J. Yankovic (360)378-2878 P.O.Box 1583 Friday Harbor WA 98250 yankovic@pacificrim.net ********** Its Never Too Late To Have A Happy Childhood ***************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:44:14 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Donald J. Yankovic" Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 13 Nov 1995 to 14 Nov 1995 >Most research for example is carried out not >necessarily to improve the human condition but to make vast profits, and >knowledge in the form of medicines is distributed only to those who can >pay the vast sums demanded by the pharmaceutical companies.I'm sure other >list subscribers can point to countless examples. Oh one last thing : our >knowledge is applied very selectively eg World Bank and other such >overseas development aid funded projects are often designed to bring the >recipients into "the club", some times with disastrous affects, rather than >designed to truly benefit local populations Lest we forget, that pursute of profit in the petrochemical industry made possible the production of very cheap plastic buckets. What a miricle. Think of how may years are added to the life of a poor woman in, e.g. Chaiapas. The well is a half mile or more from her house. A clay pot likely weighs more than the water it contains, and every few months it gets broken and time or money must be used to replace it. With a cheap plastic bucket she can carry much more water with fewer trips, or perhaps entrust the task to an eight year old. Result: beter levels of hygene, sanitation, and free time to devote to other tasks. I am sure that the people who invented and produced those ugly cheap plastic buckets had no intention to either enhance that woman's life, or, for that matter, to enrage the environmentalists who find the whole idea of petrochemicals repugnant. Whatever... ....Yank *************************************************************************** Donald J. Yankovic (360)378-2878 P.O.Box 1583 Friday Harbor WA 98250 yankovic@pacificrim.net ********** Its Never Too Late To Have A Happy Childhood ***************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 14:02:20 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ed Morman Subject: Re: response to Don Slater and Jon Miller In-Reply-To: <9511151541.AA25471@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Ellen Herman wrote: > for Jon Miller: You might be interested in contacting Sarah Tracy, who > wrote a dissertation on the medicalization of drink and the emergence of > what we now think of as alcoholism. Last I knew, she was on a postdoc at the > Rutgers Institute of Health. If she's no longer there, they may have a > forwarding address. Sarah Tracy is spending this academic year at the Wood Institute for the History of Medicine at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia. The telephone number there is 215-561-6050. Ed Morman Institute of the History of Medicine The Johns Hopkins University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:12:35 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: world poverty -Reply I have a few questions, as raised by Gerald's post. I hope that anyone may like to expand on these questions, for the sake of my education. >>> Gerald Sussman 11/14/95, 09:04pm >>> I agree that it's not simply a problem of science, but I do think that science, that is, the scientific "establishment." has had a very profound effect on the distribution of income in third world countries (and in the U.S.). L: How? In what way? I would also say that it's not simply a matter of "political will" but the distribution of political power, itself linked to the organization of scientific capital in the United States and elsewhere, that best speaks to the question of social change. L: How are these linked? In other words, as Joe Weizenbaum of MIT said in his earlier writing, the scientific community has to bear some of the responsibility for the uses to which their research and applications are being put. L: What is the "scientific community"? In what way is it "responsible for the "uses" of its product? What exactly do you want us to do? I really want to know. Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:49:29 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: science / ethics in/of >>> Rob Greig 11/15/95, 04:14pm >>> Fred Grinnell asked: So what should I say to convince my colleagues to want to discuss questions such as meaning of science for culture and vice-versa. Robert Grieg replied: ...my former Dean actually stated that there was no room for ethics in science when he found out that I was writing a thesis on the ethical considerations of bioengineering... Lisa adds: Maybe it's a little different in anthropology, because we have to pass ethics committees in order to study "human subjects". Not that there is any coursework required on ethics, but it is included in the required proposal-writing course, in terms of what you have to do to get funded. I think it is obvious to most of us that we don't want to hurt anybody, I'm a tender-hearted person with some kind of conscience, after all. But we certainly were not looking deeply into all the implications of our possible research in the way I see people doing here, for instance. I think I got even less ethics training in biology undergrad. You had to go over to the philosophy department for that, as an elective. Just a shared reflection upon my own experience, Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:07:41 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Anti-science >>> Mr B.P. Larvor 11/14/95, 03:24am >>> How often do we have to be told, with a knowing look and a worldly smirk that `science doesn't operate in a vaccuum'? Brendan Larvor Well put, Brendan. If I chuck a boot at anti-science, I don't expect anybody to put it on unless it fits. I really didn't intend to start a brush-fire with my first post. Instead, perhaps my previous, unrewarding experience with anti-science can be taken as an example of what keeps some scientists out of places like this list. I just don't care for more of the same uselessness, and I'm dodge-headed because of my experience. My ideal of science includes the position that we must question everything and be open to all examination. That is part of the truly scientific method and philosophy of science itself. [With the caveat that if I spend most of my time doing or answering such questions then I won't be a scientist anymore, I'll be a philosopher. Which is ok, except I want to do science.] Anti-science I see as doubting everything forever, to the point of nihilism, sometimes including scape-goating "science" or "technology", blaming it for some or all ills inappropriately, and other useless or harmful things. I could describe more, bad, anti-science, but I expect that everyone here will understand me already. Haven't you all seen unsupportable anti-science, with which you would disagree? The point I'm getting to is that I expect that thoughtful and responsible people are not likely to spout some hateful, unreasonable anti-science. And that if science/scientists are asked to examine every assumption, to plumb their own interiors, so must our interrogators. As I try to communicate science to those outside my own field of "expertise" in a way that is clear and accessible, so I presume that others will try to explain their ideas to me. Then a dialog exists! And we can work on some issues together. Which is exactly the way that things are looking here so far, so I'm happy. No problem, right? No flames, no firetrucks... Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 02:14:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: expertise In-Reply-To: <9511141746.AA13677@gmu.edu> On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Jude L. Hollins wrote: > The casting of Scientists vs. philosophers might miss an > historical dimension. What do you mean? There has in fact been something of an opposition, although an ambivalent one. Scientists were at first impressed with the logical positivists attempts to purify philosophy (and science), but came to see it as completely out of touch with actual scientific practice. Philosophers, for their part, are also divided, which cautions us to not apply too sweeping a label, for either 'philosophy' or 'science'. Anglophone philosophers, on the whole, have been strongly attracted to science as a paradigmatic case of rational, objective knowledge. In fact, some might even suggest that for some sub-disciplines, specifically philosophy of science in the late 50s and 60s, philosophy went from being the 'handmaiden of science' to its whore. In the program dubbed 'naturalized epistemology', philosophy was to give up all pretensions to determining, identifying, or initiating knowledge on its own, to merely commenting on knowledge as it was produced by science. In so doing, this philosophical program abandoned any positive role for philosophy and any responsibility for its material. On the Continent, on the other hand, philosophy has had less interest in worshiping the products of science, that attempting to understand how science integrated with and affected society. Of course, this is a generalization, for there were philosophers who were interested in science more for its own sake, like Bachelard and Canguilhem (Foucault's teacher). Things have taken quite a turn since the publication of Kuhn's _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. Many scientists have remarked on the accuracy of his representation of science. That book has opened the door to studying science as a human, social activity, as opposed to the objectivist, universalistic and a-social description pushed by the Positivists. > My gut intuition is that there is more acknowledgement WITHIN > scientific/proffesional associations of the politics of knowledge and > certainty than in the general discourse within societies at large... This is why scientists came to distrust philosophy, or more specifically, the positivist tradition in philosophy. *They* knew how it worked; it's taken the philosophers a little longer. > I always wonder why it is fine for Ph.D's to ask the troublesome > questions, while 15 year olds (in my experiences) are told to just accept > the simplified presentation of science-in-a-vacuum, with expiremental > models as Facts. Unfortunately, education thoroughly and completely swallowed the positivists' program, and then never noticed when things changed. Philosophy tends to be two or three decades behind science, and education two or three more behind that. > seems the mystics and marginal folks make the best > scientists...historically. > > jude (trying to provoke..) Oh? Science, like any human endeavor is conservative (hence the inertia of a Kuhnian 'paradigm'). Hence, by definition, substantial changes will come from 'marginal folk.' But mystics? Okay, so Kepler and Newton were into astrology, and Copernicus worshiped the sun, but that was awhile ago. mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:15:14 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kjell Jonsson Subject: Gross only/sorry Sorry for this. I can't reach Charles G. Gross directly. He wrote: >I have been working on Swedenborg's views on the brain..have you seen >anything on this subject since Norrving and Sourander in Rose 1989..or >anything good in Swedish, which my wife reads, in the last ten or twenty >years? This is a new work in the field of history of science and ideas: Hall, Jan,_I Swedenborgs labyrint: studier i de gustavianska swedenborgarnas liv och tankande_ Atlantis Stockholm, 1995, Diss. Uppsala Univ, 511 s. This old piece you must have seen: Ramstrom, Martin, _Emanuel Swedenborg's investigations in natural science and the basis for his statements concerning the functions of the brain_ Uppsala, 1910, 59 s. In english I know of these, biased perhaps: _Swedenborg and his influence_, editors, Erland J. Brock, general editor / E. Bruce Glenn (Bryn Athyn, Pa. Academy of the New Church 1988) _Swedenborg researcher's manual: a research reference manual for writers of academic dissertations, and for other scholars_ / by William Ross Woofenden with a foreword by Wilson Van Dusen ( Bryn Athyn Swedenborg Scientific Association 1988). Best, Kjell kjell.jonsson@idehist.umu.se ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:04:22 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Re: Ideology and world view Steiner on human thinking and its relationship to subjectivity and objectivity: "Thinking is the subjective activity of relating the concepts of observed objects (phenomena) to each other, and, through this activity, to oneself. Thinking as an object of observation is an exceptional instance of this process since subject and object there become one. In ones thinking one observes something in which one is very intimately and personally involved - it is ones own activity. This is the point from which one must seek the further explanations of the phenomena of the world." http://public-www.pi.se/~the_tank/steiner/chap3.htm More on this can also be found in a possibly somewhat more humane form at http://shr.stanford.edu/shreview/4-2/text/foerster.html Heinz von Foerster: Ethics and second-order cybernetics I'm sorry I'm not verbal enough to do this subject justice myself. It *is* most important, though. On Nov 15 1995 Gerhard Werner wrote: >The thinking-perceiving-acting subject has >no place in this ontology. In fact, we -in the age of rationality and >science- pride ourselves of our objectivity, to the point that -if we wish >to speak of a subject (including ourselves) we need to address it as if it >was an object: our Ontology (and its language games) can >accommodate only objects, and we need to objectify ourselves if we >wish to occupy a place in it. The moment we wish to #reflect# on >ourselves, we trespass into the land of logical paradoxes: two-valued >logic cannot accommodate self-reflection. Not only must we think of >ourselves as objects, we also must think of other subjects as objects. >So, we do live in a world without subjects, i.e. entities than can think >about themselves, think about thinking about themselves, and grant >others the same privileges _________________________ andreas.carter@pi.se ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 20:54:18 +1030 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: philip dearman Subject: Re: intro 16.11.95 Satoru, Hi, my name is Philip Dearman. I'm a PhD student at Flinders Uni in South Australia. I saw your email on the Science-As-Culture, and thought I could help you with a reference or two about museums. My undergraduate and honours work was in communication studies here in Adelaide, and I remember doing an hons course on Cultural Institutions and Policy. Read a couple of articles in that course on museums. They're written in Australia, and to some extent on Australian policies and practices re museums, but might be useful if you can get hold of them through ILL... 1. Tony Bennett (1988) 'Out of Which Past? Critical Reflections on Australian Museum and Heritage Policy', Occasional Paper No.3, Institute for Cultural Policy Studies, Griffith University, Queensland (Aust). 2. Tony Bennett (1988) "The Exhibitionary complex", in _New Formations_, No.4, pp.73 - 102. 3. J. Mulvaney (1986) "A Question of Values: Museums and Cultural Property", in I McBryde, (ed) _Who Owns The Past_, Oxford University Press, London, 86-98. Hope they're of some help!! >Hello all, > My name is Satoru Aonuma, a grad student in communication >at Wayne State University in Detroit. I did my undergraduate >work in Japan, received MA from University of Iowa where >I was exposed to a lot of "rhetoric of science" stuff, and >I started PhD just this fall here at Wayne. > Being a scientifically semi-illiterate myself, >I am interested in looking at the working of scientific and >expert discourses in public. I previously presented papers on >the "Velikovsky affair" and rhetorical dimensions of medical >care practice at rhetoric/communication conferences. > Right now, I am working on a paper in which I (try to) explore >the (potential) role that public museums (Smithsonians, science >museums in Boston, Toronto, etc.) play as a discursive, public sphere. >Any suggestion or information relevant to this topic >would be greatly appreciated. >______________________________ >Satoru Aonuma/Wayne State University >Tel: 313(832)5778 >E-mail: Satoru_Aonuma@mts.cc.wayne.edu > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 07:32:55 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: Poverty of knowlege? In a message dated 95-11-14 08:04:01 EST, Baker writes: >Surely we have enough knowledge to make a pretty big dent in world >poverty? Sure we do, but assigning blame to some nasty group misses the reality that human beings rarely do the rational thing. The food supply has reached the point at which it cannot keep up with the world population. Are people willing to reduce the birth-rate? Not a chance. Of all the solutions, that is the last acceptable to many religions, Western and Eastern. The Malthusian balance no longer pertains. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 07:32:59 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In a message dated 95-11-14 15:30:18 EST, you write: >How would we pick out a fact without a theory? When it hits you on the head? I simply mean that evolution has designed us to engage reality, that's in large measure what our nervous system is about. Animals know all about reality without "theories." We do all sorts of things with that engagement, but the rock landing on my head is perceived and my body takes action quite apart from my thoughts about it. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:57:29 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Search engines for email forums and newsgroups I have recently learned about two extremely useful tools. The first, LIZST, searches 23,213 email discussion forums and finds the one(s) concerned with the topic you specify. It is at: http://www.liszt.com/ It is not altogether reliable in areas known to me, but I will update its files when I have a moment. The second, DEJANEWS, searches newsgroups for items mentining the topic you specify. Newsgroups are a whole other ball game, which I have yet to explore, but Netscape 2.0b2 (which you can download from ftp://ftp.netscape.com/ )makes it easy: http://www.dejanews.com/ __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:34:26 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: Introduction My name is Val Dusek. I teach Philosophy (and ocassionally Humanities, history of science, elem. Biotechnology, and history of econ. thought) and Univ. of New Hampshire, Duham, NH 03824 USA. My interests are in the social epistemology of science, the politics of science, philosophy of biology (critique of sociobiology, etc., genetic engineering and biotechnology, issues of reductionism and complex systems.) I am a member of the Genetic Screening Study Group in Cambridge, Mass. I am currently working on a book, The Holistic Inspiriations of Physics: an Underground History of Electromagnetic Theory, (perhaps too 1970s or new-agist title) about the influence of Chinese medieval Taoism, renaissance occultism and hermeticism, and German Romanticism on the technology, theory, and experiments of the pre-history of electro-magnetic theory (Chinese compass and magnetic declination discoveries, Gilbert's "mother earth" theory, African origins of parts of the hermetic doctrines, role of witchcraft in hermeticism, alchemy as developing a gender-equaliity theory of nature, role of China in thought of Leibniz, mesmerism and electric medicine in late 1700s, Marat, role of women and French revolution in Romantic thought, role of Schelling's nature philosophy in thought of Oersted and through Coleridge in theory of Faraday) emphasizing role of cultural undergrounds of peasant and women;s thought as borrowed, coopted and covered over by formalistic, atomist, high culture of science. I am also interested in information metaphor in molecular biology and deconstruction thereof, role of psychological theories in theories of founders of quantum mechanics (Bohr, Pauli, Jordan, de Broglie, etc.), and in generally demystifying the human origins of scientific theories. I am more influenced by Lukacs and early Frankfurt School than by post-modernism, though sympathetic to parts of Foucault and Latour, but not uncritical thereof. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:56:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: Mark Gilbert Foucault Q I think Foucault's "technologies of the self" is in a volume of lectures given in Vermont (!?) USA called The Final Foucault, which also contains a big bibliography. But this is just off the top of my head and may only show my ignorance as I ain;t a Foucaultian. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 11:14:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: expertise In a message dated 95-11-16 02:16:29 EST, you write: On Tues Nov 16 Mark Gilbert wrote: >Oh? Science, like any human endeavor is conservative (hence the inertia >of a Kuhnian 'paradigm'). Hence, by definition, substantial changes will >come from 'marginal folk.' But mystics? Okay, so Kepler and Newton were >into astrology, and Copernicus worshiped the sun, but that was awhile >ago. true there was more of this centuries ago, but if you look at the wacko theories founders of quantum mechanics ,i.e.Pauli (Jungian archetypes alchemical mandals and synchronicity), Pascual Jordan (parapsychology, expanding earth, etc.), de Broglie (Bergsonian intuition and duree) Schroedinger (Yoga, atman=braman, etc.) etc., one finds more of this in 20th century's fundamental theory of matter than is often realized ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 09:31:38 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: is biochemistry like machinery? Jose Morales asked: [snip] fact: TFIID is part of the basal transcription machinery for producing mRNA from most genes--how is this theory laden, where are the values and what is the resulting ideology/world view?" Bo Dahlin asked: Well, first of all, how do we know that what goes on on this level of living cells is accurately described as a "transcription _machinery_"? Isn't it a (non-verified) theoretical assumption that the biochemical processes in living cells are analogous to the mechanical processes in a machine? Lisa's answer to that last question only: No. In fact, I think it is more than analogous and far from an assumption. There are stacks of evidence, in my view. But I'm curious as to what Bo or anyone would think an alternative assumption/analogy could be? If not "mechanical", then what? Or does the term mechanical mean something specialized here that I'm not getting? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 10:44:58 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Crites/Caroline Hedge Subject: Re: Introductions >Thanks, Susan and Caroline--appreciate your comments. I understand what >you are saying--maybe a different kind of Second Renaissance will come. >I still get a little worried about the remnants of the First Renaissance! >Do notice-- there is no personal, human connection even in this exchange! Well, not yet, certainly. But would you feel especially connected to be if we met on the street, or at a seminar, and exchanged about 5 minutes of conversation? I have to say it usually takes me just a LITTLE longer. :) To get somewhat metaphysical about it, the important part of connection is not physical contact, but emotional/mental interaction. If we exchange houghts and ideas and so come to know each other better, we have made a human, personal connection, and we do not have to be in the same room, or even on the same continent, to do so. >What concerns me in the broader picture are issues such as those >discussed in books such as (1) Albert Teich, TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE; >AND (2) Rudi Volti, SOCIETY AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE. I have to say I have not read them, so can't comment. But I can imagine that other forms of communications media, say for example telecommunications, can have a negative effect on human interaction because of the way it sometimes creates a false sense of connection. This IS something to worry about! Susan ...Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw. >From Susan (the Neon Nurse) Crites and/or Caro Hedge, At The Sign of the Three White Cats aka House of Unruly Fish aka House of 1,000 Unfinished Projects. Accept No Substitutes! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:43:51 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In a message dated 95-11-15 05:23:00 EST, you write: >4) Does all this apply to pure maths? If so, how? Certainly much of the rhetoric concerning the status of the infinite in pure math is theological. i.e. Cantor was influenced by Augustinian theology of heirarchies of angels. Kronecker who rejected Cantor used theological metaphors to say "God made the integers and man made everything else." Hilbert said "We shall not be expelled from the paradise into which Cantor led us." in claiming that Cantor's formalism of higher order infinities if not his metaphysics must be retained. Others use theological metaphors as dismissive, as when Gordan "the king of invariants" said of Hilbert's work which made his particular numerical solutions irrelevant by setting them in a general theory of scope and limits, "This is not mathematics, it is theology." You could claim these are all dead metaphors, but I think their prevelance suggests certain themes from traditional theology were transferred into transfinite pure math. Of course other value issues could be found in the debates between people like von neumann vs. the pure mathematicians about how close pure maths has to stay to its physical and scientific inspirations in order to remain creative and interesting. Similarly arguments about the importance or irrelevance of geometric imagry or motivation between geometrically inclined mathematicians or physically oriented mathematicians and formalistic or anti-pictoroial mathematicians show value-orientations related to preference for sensate or imageless thought which has broader psychological and historical style manifestations (i.e. Sorokin trances oscillations between these two modes in different cultural formations through history but not in math.) I suspect that geometrical emphasis in the renaissance and French revolution vs. algebraic and formalistic trends during the post-revolutionary era , in pre-WWI Vienna, and in depression era logical positivism which espoused formalism and rejected diagrams in mathematics have to do with larger social trends of sensuality vs. repression of the visual and voyeristic. Other examples come to mind, but I must check my laundry. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 12:52:11 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: is biochemistry like machinery? Certaintly there are several metaphors running around in molecular biology. Certainly the machine one is the dominant one. Zippers, locks and keys (with private property as well as mechanical associations) etc. abound. But there are also functional metaphors about macro-molecules. Freeman Judson in Eighth Day of Creation quotes several founder of molecular biology who claimed that the talk about the functions (purposes?) of macro-molecules is what distinguishes molec. biol from biochem. Also there is the information metaphor, which uses words, stops, letters, texts, misreadings, etc. All these are metaphors, and in conflict ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:09:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: is biochemistry like machinery? In a message dated 95-11-16 12:13:18 EST, you (Lisa) write: > If not >"mechanical", then what? Or does the term mechanical mean something >specialized here that I'm not getting? Certainly the term mechanical has changed in meaning and been contrasted with different things over the centuries. Often mechanical is used in constrast to purposive or teleological in biology or psychology. But, as I noted in last post (JB Shaw says it gives one spurious authority to quote onesself) the functional language of molecular biology in talking about functions of proteins, etc. has a quasi-teleological ring. In the 1600s mechanical meant push-pull causality of colliding atoms or other objects. Force's such as Newton introduced (borrowed from his alchemical and magical researches on which he spent far more time and effort than his math and physics) was not considered mechanical by Descartes and Leibnitz and other European critics but "occult." Action at a distance was not mechanical but magical, and for this reason Galileo rejected the crazy magical notion that the moon might attract the tides as espoused by Kepler (who had his own quirky astrological theory in the background.) During the eighteenth century mechanism (which now included gravity and acton at at distance from Newton) was contrasted with materialism. (See Paul Schofield, "Mechamism and Materialism," bkk 1967.) Mechanists were the more mathematical formalistic newtonians, emphasizing the calculus and calculations. Materialists were the more qualitative Newtonians who did chemistry and material science and emphasized Newton;s hypotheses about various electrical, vegetative, fermentation, etc. forces. In the late 18th mechanism was contrasted with the "dynamical" world view. The mechanical world view emphasized space-time located particles while the dynamical world-view emphasized point-centers of repulsive force fields (Boscovich and Kant) or multi--dimensional abstract spaces such as momentum space or phase space which were not the 3D space in which we live. (See Hendry bk on Maxwell, Ch 2). In the late 19th C mechanical worldview was contrasted with the field view of Faraday and the Maxwellians (though Maxwell and Kelvin and Boltzmann used mechanical models). In the very late 19th C mechanical was contrasted with the "electro--magnetic worldview" of Lorentz and Abraham which claimed that mass was of electromagnetic origin. In the early 20th C quantum mechanics called itself mechanical because of association with the HAmiltonian abstract spaces which had earlier been called dynamical, yet many though later quantum mechanics because of rejection of determinism and simple location was "the decline of mechanism" (d'Abro) and the "dematerialization of matter" (Hanson and others) as causality, hardness, simple location, etc. got messed up or blurred. So molecular biology is based on quantum mechanics in molecular structure and x-ray crystallography, which are non-mechanistic in certain respects. But the tinker toy models that biologists use are certainly mechanistic in the crudest sense. So there seems a contradiction. If pure molecular orbitals, as opposed to localized bonds play a role in any biochemical mechanism, then it is not mechanistic in the old sense. But insofar as stick diagrams (modelable by a bonding algebra) are adaquate then it is mechanistic in the old sense. However if one takes information theory seriously and believes that genes or gene pools are primarily information structures, and are not identical with the particular individual molecules that instantiate them, then one is led to a sort of theory of Platonic information structure or Aristotelean substantial forms (essences of individuals, DNA as info. as :essence of life) which is not really mechanistic. Delbrueck the founder of molec. biol., founder of the school that included Stent, Watson and Lederberg, wrote two articles claiming that Aristotle discovered DNA, meaning that the purpose essence model really fits with the informational account of DNA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:34:57 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In-Reply-To: <9511161235.AA07396@osf1.gmu.edu> On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > In a message dated 95-11-14 15:30:18 EST, you write: > > >How would we pick out a fact without a theory? > > When it hits you on the head? I simply mean that evolution has designed us > to engage reality To help pay my tuition, I work part-time in a restaurant. I was busy doing something in the kitchen, and I felt something hit the back of my neck. I couldn't tell what it was. It did feel slightly warm, and spread out in something of a warm glow around the point of impact. What was it? Where did it come from? I looked up and did a quick survey of my surroundings. There was no one around (scratch theory number one), nothing was falling off the ceiling (scratch theory number two), then I realized I was standing next to the ice making machine. The fan was blowing cold condensation off in occasional, small droplets. So, that was what it was! The warm glow I felt was in fact a drop cold water. I reached up and touched the base of my neck, and sure enough, it was wet. I believe it was Aristotle who said we have the (theory-driven) mind we do to make up for the fact that we lack the instinctual capacities that regulate animal behavior. This has been the line taken by much of modern research and thinking in science (and those animal instinctual responses are very finely tuned sometimes. A mouse does not have time to learn by trial-and-error whether that shadow passing overhead is a good or bad thing...). Regardless whether you want to swallow that one whole, it does point up an important issue. Animals react to the world in a "straightforward" fashion in a way that is usually specific to or characteristic of their species, and in a way that is adapted to surviving in the environment in which they find themselves. If that environment doesn't include rocks falling on their head, they are not going to "know" what to make of it nor are they likely to have behavioral protocols that will enable them to design means of avoiding (or exploiting) further rock droppings (unless there is a source of the rocks that falls within their capacities to deal with it). What animals *won't* do is develop a science to deal with falling bodies. Now that we have assumed falling bodies are non-problemmatic, let's back up a step. What is "falling"? What is a "body"? Do we really know what these mean? The history of philosophy and science reveal an amazing range of speculation and theory on these two notions. Recently, philosophers like Wilfred Sellars have identified something they call "the myth of the given." In short, like the water droplet that hit my neck and the rock, phenomena do not come pre-labeled with instructions for use or meaning, well-tuned nervous systems notwithstanding. Our nervous system can develop models of the world, but those are as much a construction as any theory (see the work of Goldman-Rakic, for example). While something may strike my head, what it is, how it happened, and even those very questions, are subject to a long process of theoretical activity. So when it comes to facts of the sort that interest in us science, a lot goes into developing theories that a) pick out what is to considered a fact, and what is not--i.e., is irrelevant; and b) how to deal with those facts. Note here, that since the theory is involved in picking out a fact in the first place, what to do with it is already partly determined. What evolution has equipped organisms to do is to exploit certain eco-niches in order to persevere. Anything beyond that (like this list, for instance) will require something more. Theory anyone? best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| p.s. Robert Young hit on another side of this that I have slighted in this post (what, I should have written a longer one?), when he wrote: > Science, technology, medicine and other forms of expertise are the > embodiment of values in theories and things, facts and artefacts, > procedures, programs and products. The second term of his pairs is just as important as the first. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:49:44 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In-Reply-To: <9511151022.AA05194@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Mr B.P. Larvor wrote: > 4) Does all this apply to pure maths? If so, how? In addition to Val Dusek's Nov 16 post, if you're interested, you might also consult David Bloor's _Knowledge and Social Imagery_ (U of Chicago, 1991) and Morris Kline's _Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty_ (Oxford, 1980). Both argue a constructivist position for mathematics. Ernst Cassirer's _The Problem of Knowledge_ (Yale, 1950) may be helpful here too. While I'm not answering your question now (no time to play, *sigh*), I think these sources argue pretty persurasively that pure math (if there is such a thing; Kline doubts it), is not exempt from human activity any more than any other human pursuit. It reminds me of a story Cassirer used to like to tell. He was friends with David Hilbert (now *there's* a pure mathematician if there ever was one). Hilbert had a grad student Cassirer knew, and he asked Hilbert how the student was doing in his math education. Hilbert responded, "Not too well. He didn't have enough imagination for mathematics, but he's doing poetry now and is doing fine..." This story may not be directed specifically at your question, but I think it points in the right direction. Besides, it's a great story. :-) best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:24:41 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: is molecular bio like machinery? -Reply Wow, thanks for efforts in my education, Val, seriously. I'd never have thought there were so many meanings to "mechanistic". I think my view of inter-cellular processes [molecular biology if you like, tho my bio BS did not distinguish between that and biochem] is indeed mechanistic, but in yet another way that you don't describe, and maybe not as a metaphor, or not only as a metaphor. Imagine an enzyme. It is a "chain" of amino acids linked by covalent bonds. Imagine the model of it as a 3-D, space-filling plastic one, yes tinkertoy, but maybe not very crude after all. Every covalent peptide bond is a pivot point, as the portion of the molecule on each side of each bond can rotate relative to the other. These bonds form at angles, as determined by the number and arrangement of electrons in outer orbitals. These angles are built into good physical models. So, given all the bonds and angles, there are a finite number of ways that this string of amino acids will fold up. This structure is further limited and the most thermodynamically stable one is defined by the physical/ electrical/ chemical properties of the side chains found on each amino acid. Hydrophobic bits tend to stick to each other, negatives stick to positives, big side-chains prevent the chain folding towards them, some side-chains bond with each other, hydrogen bond and sometimes covalent sulfur bonds. Proteins generally "de-nature" under a little heat, as the folded molecule loses that structure and therefore loses all function. Let them cool down, and the folds reassemble themselves [for simple ones anyway]. This is why one aa off can prevent the function of the whole protein, because the substitution of the wrong aa will affect the 3-D folding of the chain. Once the enzyme is finished, it's function is performed by the physical movement and electo/physical/chemical patterns and properties of the molecule. A substrate molecule must literally fit into an actual template for it that is presented by the surface of the enzyme. This is not only a metaphor of puzzle pieces to me, it really must fit, neg to pos, hydrophilic spot to hydrophilic, physical space for a protrusion, etc. in order for the enzyme to work on the substrate. Or rather, it almost fits. When the fit is very close, this brings key parts close to each other, so a part of the substrate is further attracted to a specific part of the enzyme. This puts physical force on a specific bond in the substrate, which makes that bond easy to break. That is acting as a catalyst, to ease and speed a chemical reaction which is thermodynamically favored anyway. There are many variations on this, it works for creating bonds too, just as enzymes, tRNA and ribosomes that function in mRNA translation bring amino acids together in just the right positions and proximity so that the formation of a peptide bond but the point is that the enzyme has a mobile structure, the movement of parts of the chain can be part of this active puzzle piece. Some of them require energy to break or create a bond. This is done by first binding an ATP or ADP molecule to the enzyme. This changes the folded structure of the enzyme, opening or closing cavities within by moving a part of the chain. This is what I call a mechanism, referring to the devices/machinery that work for some function, or the method of the working. Is my view "mechanistic"? I'd have thought yes, but I don't see anything wrong with that, at least not in molecular biology. Of course it is functional, because it is a product of darwinian evolution. Which is not a teleological process at all. What do you think? Lisa >>> Val Dusek 11/16/95, 11:09am >>> But, as I noted in last post (JB Shaw says it gives one spurious authority to quote onesself) the functional language of molecular biology in talking about functions of proteins, etc. has a quasi-teleological ring. So molecular biology is based on quantum mechanics in molecular structure and x-ray crystallography, which are non-mechanistic in certain respects. But the tinker toy models that biologists use are certainly mechanistic in the crudest sense. So there seems a contradiction. If pure molecular orbitals, as opposed to localized bonds play a role in any biochemical mechanism, then it is not mechanistic in the old sense. But insofar as stick diagrams (modelable by a bonding algebra) are adaquate then it is mechanistic in the old sense. However if one takes information theory seriously and believes that genes or gene pools are primarily information structures, and are not identical with the particular individual molecules that instantiate them, then one is led to a sort of theory of Platonic information structure or Aristotelean substantial forms (essences of individuals, DNA as info. as :essence of life) which is not really mechanistic. Delbrueck the founder of molec. biol., founder of the school that included Stent, Watson and Lederberg, wrote two articles claiming that Aristotle discovered DNA, meaning that the purpose essence model really fits with the informational account of DNA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 15:43:33 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sue Ellen Fishalow UNSUBSCRFIBE SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:20:34 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: evolution, of thought and sociality >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/16/95, 12:34pm >>> On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > I simply mean that evolution has designed us > to engage reality LR: I like it! Of course, not to engage perfectly, only as well as or in ways that have paid off through evolutionary time. Mark: What evolution has equipped organisms to do is to exploit certain eco-niches in order to persevere. Anything beyond that (like this list, for instance) will require something more. LR: Darwinian evolution creates organisms that try to survive and reproduce as much as possible, it's true. I wonder what you mean by "something more". What is it in general that you see as being or requiring "something more" than what? I suggest that a key aspect of human adaptation is our sociality. Which is all about talking, knowing people, making friends and contacts, professions, social status, etc. etc.... This is a result of evolution, that we are social, and that we are specialists in being social. Human ancestors were probably quite social since before bipedality. The two species most closely related to us are both quite social as well. Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:00:42 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Evolutionary Significance of Science -Reply Very interesting! Please tell me more. A few questions below. >>> John Giacobbe 11/14/95, 11:49pm >>> ...I am interested in the role that science as a cultural attribute has played in the evolution of human culture, and therefore humans themselves. L: About when do you think this got started? Is there a point that you regard as human after, not human before, in human ancestry? [snip]... a theory that incorporates a Darwinian model in the elucidation of the significance of cultural attributes in the overall fitness of a cultural group. L: Anything related perhaps to the Boyd and Richerson type of approach? Or what theory? Is it contradictory to use a darwinian model to address _group_ fitness? How do you define "overall fitness"? [snip] Natural selection is a force, perhaps a random and mathematically defined force, but a force none the less. L: Random? Perhaps you don't intend the way this reads, because selection is not random, by definition, no? [snip] I would define cultural adaptation as a process of alteration of a cultural system in response to change in its coupled environmental and/or somatic systems. L: "Coupled" is interesting, please expand a bit. It makes me think of dynamical systems, coupled differential equations and dialectics. Thanks for any reply, Lisa Rogers evolutionary ecology in anthropology, grad stu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 18:17:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Frayne Subject: Re: Poverty whenever intelligent & educated people talk about poverty, especially global poverty, i always get excited. and frustrated. i always want to DO something, constructive. then i recall a whole bunch of horror stories about people who were trying to help and completely messed up some poor village or something. so i calm myself down again, and tell myself not to worry. everythings gonna be alright. no one you personally know is going to go hungry or die of exposure this week. then i think, gee, but there are so many people out there who ARE going hungry. and i get excited again. i mean, theyre people too, just like me. i imagine what it might feel like to be trapped in a collapsed mine, where your oxygen is running out, and you have to just hope that someone is trying to dig you out quickly. and then i think of the people trying to dig me out quickly, and they look at the cave-in and say, are you sure anyone was down there? if they are then theyre probly dead by now, theres no sense in wasting all this time & effort trying to dig them out. after all, its my turn to pick up the kids from daycare and i have to get going if im gonna beat traffic. my cpr instructor said that people administering emergency cpr generally tire out after about an hour. unless its a family member or loved one. then they can go on for hours and hours, and they often save the persons life thereby. im thinking thats how it is with abject poverty. if it were my mother dying of starvation in india, id fly over there and save her. but since its not, i give $5 to catholic charities or united way and hope that someones mother is being saved. two angles i can see on this. (1) is it possible to make people feel related so they save eachother? (2) is it better to simply build from strength and try to take over the world slowly, beginning in a wealthy part of a wealthy nation and spreading? or maybe we should just mind our own business and let everything else fall apart. hmm. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:25:37 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerald Sussman Organization: Urban and Public Affairs Subject: Re: world poverty -Reply Re. Lisa's questions: > > > I have a few questions, as raised by Gerald's post. I hope that > anyone may like to expand on these questions, for the sake of my > education. > > >>> Gerald Sussman 11/14/95, 09:04pm >>> > I agree that it's not simply a problem of science, but I do think > that science, that is, the scientific "establishment." has had a very > profound effect on the distribution of income in third world > countries (and in the U.S.). > L: How? In what way? Lisa, Thanks for your response and invitation to elaborate. Without getting too long-winded, I hope, let me suggest one example. Take the Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored International Rice Research Institute, for example. Introducing hybrid rice seed varieties also required heavy use of pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides and other petroleum based additives to the soil. The new rice varieties also depended reliable sources of irrigation, hence the need for water pumps. All of this expensive equipment required expensive imports. (Exxon was the main source of the petroleum-based elements, suggesting possible side benefits for the Rockefeller interests.) Politically, this meant large scale land ownership, which led to land confiscations, driving out fishing and small-scale agriculture in the areas where IRRI introduced the new strains. It meant, among other things, redistribution of land. > I would also say that it's not simply a matter of "political will" > but the distribution of political power, itself linked to the > organization of scientific capital in the United States and > elsewhere, that best speaks to the question of social change. > L: How are these linked? I simply mean here that what constitutes "will" has to do with who owns the political process. > In other words, as Joe Weizenbaum of MIT said in his earlier writing, > the scientific community has to bear some of the responsibility for > the uses to which their research and applications are being put. > L: What is the "scientific community"? In what way is it > "responsible for the "uses" of its product? What exactly do you want > us to do? The scientific community are those, particularly at empowered institutions, such as MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, Bell Labs, etc., who engage in scientific product. If you know your research is intended for use in weapons guidance systems, for example, Joseph Weizenbaum argues that it's your responsibility to find out and to assume responsibility for the outcome. Technology that destroys people's habitat and lives can't ultimately be blamed on the technology per se but on those who designed and developed it. The language of science should not be divorced from the language of politics (i.e., in terms of who stands to lose and benefit from this or that kind of research). Gerry Sussman > I really want to know. > Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 21:28:24 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: Poverty of knowlege? In-Reply-To: <199511161447.IAA13794@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> I think it is a generalization to suggest that the food supply has reached the point at which it cannot keep up with population. You underestimate the potential of technology for good. At the time of the industrial revolution, who could have predicted the productivity of farms in the U.S. or the robotics of modern factories? There is arable land yet untilled; there are livable areas yet without residents. 75% of the world's population lives on only 25% of viable land. I do not believe we have reached the saturation point yet --- nor will we ever. We must remember that extinction is the natural end for every species. Sheryl Szot Gallaher Governors State University University Park, IL 60466 On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > In a message dated 95-11-14 08:04:01 EST, Baker writes: > > >Surely we have enough knowledge to make a pretty big dent in world > >poverty? > > Sure we do, but assigning blame to some nasty group misses the reality that > human beings rarely do the rational thing. The food supply has reached the > point at which it cannot keep up with the world population. Are people > willing to reduce the birth-rate? Not a chance. Of all the solutions, that > is the last acceptable to many religions, Western and Eastern. The > Malthusian balance no longer pertains. > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 10:26:13 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bo Dahlin Subject: biochemical machinery Lisa wrote: "There are stacks of evidence, in my view [that biochemistry is mechanical]. But I'm curious as to what Bo or anyonewould think an alternative assumption/analogy could be? If not"mechanical", then what? Or does the term mechanical mean something specialized here that I'm not getting?" I would like to see some of the evidence (biochemistry is not my field). As for alternative metaphors, what about "organic" as *different* from "mechanical"? I think the distinction between internal and external relations is a starting point. "Machinery" works with external relations between parts, organisms work with internal relations between parts. An internal relation between A and B means, that A and B "define" each other. That is, the nature of A is dependent upon the nature of B, and vice versa. In external relations this does not hold. A and B then interact in various ways, but each is what it is independent of the other. How's that for a start? Bo Bo Dahlin University of Karlstad S-651 88 Karlstad ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:38:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: Poverty of knowlege? In a message dated 95-11-17 00:36:53 EST, you write: >I think it is a generalization to suggest that the food supply has >reached the point at which it cannot keep up with population. You >underestimate the potential of technology for good. While while you say may very well be true, it is also true that the amount of land under cultivation is decreasing, top soil is blowing away, and the amount of food produced per year, for the first time, just about balances the world population (though badly distributed). If the world population continues to grow, there is nothing but disaster ahead. While it might be true that technology can produce more food, there is every reason to believe that we have reached the asymptote. If the world populationd doesn't shrink we are in big trouble. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:38:34 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In a message dated 95-11-16 15:22:47 EST, you write: >What animals *won't* do is develop a science to deal with falling bodies. Yes, we surely think about events (reality), but that is quite different from saying that the reality itself is a theory. We develop ideas about what has occured, but the reality was that your sensory system detected something happening. You found a way to define it. It could just have well have been an angel touching you, as some might argue. But, you agree that the event occured? > Now that we have assumed falling bodies are non-problemmatic, let's back >up a step. What is "falling"? What is a "body"? Do we really know what >these mean? Other animals don't worry about such things yet try to avoid being struck by falling objects they have learned cause them pain. If it is real to them, it is real to use, only we think about it and (presumeably) they don't. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 14:01:19 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ben Toth Subject: Introduction Friday 17 November Hello.. My name is Ben Toth; I am an 'early joiner' of the list but a slow communicator. So here goes.. My interest is in the development of clinical trials in the UK - clinical science/medical research as a cultural resource to parts of the medical profession, the public, the British state, and to pharmaceutical manufacturers. I am concentrating on clinical trials between 1910 ish and 1950, in particular the development of the randomised controlled trial, and the work of the Medical Research Council. I'm a bit peripheral to some of the concerns on the list, but I hope I can make the odd intervention. My broad methodological concerns are: how much probability and statistical theory do you need to have to write about statistical methods from a cultural perspective? (probably lots!) how to write about science without being either pro- or anti-science? best wishes ********************************************************************** Ben Toth Department of Social Medicine University of Bristol Canynge Hall Whiteladies Road Bristol, BS8 2PR, U.K. Tel: 0117 928 7223 Fax: 0117 928 7204 E-mail: Ben.Toth@bris.ac.uk ********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 09:37:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Giacobbe Subject: Re: Evolutionary Significance of Science -Reply Recently, Lisa Rogers (L) responded to a post of mine (J) with some interesting questions that I would like to attempt to address. (J)....I am interested in the role that science as a cultural attribute has played in the evolution of human culture, and therefore humans themselves. (L) About when do you think this got started? Is there a point that you regard as human after, not human before, in human ancestry? I would take the slightly prosaic premiss that being human is an arbitrary term dependent upon the philosophical stance of the society and the individual. We (and past societies before us) define being human with our own criteria that appear very important to us at the time. My idea was primarily concerned with the development of a cultural mode, and I would state that from a scientific point of view, there was no clear event horizon after which culture and humanity appeared. We might be able to speciate selected fossil remains and classify them as members of the genus Homo, but I would consider that the possession of culture is not a human only behavioral pattern. So, from this perspective, while the presence of culture may define how we act, it does not define us as human. This is only the tip of a much broader discussion, but I would throw out that Chimpanzees (among other "non-human" primate groups), display all the attributes that one would generally define as criteria of culture. I believe it not too much of an extrapolation to consider that our pre-hominoid ancestors displayed similar behavioral patterns, and while not strictly taxonomically human, they were in possession of the character that I wish to review in this discussion. Sorry, that got a bit winded... (J) ... a theory that incorporates a Darwinian model in the elucidation of the significance of cultural attributes in the overall fitness of a cultural group. (L): Anything related perhaps to the Boyd and Richerson type of approach? Or what theory? Is it contradictory to use a Darwinian model to address _group_ fitness? How do you define "overall fitness"? I am not familiar with the Boyd and Richardson approach, perhaps you could tell me about this. I have fashioned my ideas after many researchers in both the anthropological (Dunnell, Leonard, Kirsch, Rindos, et al.) and biological (Mayr, Dawkins, Suzuki, and a bunch of guys I can't remember now working on meme theory) fields. About fitness, I would think we need to expand fitness from the biological Darwinian definition, somewhat along the group fitness lines. I would say that it is not contradictory, but that we are only changing the unit of selection from the individual to the culture group. Group selection theories put up red flags for many, so I hate to use this term, but it is clear that a cultural mode requires a group to succeed. There is no culture without the group, and that is its strength. Hence selective forces must act on the group, even supersede those acting on the individual. Briefly, I would define cultural fitness as the differential ability to access resources, capture energy, and survive as an intact cultural group. Fitness would be an environmental specific thing, and no developmental stages need apply. A group is fit for the local environment at a specific time, by being well adapted to survival in that environmental system. (J) Natural selection is a force, perhaps a random and mathematically defined force, but a force none the less. (L) Random? Perhaps you don't intend the way this reads, because selection is not random, by definition, no? I would agree that you are right that the process of selection is not random, but its application flows from so many causal sources that it will often appear to influence cultural development in that way. That is the reason we see so much equifinality in forms that cultures take to deal with the same basic problems, such as subsistence, group organization, technology. So many minute factors are involved in applying the selective pressures that resulted in a particular form of cultural expression that it may appear to be a randomly applied force. (J) I would define cultural adaptation as a process of alteration of a cultural system in response to change in its coupled environmental and/or somatic systems. (L) "Coupled" is interesting, please expand a bit. It makes me think of dynamical systems, coupled differential equations and dialectics. Well, I didn't mean quite as much as that, only to remind that we must consider that although many selective forces are environmentally derived and survival-related, there are also selective forces that are applied from within a cultural system, such as sexual selection, exogamy and endogamy rules, tradition, conservatism, all those things that may not appear to ascribe any selective advantage with regard to biological fitness, but are none the less necessary for fitness within a given cultural system.. peer pressure! I appreciate all of Lisa's well thought comments, and would invite others in the list to ring in with their opinions. Thanks for your time, John A. Giacobbe catalinus@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 13:29:06 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Goldbort Subject: testing just testing, since I haven't gotten through in previous tries ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:02:26 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: STUART NEWMAN Subject: Re: Introduction -Reply Val Dusek wrote: <<... I am currently working on a book, The Holistic Inspiriations of Physics: an Underground History of Electromagnetic Theory... about the influence of Chinese medieval Taoism, renaissance occultism and hermeticism, and German Romanticism on the technology, theory, and experiments of the pre-history of electro-magnetic theory ...I am also interested in information metaphor in molecular biology and deconstruction thereof... and in generally demystifying the human origins of scientific thought.>> I am a developmental biologist with similar interests. I have recently published an essay, "Carnal Boundaries: The Commingling of Flesh in Theory and Practice" in "Reinventing Biology" (eds. Lynda Birke and Ruth Hubbard) Indiana Univ. Press, 1995, that analyzes Darwinism and the "genetic program" paradigm in relation to Western religious concepts, and comes to certain conclusions about the relationship of science and ideology in biotechnologies involving gene modification. It is possible that this piece contains material that would be helpful to you. Stuart Newman New York Medical College Valhalla, NY 10595 newman@nymc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 15:31:49 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Goldbort Subject: intro. Greetings. Having read the intriguing posts thus far, I thought I'd add a note of my own. I teach technical/scientific writing and sometimes a Literature and Science seminar. I'm interested in rhetoric of science generally, but also with particular reference to how scientists linguistically (re)construct their own world of ideas, "facts," and professional values (yes, I do believe that human values do operate in important cultural ways in day-to-day scientific activity, on both micro- and macro-levels). My own academic background is mixed--a BS in Biology (SUNY-Stony Brook), MS in Biology (Indiana U. of PA), MA and PhD in English (Michigan State U., 1989). My biology thesis and published papers (late '70s) were on alcohol- drinking behavior/physiology in mice; my dissertation was on the evolution of "plain" scientific prose, from the ideas of Peter Ramus (late 16th century) to their impact on Bacon's and the Royal Society's rhetorical strictures. Thus far on the list I've seen unsurprising but nonetheless interesting concerns about such matters as: (a) scientific "fact" vs. theory (my own view is that "facts" are made, not merely found), (b) why more scientists aren't on this list, (c) the ethical responsibility of scientists regarding what they discover/produce/develop. My current work is on the images, ideas, activity, and values of experimental science/scientists as seen in fiction--at the moment in contemporary fiction by scientists themselves (e.g., my article in J. Medical Humanities, Summer 1995). The fact that in our century one can find at least a couple of dozen scientists (doctorally-trained) who also have produced fiction (e.g., Snow, Asimov, R. McCormmach, T. McMahan, B. F. Skinner, C. Sagan, D. Brin, G. Benford, R. Cook, M. Crichton, M. Palmer, Alan Lightman) makes a statement about the relation between fiction and scientific discourse and about the current status of Snovian cultures-- is the chasm really there other than politically? There are times when I feel that works of fiction by scientists represents the HIGHEST form of "scientific writing," since it makes a direct connection between the lab and the fundamental concerns of our culture, though I'm quite aware that most scientists (not all) would deride such a view, or, worse, yet, it just wouldn't compute--their eyes would glass over with impatience and even annoyance. Fiction about science (contary to S. J. Gould's recently expressed views) does not "water down" or even "dumb down" (Gould's words) scientific information or ideas, but in my view intensifies and contextualizes how our culture responds to the advancement of science and its 20th century ethical dilemmas (see the late molecular biologist L. Isaacs' ambitious 1987 essay, "Creation and Responsibility in Science: Some Lessons from the Modern Prometheus" in the essay collection titled Creativity and the Imagination (U. Delaware Press, Ed. M. Amsler) titled. In any case, to use a familiar image/metaphor, I believe that the scientific and the literary/rhetorical "need" one another like the two "opposing" strands of a DNA double helix--so that full expression of what it is to be human can occur. It will not do, for instance, for a scientist to say in effect something like, "I just design my experiments, collect my data, publish the results, and what "society" does with my work is none of my concern." We could revisit discussions of Oppenheimer and The Bomb, or just take a look at the potential and likely irreversible effects of bioengineering (more powerful than any bomb in the long run). I draw attention to something Quintilian said long ago in his Institutio Oratoria ("The Education of an Orator") about rhetoric and rhetors which I believe applies wholly to scientists as well as to anyone else: "I do not merely assert that the ideal orator should be a good man, but I affirm that no man can be an orator unless he is a good man." This must also be true of scientists. One's personal ethos--scientist or not--is inextricably entwined with WHATEVER one does professionally (see also psychiatrist/educator R. Coles' The Call of Stories, 1989). Scientists are, after all (just like the rest of us) first and foremost humans--and to suggest that they and their science are so priveleged as to justify a disconnection or isolation of their work from the rest of culture is plainly naive and simplistically convenient. I could ramble on, but duties of the day call . . . Robert Goldbort Department of English Root Hall A-212 Indiana State University Terre Haute, IN 47809 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 19:01:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Frayne Subject: Re: population >75% of the world's population lives on only 25% of viable land. its also interesting to note that people like to put their houses right onto the best farming land. here in the san francisco bay area, where just about every food known to man will grow, we keep covering up the land with buildings and streets. even so, in my small yard (4000 sq ft) i am growing roughly the amount of food i need to sustain myself (except that it doesnt all come at the right time and i dont have adequate packing & storing facilities, so i still have to buy groceries). ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 20:45:40 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Satoru Aonuma Subject: thanks Hi Philip, Thanks for your info about museum stuff. I really appreciate your help because this topic is new to me. I try to finish this project sometime in the middle of December. I will be more than happy to (e-)mail the paper when it's done if you are interested (and I would like to entertain your comments and critiques, too). Satoru Aonuma Wayne State University ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 00:56:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: evolution, of thought and sociality In-Reply-To: <9511162125.AA01979@osf1.gmu.edu> On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/16/95, 12:34pm >>> > On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > > I simply mean that evolution has designed us > > to engage reality > > LR: I like it! Of course, not to engage perfectly, only as well as > or in ways that have paid off through evolutionary time. > > Mark: What evolution has equipped organisms to do is to exploit > certain eco-niches in order to persevere. Anything beyond that (like > this list, for instance) will require something more. > > LR: Darwinian evolution creates organisms that try to survive and > reproduce as much as possible, it's true. I wonder what you mean by > "something more". What is it in general that you see as being or > requiring "something more" than what? Well, I thought "something more" is about as general as one can get, so I'll get a *little* more specific instead. Part of the answer you have already intimated: "not to engage perfectly" is the opening that requires something more. What we have going on in our attempts to use evolutionary theory to explain human behavior is a reductive effort. While I'm entirely sympathetic with using Darwinian theory to *illuminate*, it is not going to effect a complete translation. We cannot fully translate all human activity into the language of evolutionary science. The argument I'm fielding here is the same one leveled against efforts to explain all phenomena to the mechanical action of atomic or subatomic particles. In either case, it leaves the higher order explanation as either mere epiphenomena (the eliminative move) or just a shorthand that can be replaced by the more technically precise language of whatever science (physics, molecular genetics, etc.) is currently in vogue (the substitutive move). In other words, reality is ultimately simple and fully explicable (can be both explained and made explicit). The translation can be complete (given enough time and effort) without remainder. The "imperfection" you allow for is the little thing that makes all the difference. On the positive side, it is getting more acceptable in biological science (and information science, for that matter) to speak of "emergent properties"- -properties that appear at more complex or higher orders of analysis that are specific to the *relations* of those lower order units. In other words, properties and behaviors of systems appear that are not predictable on the basis of knowing the properties of the units themselves. Now, I would extend that argument to the interaction of whatever units we want to discuss not only in terms of internal relations--i.e., interactions between those units themselves--but also the units alone--or in combination--with their respective environment(s). To be more specific, an exhaustive knowledge of molecular genetics and evolutionary biology would not automatically give you knowledge of or even the ability to predict our kind of sociability, except perhaps on a very trivial or mundane level (e.g., cooperation enhances survival: ants have us beat though). Most, if not all, of our behavior on a meaningful level is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to a lower level of analysis. To put it more informally, biology will never replace the social science if we hope to have an adequate understanding of human behavior. A further note on making explicit: I believe there is good reason to believe that no science can ever make any topic fully explicit (e.g., Uncertainty in physics, Incompleteness in mathematics, intentionality in the social sciences, the historicity of evolutionary theory). This is not a criticism of science, but an argument for "divergent realism" over the "convergent realism" of proposals like physicist Steven Wienberg's so-called "Final Theory." > I suggest that a key aspect of human adaptation is our sociality. > Which is all about talking, knowing people, making friends and > contacts, professions, social status, etc. etc.... Definitely... > This is a result > of evolution, that we are social, and that we are specialists in > being social. ...not. We have a sociality that is fundamental to who we are; but *biological* evolution is not the sole reason why. Cultural evolution and social life are as, and I believe, more important. > Human ancestors were probably quite social since > before bipedality. The two species most closely related to us are > both quite social as well. > > Lisa Cockroaches are extraordinarily social creatures. The children (or would that be calves, chicks, roachlings??) are raised by the parents into "adulthood", and the fathers stick around to help in the rearing. And of course, ants and bees have been held up for at least a couple of millennia as exemplars of cooperations and sociability. I would hold that the "something more" that gets short shrift in our natural science-dominated culture is, well, culture. sociably yours, mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 01:06:22 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Evolutionary Significance of Science -Reply In-Reply-To: <9511171438.AA07806@osf1.gmu.edu> I thought John and Lisa's comments were insightful. But how about something specific to the thread name. Science studies, constructed/constructs the terminology and techniques, and "discovered" evolution (careful there). But what about the return move: how has evolution constructed or discovered science? mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 02:03:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In-Reply-To: <9511171241.AA18327@osf1.gmu.edu> On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > Yes, we surely think about events (reality), but that is quite different from > saying that the reality itself is a theory. To deny "reality" is incoherent. I can't imagine how one would go about arguing such a claim in a totalizing fashion. All we do/think starts from where and what we are. So, of course i would not say there is no "reality itself." Of course, how one argues all this is not quite so straightforward, but I wanted to at least get any potential silliness out of the way. > We develop ideas about what has occured, My contention, exactly. > but the reality was that your sensory system detected something > happening. You found a way to define it. Ah, and there's the rub. How did I find it, and what was it? > It could just have well have been > an angel touching you, as some might argue. Some might, but I'll forego that explanation. > But, you agree that the event occured? See above. > Now that we have assumed falling bodies are non-problemmatic, let's back > >up a step. What is "falling"? What is a "body"? Do we really know what > >these mean? > > Other animals don't worry about such things yet try to avoid being struck by > falling objects they have learned cause them pain. If it is real to them, it > is real to use, only we think about it and (presumeably) they don't. I claimed earlier that for many such events, animals don't always get the chance to "learn" and "avoid" these events. Behavioral Psychologist Clark Hull argued a similar position to yours. He recognized It is important for animals to avoid predators (and presumably, falling rocks). The way this occurs is a) they get a warning signal like a scent, a visual cue, or pain. Following the cue, an attack (or blow to the head) occurs. Thus, all of this begins with and is dependent on a smooth functioning sensory system. Lucky for our hapless animal, it escapes and lives to avoid on another day. See the problem? Nature does not arrange the helpful kinds of contingencies necessary to learn all these things. Especially the number of times under a variety of circumstances that would be needed. What the animal would be under this kind of regimen is dead, and its relatives extinct. What they have a very well-tuned innate response system (what Animal/Motivation Psychologist Robert Bolles calls Species Specific Defense Responses, or SSDRs). Of course, animals do learn too, but there's a couple of interesting problems. First, if a cat gets burned by jumping up on a hot stove, it won't jump on a hot stove again. In fact, it won't jump on a cold stove either. Second, using Bolles' research, animals tend to learn some things very easily, and other things not at all. Moreover, what they learn well--or not--is specific to their species (hence, "Species Specific"). For example, you can get rats to freeze when they are scared, but you can't teach them to bar press or run out into an open space very well (to avert or stop some aversive stimulus). Moreover, they may very well freeze when it is not in their best interests to do so. For instance, rats from the plains who must deal with flying predators are good at freezing, rats in the woods good at climbing trees to escape snakes. Freezing in front of a snake is not the best of strategies, but rats will do it when they are from a group where freezing is the predominate SSDR. The point of this long-winded discursion is that a simple "respond to the way the world really is" explanation is woefully inadequate when it comes to understanding something as "simple" as rat behavior, even more so when it comes to human. Reality does not come pre-labeled with the proper response to events. Nor does our sensory system. Something intervenes between the two. With animals, it is for the most part an instinctual intervention. With humans, we come up with a cognitive mediation most loosely described as cognition, and on a more sophisticated level, theory. Perhaps you might be more comfortable with the term "cognition," where we might reserve "theory" for when we thematize and make that cognitive activity more explicit. Be that as it may, the cognitive activity is certainly neurological, but it is also unavoidably shaped, and I would say, to a greater extent, by cultural or social structures and dynamics. Hence, theory. mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 07:31:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: Re: emergent properties In a message dated 95-11-18 00:57:59 EST, you write: > >On the positive side, it is getting more acceptable in biological science >(and information science, for that matter) to speak of "emergent >properties"- -properties that appear at more complex or higher orders of >analysis that are specific to the *relations* of those lower order units. >In other words, properties and behaviors of systems appear that are not >predictable on the basis of knowing the properties of the units >themselves. Now, I would extend that argument to the interaction of >whatever units we want to discuss not only in terms of internal >relations--i.e., interactions between those units themselves--but also the >units alone--or in combination--with their respective environment(s). i am delighted to come across the phrase "emergent properties" and hope we can start a thread on the meaning of this notion. it is one that i have found so appealing as an antidote when you feel yourself slipping into reductionistic mud. but the more attractive and seductive it feels,the more it makls me wonder whether it isn't the old ghost in the machine in new dress.( wow that's a kind of cross dressing i had never thought of ;-) ) is it simply the latest and thus currently mostly acceptable way of returning to descartes dualism. any thoughts anyone jeffrey kramer jefkmd@aol.com > > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 11:23:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: okinawan rape to all the following vignette is absolutely current. that, and its subject matter make it an extremely provocative matter to discuss. but i want to talk about it, and i think the notions both of science and culture,which form the heading of this list are crucial to thinking about it. so i am going to ask you all (and am prepared that you may as a group turn me down which i will absolutely accept) to think of this as a matter which deserves to be discussed,is relevant here and finally that this group is up to the job of discussing it enlighteningly.... end of defensive preamble four american servicement were convicted of raping a 12 year old Okinawan girl, inflicting pain and provoking fury at every level you might imagine. the new york times on saturday 11/18/95 reported that the commander of US forces in the Pacific was forced to step down peremptorily after making the following statement "I think it (the rape) was absolutely stupid,I've said that several times. For the price they paid to rent the car they could have had a girl." The immediate public outcry against him seems close to unaninmous. Before I ask my question I would like to add one clarifying point for our purposes. And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that rape is primarily about power rather than sex and particularly the potential to exercise degrading power over women. It is horrible! Nevertheless I ask whether it is as clear to people on this list that this admiral...and i know not another thing about him other than that he made this statement (perhaps further biographical data would change the frame considerably)...made such a dreadful blunder as is being put out. unfortunately i find myself unable to stop without making one more point. please remember that one of his primary obligations at this point is to decrease the likelihood of a recurrence of this horror. thanks jeffrey kramer jefkmd@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 10:29:26 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "S.M. Ghazanfar" Subject: UNSCRIBE please UNSCRIBE Thanks for putting me on the list, but I am afraid I just can't keep up--too many other demands on my time. Thanks again. Dr S M Ghazanfar College of Business and Economics University of Idaho Tel: (208) 885 7144 Fax: (208) 885 8939 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 18:39:35 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Pure maths In-Reply-To: <199511162101.VAA24444@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Mark L Gilbert" at Nov 16, 95 02:49:44 pm In the last mail Mark L Gilbert said: > > On Wed, 15 Nov 1995, Mr B.P. Larvor wrote: > > 4) Does all this apply to pure maths? If so, how? > In addition to Val Dusek's Nov 16 post, The question with Val's examples (and there is plenty more where that lot came from) is whether any of this rhetoric was effective, and what effects it had. It is always possible to reread this stuff (as Kitcher does in _The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge_). We can always say, what this mathematician really means here is... Then the question becomes a matter of evaluating these re-readings. In other words, the examples Val cites are only the start of the argument. > if you're interested, you might > also consult David Bloor's _Knowledge and Social Imagery_ (U of Chicago, > 1991) Read it. Traduced both Wittgenstein and Lakatos. Silly argument about witches and the Azande. Bloor also wrote a paper called something like "polyhedra and the abominations of Leviticus". > and Morris Kline's _Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty_ (Oxford, 1980). Read it years ago. I don't remember much sociological detail, but it was a while back. > Both argue a constructivist I.e. social constructivist? (beware this word has another meaning in phil. of maths.) position for mathematics. Ernst Cassirer's > _The Problem of Knowledge_ (Yale, 1950) may be helpful here too. > > While I'm not answering your question now (no time to play, *sigh*), I > think these sources argue pretty persurasively that pure math (if there is > such a thing; Kline doubts it), is not exempt from human activity any more > than any other human pursuit. Well, mathematics-the-body-of-knowledge _is_ a human activity. The question is, what moves it? I read a paper in which it was argued (more or less) that Hamilton developed quaternions for reasons to do with his being an Irish Tory. Now, I can see that this sort of explanation might be attractive, but on the whole that sort of stuff fails, on mundane historical grounds. > It reminds me of a story Cassirer used to > like to tell. He was friends with David Hilbert (now *there's* a pure > mathematician if there ever was one). Hilbert had a grad student Cassirer > knew, and he asked Hilbert how the student was doing in his math > education. Hilbert responded, "Not too well. He didn't have enough > imagination for mathematics, but he's doing poetry now and is doing > fine..." > > This story may not be directed specifically at your question, but I think > it points in the right direction. Besides, it's a great story. :-) > Indeed. By the way, lets not run away with the idea that the positivists were stupid. Reichenbach knew perfectly well that `science is a human activity and does not take place in a vaccuum'. He explains at the beginning of Experience and Prediction (I think it's called) that epistemologists should treat it as if it were `in a vaccuum' as a matter of philosophical method. Since scientists make idealising assumptions, he thought, why can philosophers not do the same. Now, I don't follow Reichenbach in this, but lets treat these chaps with the respect they deserve (e.g. lets read their books before we get too snide). Indeed, writers of rationally reconstructed history from Hegel onwards knew and know now that such histories are idealisations. That is their point. Brendan. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 14:18:11 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: Pure maths In a message dated 95-11-18 13:42:15 EST, Mr. Larvor writes: > I read a paper in which it was argued (more or less) >that Hamilton developed quaternions for reasons to do with his being an >Irish Tory. This paper is by Andrew Pickering in South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 417 - 466. Spring, 1995. It is reprinted in The Mangle of Practice Book by same fellow. I don't agree with Pickering's one-sided ideological analysis of Hamilton, but Hamilton was influenced by romantic idealist strains. He traded poetry with Wordsworth and Coleridge, and read Kant's 1st Critique in German, when it was so rare in England it took him years to find a second copy after he lost his first one. Hamilton combine Berkeley's idealism with Boscovich's point-atom fields to combat materialism, and his Hamilton function was in some senses a Platonic answer to Newtonian solid-ball materialistic atomism. There is discussion of Hamilton in Hendry, J. C. Maxwell book, on the dynamical vs. mechanical conception of physics, and an article on "algebra as the science of pure Time" in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, discussing his Kantianism in relation to his quaternians, I think also by Hendry. I think Hamilton recognized the connection between the Hamiltonian and quaterions which comes out in quaternion quantum mechanics of spin, and also in the symplectic group as having quaterions as natural objects, with the symplectic group tied to the physical Hamiltonian version of mechanics. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 15:01:11 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: okinawan rape And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that >rape is primarily about power rather than sex and particularly the potential >to exercise degrading power over women. We might want to be careful about saying that rape is inherently about degrading the power of women. It is quite common in the male gay community as well. It seems then to be the mixture of sex with aggression/power that is pleasurable to the rapist.The sex of the victim seems to vary by rapist. Aggression and sex acts seems to combine very powerfully for some males (and I imagine for some females) but it may directed toward whatever happens to be rapists sexual preference (women, other men, young boys). I think to assume that rape has as its agenda to degrade the power of women is not a good assumption. This is not to say, of course that rape is not used very deliberately by some cultures, groups and individuals as an attack on womanhood. IN these cases though, rape is being used as a tool. To assume that most rape has such "high ideals" is probably not correct. -- Tim Smith (tws@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu) University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center (412)624-7055 -office (412)688-8351 -home Personal Web address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~tws Neural Processes in Cognition address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/npc/ Also check out: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/neuroscape/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 15:22:32 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "A. H. Brush" Subject: emergent properties On emergent properties: There are those who would argue that emergent properties, in the sense that one cannot predict properties of one level based on the properties of another. For example, the shape and behavior of a single protein cannot be prediced by the information stored in the base sequence of the gene or genes that produce the protein. In proteins that form filaments, or perhaps other multi-molecular structures the properties of the structure (eg filament) cannot be prediced from the information contained in the filamenting molecules. This idea is not new, nor limited to living systems. You can't explains the behavior of a watch from its components. The idea, however, is very handy and helps us to think about complexity and the nature of biological organization. Alan Department of Physiology & Neurobiology Brush@uconnvm.uconn.edu University of Connecticut, Storrs 92 High St., Mystic, CT ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 15:25:40 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ned Muhovich Subject: Re: Rob Goldport's intro. Robert-- Since I have a similarly odd background (B.A. in math, M.A. and A.B.D in English), I like the idea of the mixture of science and rhetoric producing something positive, rather than something negative. (And it sometimes seems to me that rhetorical analyses of scientific writing often focus, implicitly at least, on how rhetoric "warps" the science.) My own favorite author/scientist is Primo Levi, who, like the authors you mention, combines his rhetoric and science in mutually reinforcing structures. (I'm thinking particularly of _The Periodic Table_, which isn't actually a work of fiction but a memoir.) My own research looks at the complementary issue: how people we think of primarily in literary terms use science. (My dissertation is on Poe, Twain, and Faulkner.) One comment about the scientists-just-like-the-rest-of-us thing: hearkening back to the list's on-going discussion of expertise, the best of the writers you mention take their scientific, formal training and integrate it with their social experiences. For some reason, it seems harder for novelists to do the reverse, to take their humanities training and integrate that with scientists. In centuries past, perhaps, Donne and Milton could use science effectively, but examples like that strike me as rare in this century. The most obvious perhaps, Pynchon, has always seemed too juvenile: science as one more toy to play with. Any thoughts or writers I'm overlooking? Ned Muhovich University of Denver emuhovic@du.edu >There are times when I feel that works of fiction by scientists represents the >HIGHEST form of "scientific writing," since it makes a direct >connection between the lab and the fundamental concerns of our >culture... In any case, to use a familiar image/metaphor, >I believe that the scientific and the literary/rhetorical "need" one >another like the two "opposing" strands of a DNA double helix--so >that full expression of what it is to be human can occur. >Scientists are, after all (just like the rest of us) >first and foremost humans--and to suggest that they and their science >are so priveleged as to justify a disconnection or isolation of their >work from the rest of culture is plainly naive and simplistically >convenient. >Robert Goldbort >Department of English >Root Hall A-212 >Indiana State University >Terre Haute, IN 47809 > Ned Muhovich emuhovic@du.edu (303)871-2879 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 19:19:24 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bernd Frohmann Subject: Science Wars? (fwd) This might be of interest to this list. Bernd Frohmann, Associate Professor & Acting Dean Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1H1 voice: (519) 679-2111 ext. 8510 | fax: (519) 661-3506 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 11:50:36 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Athanasiou To: Recipients of conference Subject: Science Wars? From: Tom Athanasiou **** SCIENCE WARS? ... A Book, a Conference, and a Bit of a Polemic HIGHER SUPERSTITION The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt (Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 1994) THE FLIGHT FROM SCIENCE AND REASON Conference at the New York Academy of Sciences May 31 - June 2, 1995, New York Tired of the culture wars? Get ready for the science wars. Get ready, too, to imagine some proper limits for the all-encompassing ambitions of discourse theory. With HIGHER SUPERSTITION, a gauntlet has been thrown down, and we should not assume that we are altogether ready to pick it up. HIGHER SUPERSTITION was published in 1994, and reviews have either praised it as a defense of science against a rising irrationalism or excoriated it as a shrill conservative attack on multiculturalism, feminism, "the postmodern academy," and indeed, democracy. THE FLIGHT FROM SCIENCE AND REASON funded in part by the right-wing Olin Foundation, aimed to showcase the authors and ideas of HIGHER SUPERSTITION. It didn't ignite a full-blown science war, but it was not a failure. FLIGHT brought several hundred scientists, academics, and miscellaneous "rationalists" together and invited them to feel outraged and besieged. It did not win the massive press coverage its organizers had hoped for, but it was not altogether ignored. And, certainly it was a warning. FLIGHT offered a grim view of a sterile pseudo-debate we should try desperately to avoid. If the science wars do spread, HIGHER SUPERSTITION will figure large in their myths of origin. It will be their founding manifesto, as FLIGHT will be remembered as their call to arms. Spare a moment, then, if only as preparation for battle, to consider the situation, indeed the danger, as Gross and Levitt see it. To wit, that science -- and indeed the whole Enlightenment tradition of precise, disciplined critical-empirical thinking -- is being battered by endless waves of "irrationalism." Among the people, this irrationalism takes various forms -- New Ageism; a belief that angels walk among us; faith in "non-Western" medicine; woo-woo ecofeminism and more broadly "Edenic" environmentalism; and on the right, creationism and the hard assertion of fundamentalist moral verities. Among the "academic left," where cultural/professional dynamics make specific stylistic demands, "irrationalism" centers on the fad for "the overpriced vaporware of postmodern skepticism" and on claims for an "epistemological democracy" in which it is affirmed by both polite and politically correct necessity that all claims to truth are equally marked by culture and contingency. This apocalypse of relativism, of course, has its horsemen, and if one judges by the bile and rhetoric at THE FLIGHT FROM SCIENCE AND REASON, Sandra Harding (a key feminist critic of science) and Bruno Latour (a leading light of post structuralist "science studies") head their ranks. But Harding and Latour are hardly alone. All the stars of left science studies won their share of the day's vitriol, as did friends of acupuncture, psychoanalysis [!], and UFOlogy; a few select freelance "neo-Luddite" intellectuals like Jeremy Rifkin and the Unabomber; the Nazis (of course); and all of the long columns of barbarian epistemologists that threaten to lay waste to the towers of reason. HIGHER SUPERSTITION is thick with references, and quite comprehensive. It even cites SOCIALIST REVIEW, critiquing both Steven Epstein and myself. (We are both dismissed during larger polemics, yet notably by way of backhanded compliments that are not altogether unfair.) Gross and Levitt, in other words, have done their homework. They know the left science-studies literature or have at least picked over it with care. This makes HIGHER SUPERSTITION an ambitious book by any measure. It is also intermittently a fair one, and this despite being ill-spirited, prone to self-serving caricature, and sharply conservative in its overall thrust. It's tough to suggest, with anything like focus and brevity, the overall stakes in the science wars. It may help, though, to note a key word in these debates -- "technoscience" -- and to wonder at the deliberate conflation at its core. This conflation is, after all, heavy with ramifications. "Technoscience," to make a very long story short, is, in today's left academy, almost invariably taken as the proper object of study whenever science is at issue. And why not? "Technoscience" (rather than, say, "rationality") is what we EXPERIENCE--cars, power plants, computer networks, etc.; it is the proper object of cultural studies; it is what binds "science" to industry, to culture, to ideology, and to history. Feminist and left critics of science concern themselves, first of all, with science embodied, science as power. "Rationalists" like Gross and Levitt are more than irritated by this move, for they seek to save "reason" and even, still, to insist that it is neutral. That is not my problem, though I agree that "irrationalism" -- e.g., the recent rapid increase in the number of Americans who say they believe in reincarnation -- is very much a significant and worrisome matter, and though I suspect that the habits of "epistemological democracy," in biasing us to forgive even overt mysticism as a form of resistance to "scientific expertise," do not serve us well. My question is rather why radical critics of science feel compelled to push beyond the rich fields of "weak" constructivism -- that "science" as we know it is deeply marked by the logic and metaphor of expertise and domination, and by its servitude to capital -- and to claim as well that there can never be anything like an objective knowledge of nature, that all we know as scientific is, in reality, socially constructed in some absolute sense. Now, obviously "nature" is socially constructed in the sense that only social beings can "know" anything about it. This is true, and it remains true even if it is not always interesting. Also, and just as obviously, the insistence that scientific "facts" are socially and often politically constructed remains key to the liberationist agenda -- THE BELL CURVE demonstrated, if further demonstration was necessary, that the right finds enduring use for determinism and reductionism. But this is only the problem; it does not follow that the solution lies in ideological antis-reductionism, at least not if anti-reductionism is understood (as it often is) as a denigration of "empirical truth." The best and the brightest in the pomo academy, of course, do not indulge such a crude view. Though literary and scientific facts are both constructed, it is taken for granted that they are constructed differently. In pomo culture in general, however, this subtlety gets lost in the popular notion that all "facts," marked as the suspect claims of "experts," are self-serving and subjective. What concerns me, in other words, is how the claim that all truths are constructed fades into the sense, pervasive and corrosive, that all claims are crooked. The ecologist claims that amphibians are in trouble; the developer does not agree, or says that it doesn't matter. Children, given a chance, will generally remember that it matters to the frogs, but how often do their parents, hearing tell of such dispute, shrug off both views as punditry and rubbish? Left critics of science have long taken it for granted that their proper and most radical vocation is to go beyond critiques of "bad science" to stress the social and political construction of all science, and indeed of all knowledge. This move is profoundly emancipatory, and I do not refuse it, but we should not imagine that the question of "good" and "bad" science has become irrelevant. The right, in fact, has discovered anew the utility of science as political weapon, as is clear in their attacks on the environmental movement. A sophisticated school of critics has made advances by systematic caricature, painting greens as apocalyptics enthralled to (in Gross and Levitt's term) "ecotopian enthusiasms" and altogether out of touch with the realities of nature. Science, anti-green science, says there is no problem. The battle for ecology is one in which "good science" is claimed by all, a battle in which greens must not simply deconstruct the claims of the right, but do so in a particular way: greens must show that anti-environmental science is not only politically motivated, but also is generally WRONG. The green movement, in other words, must know the power of both science and ideology, and how to tell the difference. It must be able to dissect corporate pseudo-science in clear, colorful English and to do so without gesturing at relativism. It must enjoy and continually re-earn a reputation for having the "best" science in town. We don't have such a movement today, and it is not obvious that a theory of science structured by "hard" constuctivist claims that treat "scientific truth" as entirely subordinate to culture and power will aid in its emergence. That said, I would make a plea for learning from HIGHER SUPERSTITION. It is the perfect object of study, for while it is thick with leaden caricature and cheap shots, it also contains passages that frankly ring all too true. There is much in Sandra Harding that is provocative, but this hardly means that her mix of polemic and analysis is unimpeachable; sometimes it is merely overdrawn. There is nothing wrong with philosophy by polemic, but should we be surprised that Harding's claim, in THE SCIENCE QUESTION IN FEMINISM, that the queen of the sciences is not physics but anthropology, eventually produced an equally polemical response? [1] And though Bruno Latour's case studies of laboratory science have been quite useful, his boundless confidence in the post-structuralist challenge to all hitherto existing forms of reason strikes me, for one, as just a bit overweening. [2] And when we leave the academy and consider popular critiques of technoscience, honesty compels at least ambivalence -- there is much here that is actively debilitating. [3] Distinctions are necessary. In this dark time of dying cultures, languages, and ecosystems, friends of justice are necessarily drawn to what anthropologist Arturo Escobar calls "civilizational pluralism." How difficult, though, when "Western civilization" identifies itself so strongly with the pretensions of science, to admit that "epistemological democracy" is a different matter. How difficult, in this time of technology and monoculture, to consider that there might be moments of autonomy, and even of innocence, in science and its claims to "truth." We are disarmed by the sloppy, abstract thinking in our ranks. Just before FLIGHT, I had a review in The NATION that attacked Martin Lewis, a young liberal academic that has spent considerable time carrying water for the anti-environmental right. Lewis was a featured speaker at the conference, and I rose to criticize him, identifying myself as one who was taken to task in HIGHER SUPERSTITION. Then something curious occurred. Levitt rose in response and charged me with a damning juxtaposition -- the very issue that contains my review contains as well a load of blather by Kirkpatrick Sale, and this, insisted Levitt, perfectly illustrated the justice of Lewis's attack on environmentalism. At the time I could not reply. Here I will only say that I had found Sale and his glib decentralism an embarrassment long before that warm afternoon. Caricature is a favorite weapon of the right. When it comes to ecology, it figures large in attacks by not only Gross, Levitt, and Lewis, but also Julian Simon, Gregg Easterbrook, anti-environmental think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and dozens of corporate PR departments. About the science wars in general, Andrew Ross is quite right -- we should "be prepared for another season of asinine anecdotes about feminist algebra, queer quantum physics, and Afrocentric molecular biology." [4] He's right, of course, but this is hardly the end of the story. There's a lot of garbage around -- like, say, THE TAO OF PHYSICS -- and I fail to see why we should not admit it. Caricature does not clear the way to a better understanding of "irrationalism," but neither does silence. Why should we not admit that the WORST of ecofeminism is very bad indeed? [5] Does democracy demand it? Solidarity? And do we really intent that, in the end, epistemology shall be annexed to Cultural Studies? 1) Sandra Harding, THE SCIENCE QUESTION IN FEMINISM (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986). 2) Try an experiment. Pick up a copy of Latour's latest, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN MODERN (Harvard, 1993) and read it with a critical rather than a sympathetic eye. 3) The "neo-Luddite" literature is, shall we say, uneven? Consider, for starters, Jeremy Rifkin, Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben, Jerry Mander, Kirkpatrick Sale, and, of course, the Unabomber. 4) Andrew Ross, "Science Backlash on Technoskeptics," THE NATION, October 2, 1995, p. 346. 5) Here's an unfashionable book that deserves revisiting -- Janet Biehl's RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS (Boston: South End, 1991), republished as FINDING OUR WAY (Montreal: Black Rose, 1994). *** Tom Athanasiou is the author of DIVIDED PLANET: THE ECOLOGY OF RICH AND POOR, forthcoming this winter from Little/Brown. He has lots of people to thank for the coherence of the piece, such as it is. But will be parsimonious and thank only The Lorax -- the oldest running red-green study group in the Bay Area. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 22:26:45 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Pure maths In-Reply-To: <9511181842.AA24288@osf1.gmu.edu> On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Mr B.P. Larvor wrote: > It is always possible to reread this stuff > (as Kitcher does in _The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge_). We > can always say, what this mathematician really means here is... > > Then the question becomes a matter of evaluating these re-readings. > In other words, the examples Val cites are only the start of the > argument. Careful there, this is starting to sound dangerously like a pomo or deconstructionist critique! ;-) But, yes. That these things can be and should be re-read, and their questions re-opened, is part of the point here. I think that the typical view, at least outside of professional mathematics, is that it is a closed system that is unaffected by social processes. And I mean social forces in the actual *production* of or doing mathematics. The process itself is unavoidably a social endeavor (which is Bloor's point). I suspect things are not nearly so neat and tidy within mathematics, however (Kline deals with this). In fact, if I recall correctly, the formalist movement at the turn of the century was an attempt to grapple with that very problem -- and to close it . But much of the rest of this century has been about the failure of that effort and other's trying where the earlier formalists failed (Bourbaki, for instance). > > Both argue a constructivist > > I.e. social constructivist? (beware this word has another meaning in > phil. of maths.) > > > position for mathematics. Yes, social (sorry). At this I'll admit my ignorance of mathematics except on an informal level. So, for example, I don't know what's involved in constructivism in phil of math. > Well, mathematics-the-body-of-knowledge _is_ a human activity. I'm not sure I get you here. I claimed it is the activity of production that is human creativity (cf. the Cassirer-Hilbert exchange in an earlier post) at work. How is a "body-of-knowledge" an activity? I'm not saying it's not, I'm just not clear here what you mean. > The question is, what moves it? Hmm, could you be a little more vague? Sounds interesting though (vaguely). > I read a paper in which it was argued (more or less) that > Hamilton developed quaternions for reasons to do with his being an Irish > Tory. Now, I can see that this sort of explanation might be attractive, > but on the whole that sort of stuff fails, on mundane historical grounds. I don't know about mundane historical grounds, but I'll admit I have problems with "historical-social forces" explain *everything*. Bloor is employing an underdetermination of theory argument here: the principles and the data publicized by the field as being solely causally important in fact do not adequately account for the actual choices and directions the field has taken. Now, if underdetermination is a problem for the usual view, I don't see how Bloor's argument can escape the same fate. Namely, how do we know historical forces can exhaustively account for the actual historical development to the exclusion of internal forces (rationality, accretion of knowledge, objectivity, etc.)? Even worse: the historical-social determination argument can be leveled at Bloor himself. Namely, the reason Bloor is mounting this argument is he has such-and-such a religious commitment or social context that makes him say these things. In other words, an extreme social or historical constructivism makes hash of anything we can say about anything. All of this is to go back to your comment that "the question becomes a matter of evaluating these re-readings." That re-evaluation will need to take into account a balance of externalist and internalist explanations, without trying to exclude the other. best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 23:30:00 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ben Gardiner Subject: "Introduction" Introducing myself: The subject of science-as-culture interests me from the culture end. I had a very good education but it was not in science. Harvard 1943 with an A.B. degree, plus some graduate work in health (alcoholism) and in computer science. Largely self-educated in a computer crash-course that has been going on in my home-office the past 17 years. As anyone can imagine, this has led me into logical and mathematical thinking far removed from my school-and-college time 50-60 years ago, when history and foreign languages was my field. (French, Latin, Spanish, German -- the ones then considered to be important). Like a couple other readers of this list, I am concerned that present day trends increasingly widen the gap between the cognoscienti who are relatively rich, and the simple people who have trouble finding a job and staying out of jail. Around 1950 it was clear that the means of feeding and clothing all the peoples of the world was at hand. "We" knew how. Yet now it is also very clear that it is not happening. IMHO (in my humble opinion) it is because the motivation to make the necessary changes is not there. Those who need to won't, and those who need it can't. Science-As-Culture I am very glad this discussion has begun, but am almost convinced that it will not lead to anything. We have had such discussions before. Recommendations have been made but not put into effect. We know what to do. We just don't do it. In another sense, this kind of discussion takes place on campuses in nearly every college. What ensues is not new action but brighter and more capable minds. I truly hope that such may be the result here. Ben From: Ben Gardiner Return address: ben@maggadu.queernet.org AIDS Info BBS 1-415-626-1246, fax 1-415-626-9415 8-N-1, 2400 baud (free) also voice 415-626-1245 at itsa.ucsf.edu by gopher homepage for AIDS: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~beng/aidsbbs.html homepage for BOOKS: http://sibyllineofbooks.com homepage for PLAYS: http://playwrights.org ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 07:53:46 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: Re: okinawan rape X-cc: "tws@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu" <"Tim Smith"@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 95-11-18 15:08:24 EST, you write: JK And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that >rape is primarily about power rather than sex and particularly the potential >to exercise degrading power over women. TS We might want to be careful about saying that rape is inherently about degrading the power of women. It is quite common in the male gay community as well. It seems then to be the mixture of sex with aggression/power that is pleasurable to the rapist.The sex of the victim seems to vary by rapist. Aggression and sex acts seems to combine very powerfully for some males (and I imagine for some females) but it may directed toward whatever happens to be rapists sexual preference (women, other men, young boys). I think to assume that rape has as its agenda to degrade the power of women is not a good assumption. JK you are absolutely right of course. addendum accepted jeffrey ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 08:36:31 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Howland Subject: Re: INTRODUCTION/QUESTION IMHO, your colleagues are reluctant to discuss metascientific and moral issues because of a common perception that people only resort to such discussions when they are no longer able to do "real science". In my own field (mathematics), discussions about teaching and learning mathematics are perceived the same way, ie that the only people interested in such issues are those not capable of proving esoteric theorems in Banach spaces. Bill Howland -- Houston BHowland@eWorld.com howland@basil.stthom.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 08:36:29 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Howland Subject: Good Questions X-cc: EJGOLD@root.indstate.edu In his introduction, Rob Goldbort raised three good questions. >Date: Fri, Nov 17, 1995 3:40 PM CDT >From: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU >X-From: EJGOLD@ROOT.INDSTATE.EDU (Rob Goldbort) >Sender: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU (Sci-Cult >Science-as-Culture) > (a) scientific "fact" vs. theory (my own view is that "facts" are >made, not merely found) Could you clarify this please? Do you mean that facts are sometimes made, always made, or have no existence outside the maker (observer)? > (b) why more scientists aren't on this list This is not yet established. Maybe the scientists on the list (however we define "scientist") are simply less inclined to write intro pieces. Maybe we need a poll. > (c) the ethical responsibility of scientists regarding what they >discover/produce/develop. Aren't you asking here that scientists have a prescience (advance knowledge) of the way that others may use their results before they develop those results? Or should we limit scientific inquiries to areas which could never be used in a destructive or immoral fashion? Bill Howland -- Houston BHowland@eWorld.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 14:44:49 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: okinawan rape Am I alone in having a difficult time following Mr. Kramer's logic? First, what is the point, exactly, of relating the admiral's "job" (reducing rape--?) to his statements regarding the servicemen's' "stupidity--Is your point, Mr. Kramer, that the admiral was merely trying to keep his boys out of trouble by giving them directions as to procuring less-risky victims for child exploitation? I'm not sure that would get the ol' admiral out of hot water, even if I were to take your point, since I assume that soliciting 12-year-old prostitutes would be, at the very least, illegal activity for american military personnel. And that, of course, does not address the issue of the admiral's encouraging thus American representatives to seek out and exploit the most vulnerable faction of that foreign population for their own gratification. And that, of course, does not address the issue of there being "acceptable" ways for men to break women-children for sport. Furthermore: "And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that rape is primarily about power rather than sex" No, we can't. I personally find this Oprah-esque refrain alarmingly reductive. Rape is not mugging, or college football. I don't think it's much of a stretch to notice that when a victim's body is violated by penetration, repeatedly and rhythmically, and that when this violation itself functions as titillation for perpetrators (and their admirals for that matter) that sex has something to do with it. Assuming that "power" and "sex" are mutually relegated terms just because you stick a "rather than" between them is the sort of presumption of critique that many of us are trying to deconstruct. Gina Camodeca SUNY @ Buffalo ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 16:36:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michael Thompson Subject: Re: emergent properties In-Reply-To: <199511181233.HAA17187@orion.sas.upenn.edu> from "Jeffrey Kramer" at Nov 18, 95 07:31:35 am As posted by Jeffrey Kramer: : : In a message dated 95-11-18 00:57:59 EST, you write: : : i am delighted to come across the phrase "emergent properties" and hope we : can start a thread on the meaning of this notion. it is one that i have found : so appealing as an antidote when you feel yourself slipping into : reductionistic mud. but the more attractive and seductive it feels,the more : it makls me wonder whether it isn't the old ghost in the machine in new : dress.( wow that's a kind of cross dressing i had never thought of ;-) ) is : it simply the latest and thus currently mostly acceptable way of returning to : descartes dualism. : any thoughts anyone Emergent properties is not a new concept, as Alan Brush noted in the original post for this thread. The name is different, but the concept is nearly identical to the "Gestalt" as was first described by Christian von Ehrenfels in his article: "Ueber Gestaltqualitaeten" (Vierteljahresschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Philosophie, XIV (1890) 249-92). Von Ehrenfels used the melody in music as an example of something which arises from a collection of smaller elements yet which exhibits a character that is qualitatively different from the mere sum of its parts. Carl Stumpf and three of his graduate students in Berlin (ca. 1906-1908) experimented with Gestalt-forming properties of optical illusions. These students were Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang Koehler, the developers of Gestalt theory and experimental Gestalt psychology (as opposed to the more recent Gestalt 'therapy'). These gentlemen were of a decided ANTI-METAPHYSICAL slant. They were interested in linking physics, physiology, and psychology and hoped to root psychology firmly in the natural sciences. Koehler published an important book to this effect: _Die physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und im stationaeren Zustand: eine naturphilosophische Untersuchung_ (Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, 1920). I share your interest in the more recent term "emergent properties", but, while I'm not sure exactly how this modern term corresponds with the older concept of "Gestaltqualitaeten", I'm almost certain that it has little if anything to do with the more metaphysically oriented "ghost in the machine" or traditional dualism. * For those interested in the science-literature connection: The Austrian author Robert Musil (Mann ohne Eigenschaften / Man without Qualities) was also a student of Carl Stumpf and well aquainted with Wertheimer, Koffka, and Koehler. He praised Koehler's book highly -- precisely for its anti-metaphysical approach. I believe that Stuart A. Kauffman deals with emergent properties and related issues in _The Origins of Order--Self-organization and Selection in Evolution_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Is anyone familiar with this book? It'd be great to hear more about it. -mt <:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:> Michael Thompson mthompso@sas.upenn.edu <:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:>:<:> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 16:30:39 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: population In-Reply-To: <199511180002.SAA18785@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> I agree. And what about those who choose to construct lush, green golf courses in the desert? Some management seems to be in order. On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, David Frayne wrote: > >75% of the world's population lives on only 25% of viable land. > > its also interesting to note that people like to put their houses right onto > the best farming land. here in the san francisco bay area, where just about > every food known to man will grow, we keep covering up the land with > buildings and streets. > > even so, in my small yard (4000 sq ft) i am growing roughly the amount of > food i need to sustain myself (except that it doesnt all come at the right > time and i dont have adequate packing & storing facilities, so i still have > to buy groceries). > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 16:38:03 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: okinawan rape In-Reply-To: <199511181654.KAA10346@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Let's not turn this list into an Oprah or Donahue forum!!! On Sat, 18 Nov 1995, Jeffrey Kramer wrote: > to all > > the following vignette is absolutely current. > that, and its subject matter make it an extremely provocative matter to > discuss. > but i want to talk about it, and i think the notions both of science and > culture,which form the heading of this list are crucial to thinking about it. > so i am going to ask you all (and am prepared that you may as a group turn me > down which i will absolutely accept) to think of this as a matter which > deserves to be discussed,is relevant here and finally that this group is up > to the job of discussing it enlighteningly.... end of defensive preamble > > four american servicement were convicted of raping a 12 year old Okinawan > girl, inflicting pain and provoking fury at every level you might imagine. > > the new york times on saturday 11/18/95 reported that the commander of US > forces in the Pacific was forced to step down peremptorily after making the > following statement > "I think it (the rape) was absolutely stupid,I've said that several times. > For the price they paid to rent the car they could have had a girl." The > immediate public outcry against him seems close to unaninmous. > Before I ask my question I would like to add one clarifying point for our > purposes. And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that > rape is primarily about power rather than sex and particularly the potential > to exercise degrading power over women. It is horrible! > Nevertheless I ask whether it is as clear to people on this list that this > admiral...and i know not another thing about him other than that he made > this statement (perhaps further biographical data would change the frame > considerably)...made such a dreadful blunder as is being put out. > unfortunately i find myself unable to stop without making one more point. > please remember that one of his primary obligations at this point is to > decrease the likelihood of a recurrence of this horror. > thanks > jeffrey kramer > jefkmd@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 14:48:29 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: janet atkinson-grosjean Subject: Re: the poetics of science I think what Arjendu describes as a *spine-tingling moment* is as personal and individual as the reader. Some texts seem to find us when we're ready to read them. They are meaningful to us then in a very specific way. William James was my catalyst. He reached down through the years and grabbed me; sent me back to 'gradual school' at a relatively advanced age (mid-forties) to get a *real* education and find out about this thing called consciousness. Similarly, I edged into science and values through the simple prose of Jacob Bronowski,, and the world of ideas through Isaiah Berlin. I do not aspire to an academic career. I've had several careers already. I'm a writer/editor now. My ambition is to cultivate the common touch--to present scientific ideas to the intelligent lay reader in such a way as to spark the *spine-tingling moment* in others. That would be worthwhile for me.The best science writing is as good as writing gets. Thanks to Arjendu for raising this. Brief intro: I'm preparing my graduate liberal studies thesis on the cultural impact of metaphors in postmodern science--particularly focusing on chaos/complexity theories and consciousness studies. I'm preparing an application to undertake interdisciplinary doctoral work in history/philosophy of science/mind, to focus on what I see as the *Qualitative Turn* in science and culture. This is a terrific list. Jan Atkinson-Grosjean, Graduate Liberal Studies Program Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, Vancouver, BC or ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:20:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: Re: okinawan rape my reading on several of the responses i've gotten to this post replete with references to phil donahue and oprah confirm my concern that the topic would generate more heat than light and i have less than no interest in encouraging that. so,enough. to reassure you that the message was not meant frivolously,what i was initially bothered by was the following.it seemed to me at least arguable that the admiral's comments might have the effect on the target audience, namely undisciplined,chaotic,out of control kids in his command, that would decrease the likelihood of this dastardly act being repeated.If that were true...and to repeat, i know not that that it is...what kind of value could one attach to that outcome. secondly i think there is often some value in situations which are marked by such a rush to judgement to see if a different frame of reference is enlightening. that was all,and i have no interest in defending it further and becoming increasingly identified with the topic. jeffrey kramer ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 17:35:27 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Monica J. Casper" Subject: Re: okinawan rape First, instead of an either/or position with respect to rape as power or sex, why not look at it as both? Rape is sexualized violence, non-consensual violent sex, enactment of power through sex, and all together a dehumanizing experience. To say that it is simply power is, as Gina Camodeca rightly points out, is to imply that the sex part doesn't matter. Rape is a very different crime than mugging, non-sexual assault, etc. That said, my second point is that the Admiral's comments were incredibly outrageous and offensive for the following reason: (and I am only letting you know why I found them so, and cannot really speak for others here). By asserting that the rape could've been avoided if the sailors had "merely" purchased sex instead implies that women and girls are positioned in a political economy of sex in which they are always seen as accessible to men, whether paid for or not. The "not" is less acceptalbe, in some circles, than the "paid for." I interpreted the Admiral as saying that on a continuum of sexual accessibility, it would have "simply" been less of a hassle for "all concerned" had the idiotic sailors chosen to pay for their access. The boys (and I use the term deliberately) in this case debated "hiring" a prostitute, but decided they couldn't afford to do so. Hence, their kidnapping and rape of a 12-year old girl, who in their minds was accessible to thyem, with a little subterfuge and hard work. What outraged me about the Admiral's comments was the assumption about women's accessibility to men, a view consistent in this instance with the three sailors who did the deed. This position ignores the relationship between sex and power, and instead sees rape as only sex. Read: If the sailors had a "healthy" (i.e., paid) outlet for their sexual feelings, then the rape could've been avoided. By framing the crime in this way, two ideas are perpetuated: rape is only sex, but not paid for; and women and girls are accessible to men who want them. As to whether these comments by the Admiral were serious enough to warrant his early retirement? Absolutely. Monica Casper ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 19:57:24 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bonnie Blustein Subject: most of the world in poverty, and science too In-Reply-To: from "Andrew Barfield" at Nov 14, 95 09:28:30 pm Andy, it troubles me, too. Except that I think those of us who care about the situation of most of the world's population often make the mistake of rejecting wholesale the experience garnered (at a terrible cost) through the great revolutionary movements of this century (and especially the Soviet and Chinese revolutions). Sure, if big mistakes hadn't been made, we'd be better off now. But if we don't have the knoweldge(s) we need, we have at least a huge supply of experiences from which to construct them. When most of the world's population fights its way from poverty to power, we can expect a huge surge of creative energy in other spheres, too, whether "culture," "science," or both. Bonnie Blustein > > At the risk of giving a load of modish nonsense, and without > wanting to point the finger at anybody, least of all > scientists, I am troubled by the fact that at the end > of the twentieth century most of the world's popoulation > lives in abject poverty, and that our knowledge(s) is/are > just as poor at trying to make this situation better. Does this > trouble other people interested in science as culture, or > have I got the wrong end of the stick ? > > Andy Barfield > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 00:37:24 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: emergent properties In-Reply-To: <9511182033.AA03309@osf1.gmu.edu> In a message dated 95-11-18 00:57:59 EST, Jeffrey Kramer wrote: > i am delighted to come across the phrase "emergent properties" and hope we > can start a thread on the meaning of this notion. it is one that i have found > so appealing as an antidote when you feel yourself slipping into > reductionistic mud. but the more attractive and seductive it feels,the more > it makls me wonder whether it isn't the old ghost in the machine in new > dress.( wow that's a kind of cross dressing i had never thought of ;-) ) is > it simply the latest and thus currently mostly acceptable way of returning to > descartes dualism. > any thoughts anyone This is certainly the traditional objection to emergence; or to put it in the terminology of that era, this is the question of "vitalism." Until recently, most of this century (and much of the last) were spent fighting this bugbear. Without going into that history, I think it is safe to say we can now talk about emergent properties without having to fear this metaphysical quagmire, at least if we believe Ernst Mayr. Mayr is a leading proponent of a holism that is also anti-vitalistic. So, like the Gestalt school that Michael Thompson wrote about, this is an anti-metaphysical approach. Mayr asserts that the study of biological systems will always contend with a level of indeterminacy that is unavoidable. One of the reasons for indeterminacy is "Emergence of new qualities at higher levels of integration" (Mayr, 1988, _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology_, p. 34). He explains, When two entities are combined at a higher level of integration, not all the properties of the new entity are necessarily a logical or predictable consequence of the properties of the components. Mayr recognizes this is also a feature of the inorganic world, but there is a difference in degree and importance of emergence for biological systems. Unfortunately, he does not go into any further detail here. In an article in _Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy of Science_ (eds. Depew and Weber, 1985), Mayr goes a little further. First, living organisms are highly complex; far more so than inorganic systems. It is a feature of complex systems that they "have a hierarchical structure, the entities of one level being compounded into new entities at the next higher level" (p. 57). He continues, Systems at each hierarchical level have two characteristics. They act as wholes (as if they were a homogenous entity), and their characteristics cannot (even in theory) be deduced from the most complete knowledge of their components, taken separately or in other partial combinations. In other words, when such systems are assembled from their components, new characteristics of the new whole emerge that could not have been predicted from a knowledge of the components (p. 59). These emergent wholes are efficacious in that their properties contribute in their own "atomistic" fashion to the next level of organization. Not only that, their is a reflexivity to these levels in that they may reciprocally modify or effect the lower levels. Interestingly, Francisco Ayala (who wrote one of the seminal texts in genetic/evolutionary biology) in _Evolution at a Crossroads_, seems to agree with Mayr for the most part, without wanting to use the term emergent. He extends the definition of the properties of an entity to include the associations they can enter into and the structure of those associations. But this seems to merely give the game away to Mayr while quibbling over terminology. On Sun, 19 Nov 1995 Michael Thompson wrote: > I believe that Stuart A. Kauffman deals with emergent properties and > related issues in _The Origins of Order--Self-organization and > Selection in Evolution_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). > Is anyone familiar with this book? It'd be great to hear more about > it. Given what Mayr says regarding complexity and emergence, this is probably a good bet, but I haven't read it either. To tie this back into the other half of this list's name, i.e., culture, I would hold that social dynamics are clearly emergent from the lower-level structures of genetics, next higher level of brain structure (neurophysiology and neurochemistry), individual psychology, and even small group behavior. To understand the higher order of society and culture certainly requires knowledge of these prior hierarchical levels, but they do not fully account for what we find on the more complex scale of culture. mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:05:05 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: emergent properties In-Reply-To: <95Nov19.194024hst.11465(7)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Mark Gilbert's comments reminded me of Koestler's idea of the holarchy which he described in his book "Janus." A holarchy is comprised of wholes within wholes. Each whole, or holon, is two-faced, a whole comprised of parts and a part of a more inclusive whole. The title of the book refers to the dual nature of the holon. Janus, as you recall is the origin of both January and janitors. Janus, the guardian of the doorway, looks both forward and backward in time. Other guardians of the doorway are Papa Legba in the voudoun religion, also known as Eshu in the Yoruba pantheon. Their central role in ritual may reflect their bivalence, necessary to mediate heaven and earth, and to guide the initiates across their threshold (Turner's liminality). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 01:05:55 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: emergent properties In-Reply-To: <9511182033.AA03309@osf1.gmu.edu> In my last post I ended with the importance of considering emergence in the study not just of inorganic and biological systems, but even more for its importance to social-cultural levels. Interestingly, Ernst Mayr (1985) in _Evolution at a Crossroads_ contends that another aspect of emergence is the higher level can impact the lower: what he calls, following D. Campbell, "downward causation." This notion has striking implications for the study of culture: it may in some fashion be critical in studying the *lower* levels if we hope to understand them adequately! There are may be some unproblematic examples of downward causation, but most do look a little strange because it's such a (for us) counter- intuitive way to think. In genetics, Lamarkian genetics is an example of downward causation, but is not too popular, *except* that there are now some studies that seem to be explicable in no other fashion. For instance, some bacteria were engineered with the ability to produce certain amino acids necessary to life removed. If put in a bath of these aas, they did fine. Then some of them were removed and put in an environment that lacked the necessary aa, and not surprisingly, many died. But not all. Some *mutated* to begin producing the aa again, and at a rate much faster than would be predicted my normal rates of mutation. In other words, they seem to have the ability to modify their own rates of mutation in response to environmental stimuli! So far, this has been a very robust study, and it is not an isolated one. Sorry, I don't have the reference right now, but I think it appeared in both Nature and Scientific American. Barbara McClintock's research also points in this direction. Another example: our own brain. Is consciousness just epiphenomena, sort of a scum that floats to the surface of neuronal activity? Or do we have the ability to modify our own brain states, e.g., initiate action, change or responses to habitual stimuli, etc? And what about Neils Bohr's complementarity? He avers an objective, i.e., exhaustive account of the experimental situation cannot be attained unless the observer and the instruments are factored into the physical system. The observer and what s/he does is a property of the physical (quantum mechanical) system that is the object of study. Maybe we, like Francisco Ayala in _Crossroads_, hesitate to call this emergence; but it is also the case that the specific effects of quantum mechanical activity in the lab are only in evidence when they are associated with the observer-instrument apparatus. Finally, culture takes on "a life of its own" (oops -- just kidding; too much like vitalism there), or has emergent properties that are downwardly causal. Of course, this is what quasi-idealists like Ernst Cassirer and Emily Durkheim would argue, not to mention full blown idealists like Hegel. Cassirer argues that cultural forms evolve that determine much of the way we think. Durkheim wants to go for a full-blown group or societal mind. And of course, Marx asserts the importance of a class' consciousness in determining the individual's form of thought. The implications for other concerns on this list regarding society and science also become clearer in this context. Namely, it is not a surprise at all society would exercise a causal influence on some of its "parts" like science and pure mathematics. I am going out on a limb here, but I think it's a pretty strong limb, nevertheless. This pairing of emergence and downward causation gives credence to both the lower level and higher level hierarchical structures and entities. Neither pure reductionistic nor extreme holistic/idealistic accounts are adequate alone. mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:35:57 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: biochemical machinery In-Reply-To: <95Nov16.232852hst.13749(7)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> The issue of mechanism in biology is an excellent example of perceptual selection. The current metaphor is that organisms are machines, so naturally the sort of evidence that accumulates is the mechanisms of organisms. From having done lots of biochemical experiments, I know the elation that comes when you can stimulate or inhibit something. Any other result is a failure, due to a bad prep, contamination, etc. Basically the only publishable results are when you observe component A controlling the behavior of component B. This is fine, except that all you can observe is control. One can say that biochemistry is the result of control studying itself. If proteins had free will and had a wild weekend, we would not be able to observe it, because it would be indistinguishable from "experimental error." This may sound silly, but it is significant against the wider social backdrop of why our vast program in molecular biology was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in the first place, and that is to come up with more successful programs of social control, to avoid further "crises of democracy." It is difficult to understand how mechanistic thinking continues to persist in biology, given that it is 1) bad poetry and 2) bad science. By 1) I mean that organisms do not even closely resemble machines on aesthetic grounds (and I consider aesthetics to be the electromotive force of evolution, not survival). Machines are ugly, organisms are beautiful, but most importantly, organisms are self-tuning, whereas machines require an external agent to tune them. Bo Dahlin's excellent comments about external and internal relations is another way of saying this. To convince yourself why mechanism or functionalism is bad science, read Eugene Yates' book, "The Logic of Life," wherein he and other physiologists refute these positions, as well as the digital/computational metaphor. In case you wonder what I mean by aesthetics, I am most familiar with John Dewey's aesthetic theory in "Art As Experience." Organicism would be a nice place to return to, before biology became like a can of paint left open, leaving us with a gummy mechanism and an ethereal vitalism, with no way to recombine the two. There is an interesting book called "Tissues, fabrics, and Fields" which talks about organic metaphors. The word tissue itself incorporates organic metaphor because in french, "tisser" means "to weave" and tissue is that which is woven. My own version of organicism is called rhythmatism, but more on that later. Mark Burch ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:46:18 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: emergent properties In-Reply-To: <95Nov19.113740hst.11416(10)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Michael Thompson wrote: > I believe that Stuart A. Kauffman deals with emergent properties and > related issues in _The Origins of Order--Self-organization and > Selection in Evolution_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). > Is anyone familiar with this book? It'd be great to hear more about > it. While this is a remarkable compendium, I believe that Kauffman tries too hard to truncate life on the Procrustean bed of digitalism, the belief that everything is a binary code waiting to be cracked. I hope this adolescent fad of technofascism will soon pass. Kauffman even committed the egregious error of claiming that all enzymes, despite their elegant curves of smooth regulation, are really "trying" to be on-off switches. Apparently digitality is the new Platonic ideal to which imperfect, buggily-coded organisms can aspire, but never achieve. What is silly about this, is the lack of common sense it entails. Can you imagine going 0 to 60 in zero seconds, and what that would do to your engine? Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:22:32 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Re: Pure maths In-Reply-To: <199511181919.TAA02993@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Val Dusek" at Nov 18, 95 02:18:11 pm In the last mail Val Dusek said: > > In a message dated 95-11-18 13:42:15 EST, Mr. Larvor writes: > > > I read a paper in which it was argued (more or less) > >that Hamilton developed quaternions for reasons to do with his being an > >Irish Tory. > This paper is by Andrew Pickering in South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 4, no. > 2, pp. 417 - 466. Spring, 1995. The paper I had in mind was older (I read it before Spring 1995!) and in a collection called something like "the Social Construction of Mathematics" BL ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:53:17 GMT+0 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "J.PRITCHARD" Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: rape Date sent: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 07:53:46 -0500 Subject: Re: okinawan rape Jeffery brings gay men into the rape oppressed group. This tends to imply that rape follows sexual preference rather than the more likely argument that rape is primarily about power and not sex. In a book called Male Rape (I can find but cannot remember reference) it states quite categorically that male rape (i.e the rape of men) is almost always perpetrated by heterosexual men. It may be the 'victims' are gay but the attackers usually are not. It hardly needs mentioning that the victors in war 'rape and pillage' again as a demonstration of power. It is strange that men (and it is almost always men) use so intimate a part of their body to vent hate-there is no question but that it illustrates a uncivilised want of self-control and rationality. Can men really understand themselves why men rape? >Jane Clearly from a woman In answer to what Jeffery wrote >In a message dated 95-11-18 15:08:24 EST, you write: JK And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that >rape is primarily about power rather than sex and particularly the potential >to exercise degrading power over women. TS >We might want to be careful about saying that rape is inherently about >degrading the power of women. It is quite common in the male gay community >as well. It seems then to be the mixture of sex with aggression/power that >is pleasurable to the rapist.The sex of the victim seems to vary by rapist. >Aggression and sex acts seems to combine very powerfully for some males (and >I imagine for some females) but it may directed toward whatever happens to >be rapists sexual preference (women, other men, young boys). I think to >assume that rape has as its agenda to degrade the power of women is not a >good assumption. JK you are absolutely right of course. addendum accepted jeffrey ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:32:37 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Re: Pure maths In-Reply-To: <199511190329.DAA23826@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Mark L Gilbert" at Nov 18, 95 10:26:45 pm In the last mail Mark L Gilbert said: > > Well, mathematics-the-body-of-knowledge _is_ a human activity. > > I'm not sure I get you here. I claimed it is the activity of production > that is human creativity (cf. the Cassirer-Hilbert exchange in an earlier > post) at work. How is a "body-of-knowledge" an activity? I'm not saying > it's not, I'm just not clear here what you mean. Guilty as charged. Of course you're right, I was just trying to distinguish what is produced (i.e. a body of texts, a culture, etc.) from the subject matter (which is a whole other question). > > The question is, what moves it? > > Hmm, could you be a little more vague? I expect so. All I meant was, Bloor doesn't begin to show that the features he points to are effective in directing the growth of maths. > > I read a paper in which it was argued (more or less) that > > Hamilton developed quaternions for reasons to do with his being an Irish > > Tory. Now, I can see that this sort of explanation might be attractive, > > but on the whole that sort of stuff fails, on mundane historical grounds. > > I don't know about mundane historical grounds, but I'll admit I have > problems with "historical-social forces" explain *everything*. Bloor is > employing an underdetermination of theory argument here: the principles > and the data publicized by the field as being solely causally important in > fact do not adequately account for the actual choices and directions the > field has taken. Part of the reason he can do this is because he borrows from positivism a very narrow conception of reason. > Now, if underdetermination is a problem for the usual > view, I don't see how Bloor's argument can escape the same fate. Namely, > how do we know historical forces can exhaustively account for the actual > historical development to the exclusion of internal forces (rationality, > accretion of knowledge, objectivity, etc.)? Even worse: the > historical-social determination argument can be leveled at Bloor himself. > Namely, the reason Bloor is mounting this argument is he has > such-and-such a religious commitment or social context that makes him say > these things. In other words, an extreme social or historical > constructivism makes hash of anything we can say about anything. Absolutely. > All of this is to go back to your comment that "the question becomes a > matter of evaluating these re-readings." That re-evaluation will need to > take into account a balance of externalist and internalist explanations, > without trying to exclude the other. I like to put it this way: the relation between data and explanations is as subtle in history and philosophy as in physical sciences. It is remarkable how many people in this area are skilled at unpicking the latter, but fall into crass falsificationism in the former. Brendan. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 07:32:34 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions In a message dated 95-11-18 02:20:50 EST, you write: >To deny "reality" is incoherent. I can't imagine how one would go about >arguing such a claim in a totalizing fashion. All we do/think starts >from where and what we are. So, of course i would not say there is no >"reality itself." Of course, how one argues all this is not quite so >straightforward, but I wanted to at least get any potential silliness out >of the way. I thought that some were denying the above. We are in total agreement. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 07:32:51 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: okinawan rape In a message dated 95-11-18 11:55:40 EST, you write: >And that is that I say we can assume agreement on the point that >rape is primarily about power rather than sex and particularly the potential >to exercise degrading power over women To argue that rape is primairly about power misses the point that men can have power over women in many different ways. To choose one over the others is to value one over the others. I cannot understand the insistence that a sexual act is not sexual, nor can I understand what difference it makes. Is it somehow that if rape is a sexual act it is less heinous? Not so! The admiral, alas, was correct. According to some of the newspaper reports I have read, the young men didn't have enough money for prostitutes. Raping the girl was their second choice. He understood clearly enough that mindless young men will have sex, whatever the consequences. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:38:57 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bo Dahlin Subject: Re: biochemical machinery Thankyou Lisa for your precise description of the mechanisms of biochemistry! And thankyou Mark for your high-spirited critique of mechanicism in bio-logy/chemistry! For me, Lisa's account is an illustration of Mark's thesis, that the dominating mechanistic metaphors allows us to see mechanisms, but that which is NOT mechanistic is simply not seen or considered worthwhile to study. One example is "morphology", which is a rather periferal discipline and considered to be only descriptive. FORMS are not particularly interesting phenomena from a mechanistic point of view. It is not that mechanistic explanations are wrong: they are ONE-SIDED, and they miss the point of LIFE. There ARE processes explainable from the "external relations" point of view, but they are not the *essential* processes of life. Indeed, Life is much more characterized by rythm, as Mark hints. What about DANCING or MUSIC as root-metaphors for life-processes? The participants in a dance are internally related: I do what I do because you do what you do, and vice versa. The dance itself is primary, the people dancing are only helping the dance to manifest. In a musical composition, each note is internally related to the other notes. A "c" in one piece is not the same as in any other, even though its sound-wave-frequency is. These remarks are of course only vague poetics, not exact biological science. I am not capapble of the latter. But there are researches in biochemistry and related areas based on the "alternative" metaphor of rythm, e.g. homeopathic medicine and the "goetheanistic phenomenology" approach within Anthroposophy. And this research produces useful results! If anyone is interested in a deeper study of these question, I recommend the following texts by Henri Bortoft, an english quantum physicist: 1) Bortoft, H. (1985): "Counterfeit and authentic wholes: Finding a means for dwelling in nature." In D. Seamon & R. Mugerauer (Eds.), Dwelling, place and environment. Towards a phenomenology of person and world (pp. 281-302). Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff. 2) Bortoft, H. (1986): "Goethe's Scientific Consciousness". Turnbridge Wells: Institute for Cultural Research. (Can be ordered through Octagon Press, London) Finally, I would like to address Lisa's statement that "mechanism" refers to "the devices/machinery that work for some function", and they do so because they are products of darwinian evolution, "which is not a teleological process at all". So here we have "function" without "purpose" (in itself a contradiction in terms, it seems). But the function is a result of survival of the fittest or natural selection. The orgnanisms having a particular "function" in their system survived, simply because it enabled them to survive. Those who lacked this function died out. There was no "telos" involved. And how did the function arise? Presumably out of anything, i.e. nothing in particular. So basically out of "accident". Well, there are many biologists even today not accepting this way of thinking, and pointing to some basic anomalies within darwinism (sorry, no references at hand). Darwin himself was well aware of the shortcomings of his theory. Natural selction may certainly explain SOME things, but not the WHOLE of biological evolution. (Why would such a precarious thing as life evolve out of dead matter? Because of "survival of the fittest"? Of course not. So: by accident.) I am NOT trying to introduce any fundamentalist Christian creationism. But I believe we have to recognize non-human creative intelligences (yes, plural) at work in all phenomena of life. And that means accepting teleological processes as well. Bo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:09:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: okinawan rape Monica Casper wrote: >The >boys (and I use the term deliberately) in this case debated "hiring" a >prostitute, but decided they couldn't afford to do so. I have no doubt that Ms. Casper was unaware that the alleged perpetrators of the rape were all African-American. Nonetheless, quick to take offense at what others say, she may have given some herself. Under the circumstances, she may wish to reflect on her belief that such verbal indiscretions, by themselves, should be sufficient cause to terminate careers. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 07:56:01 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "A. H. Brush" Subject: emergent properites To follow on Mike Thompsons query: I have read Kauffman "The origins of Order" and it is tough going, but well worth the effort. He deals thoughtfully with emergent properties and and also discusses the processes (real and portnetial) of self organization in living systems. BTW he has a 'popular' version out, but I son't have the reference handy. It is worthwhile, in my opinion to think about these ideas at a variety of levels. They come up in some places in evolutionary theory (is everything selected?), but are of great proctical value as well. The type of question I have been interested in recently has to do with quantifying and comparing avian plumage patterns. Overall patterns are dependent on the nature of the pattern of individual feathers. How they are colored, patterned and displayed produce the overall pattern. Even though we know lots about the biochemistry of the pigments and somtehing about the mechanisms that produce the patterns on individual feathers (no simple task) we cannot (yet) predice the overall appearance of the birds from a single feather (but we do have clues). BTW the music metaphore is lovely. I had not known of it previously. Finally, at least part of what folks are thinking about regarding emergent properties (and this is especially true of Kaufmann, is the concept of complexity. For example. pick up a feather in the part and it is immediately recognizable. It even appears simple with a central shaft and uniform branches t hat seem to all lie in the same plane. Despite its overall curvature it can be considered a 2-dimentional structure. Yet, nothing about that structure, can be deduced from the materials that produce it, their interactions and understanding the mechanisms of assembly (some of which are dependent onourside forces and geometry and part of which are inherent in the material. Fun to think about Cheers, Alan ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:04:34 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: Re: emergent properties X-cc: Mark L Gilbert mark i am going to reread mayr as carefully as i can,and see if it does the trick for me of standing tall without metaphysical or vitalist crutches. i've gone over your very instructive posting several times,particularly in respect to mayr's view and still stumble at that point. you know,like the magician who shows you very slowly the trick of the trick he is doing and how you follow and follow and then somehow you missed the critical moment. reminds me also of the 68 election (no jokes,please!) where than newscaster every 15 minutes or so would tell you that nixon was so many votes ahead of humphrey but it was tooearly to read any significance into it and then after a bunch of these came the one in which he said nixon was so many votes ahead (pretty much the same number as before!) and was clearly the victor. where was the moment i missed?? jeffrey kramer p.s. i just saw your second post. this is truly an essay in itself. i'll let mayr wait and wrestle with yours,the sweep of which is quite breathtaking to me. let me expand on breathtaking...it covers a wide domain...proceeds sensibly...and remains comprehensible what a pleasure thanks! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:04:38 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: Re: emergent properties X-cc: Mark Burch In a message dated 95-11-20 01:06:45 EST, you write: > >Mark Gilbert's comments reminded me of Koestler's idea of the holarchy >which he described in his book "Janus." A holarchy is comprised of wholes >within wholes. Each whole, or holon, is two-faced, a whole comprised of >parts and a part of a more inclusive whole. is this also the origin of mandlebrodt's fractal or am i playing too loose? jeffrey kramer > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:04:32 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: Re: okinawan rape X-cc: "Monica J.Casper "@emout04.mail.aol.com monica: In a message dated 95-11-19 20:36:49 EST, you write: > >First, instead of an either/or position with respect to rape as power or sex, >why not look at it as both? Rape is sexualized violence, non-consensual >violent sex, enactment of power through sex, and all together a dehumanizing >experience. To say that it is simply power is, as Gina Camodeca rightly >points out, is to imply that the sex part doesn't matter. Rape is a very >different crime than mugging, non-sexual assault, etc. clearly you are right. my post in this regard was not put well at all. of course the sexual aspect is significant. >That said, my second point is that the Admiral's comments were incredibly >outrageous and offensive for the following reason: (and I am only letting >you >know why I found them so, and cannot really speak for others here). By >asserting that the rape could've been avoided if the sailors had "merely" >purchased sex instead implies that women and girls are positioned in a >political economy of sex in which they are always seen as accessible to >men, whether paid for or not. The "not" is less acceptalbe, in some circles, >than the "paid for." I interpreted the Admiral as saying that on a continuum >of sexual accessibility, it would have "simply" been less of a hassle for >"all concerned" had the idiotic sailors chosen to pay for their access. The >boys (and I use the term deliberately) in this case debated "hiring" a >prostitute, but decided they couldn't afford to do so. Hence, their >kidnapping >and rape of a 12-year old girl, who in their minds was accessible to thyem, >with a little subterfuge and hard work. What outraged me about the Admiral's >comments was the assumption about women's accessibility to men, a view >consistent in this instance with the three sailors who did the deed. This >position ignores the relationship between sex and power, and instead sees >rape as only sex. Read: If the sailors had a "healthy" (i.e., paid) >outlet for their sexual feelings, then the rape could've been avoided. By >framing the crime in this way, two ideas are perpetuated: rape is only sex, >but not paid for; and women and girls are accessible to men who want them. > >As to whether these comments by the Admiral were serious enough to warrant >his early retirement? Absolutely. > monica, neither the cogency of or the emotion behind your feelings escapes me. still i must ask you this...given that not just this one kind of transaction but all transactions in a situation or in a society which is run according to rules you dont like...specifically in this instance that might makes right all transactions in such a place will be tainted by similar qualities .what is the category difference between a person selling her body under a duress,another person selling her mind under duress,a farmer selling her wheat under duress i see a profound difference in our emotional responses to those situations,but i have a harder time seeing category differences and i think that must count for something. or put another way the repulsion that feels like it attaches to prostitution in such a circumstance really should,as i see it attach to the system and thereby taint every act within it. i suppose i'm not doing much more than arguing for the legalizing prostitution,but i do think that there is an argument to be made in this regard,that it can and should be made and responded to reasonably. jeffrey kramer > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:16:53 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "ap palma, philo@CCU" Subject: Re: emergent properties X-To: Jeffrey Kramer In-Reply-To: <9511201415.AB01441@phil.ccu.edu.tw> please unsubscribe me nur Brot und Wasser essen, Vater und Mutter vergessen ap palma@CCU to have a complete address please finger palmaa@phil.indiana.edu On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Jeffrey Kramer wrote: > In a message dated 95-11-20 01:06:45 EST, you write: > > > > >Mark Gilbert's comments reminded me of Koestler's idea of the holarchy > >which he described in his book "Janus." A holarchy is comprised of wholes > >within wholes. Each whole, or holon, is two-faced, a whole comprised of > >parts and a part of a more inclusive whole. > > > is this also the origin of mandlebrodt's fractal or am i playing too loose? > jeffrey kramer > > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:18:51 GMT+0 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "J.PRITCHARD" Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: okinawan rape Both Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia have both argued recently that to make a fuss about rape gives too much power to the men who would wreak it. I should like you to expand upon what you do not understand about a sexual act not being a sexual act because far from being simplistic your reply may give some insight innto how men view rape. It may be true to say that not all acts of rape are merely acts of power. Many women are raped by men who are known to them. In such cases rape may reflect men's conceit in assuming that all women must want sex with them and in finding that it is not willingly given, take it anyway. Other acts of penetration are not sexual but can be seen as acts of power-eg a man for some reason hates women per se and decides to victimise them to show his own (clearly, perverted) superiority Some men talk as though once stirred , sexually or powerfully, they cease to have any control over themselves and become, as the song goes 'a man with a prick where his brain ought to be'. Clearly only men can comment on this. The point that men have power over women in a number of other ways is hardly a point of pride. Clearly it is true but what is also true is a tendency (not only in men) to react violently when intellectually frustrated. Rape would seem to come into a different category, even so because to resort to using his sexual organ as a means of violence, whether or not the act is sexual, is above a powerful symbol of how man defines himself and his own power. His appeal is not to his 'hailed male logic' or to his 'superior physical strength' although this may aid him, his true self emerges through his penus. Poor fellow, poor animal! If this is not a fair representation, then please provide counter arguments. Jane > Bertram Rothschild replied > >To argue that rape is primairly about power misses the point that men can >have power over women in many different ways. To choose one over the others >is to value one over the others. I cannot understand the insistence that a >sexual act is not sexual, nor can I understand what difference it makes. Is >it somehow that if rape is a sexual act it is less heinous? Not so! The admiral, alas, was correct. According to some of the newspaper reports I have read, the young men didn't have enough money for prostitutes. Raping the girl was their second choice. He understood clearly enough that mindless young men will have sex, whatever the consequences. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:08:17 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions Hello you all. I'm just new to this list. Let me try my 0.02$ contribution: At 07:32 20-11-95 -0500, Bertram Rothschild wrote: >In a message dated 95-11-18 02:20:50 EST, you write: > >>To deny "reality" is incoherent. I can't imagine how one would go about >>arguing such a claim in a totalizing fashion. All we do/think starts >>from where and what we are. So, of course i would not say there is no >>"reality itself." Of course, how one argues all this is not quite so >>straightforward, but I wanted to at least get any potential silliness out >>of the way. > >I thought that some were denying the above. We are in total agreement. -------What about us human beings being PART of "reality itself" and saying that nothing we know about (including ourselves as "observators") is outside reality (and what else is "reality itself"?). If so, could we say that reality's thinking and theorizing takes place in our brains? And that the larger part of reality's development as a self-organizing system is human responsibility? And that love and justice (or the lack of them) are important characteristics of this reality, not less important than the infrastructure studied by physicists and biologists? So far so good - I'll wait and see if these remarks belong to this list. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:47:52 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Re: okinawan rape On Nov 20, 1995 Jane Pritchard wrote: >If this is not a fair representation, then please provide counter >arguments. The presentation is fair enough of one side, namely that of male violations of women. The power that women have to completely deny a man his masculinity on the other hand, especially in their roles as mothers, is rarely mentioned in this context. Obviously it is difficult for a woman to understand the level of aggression that that can arouse in a man. But it is also obvious that this aggression exists. Rape, and other acts of unspeakable violation happens again and again. But every time a specific case comes up as the focus of a public discussion there is the same surprised outrage on the part of many women. As if these things actually don't happen. As if the world actually looks different from what we see on the news every day. But it did happen - again. And although the world on the news is not the whole world, it is still from the news that we get most of our image of the world of today. The forces that lie behind the act of rape cannot be grasped by the intellect - they have to be perceived intuitively by going quite deep into the darker regions of the soul. Only by going there and really getting into the feeling of violating someone else's individuality can one also develop forces which could, eventually, somehow, create a society where things like that don't happen. Actually, maybe this is why this subject is pertinent to this high-level-intellectual list. In the phenomenon of rape we come in touch with an area of human life which really cannot be subjected to plain intellectual speculation effectively. I think it would be hard to find a man who is prepared to intellectually defend the act of rape in general. And in any case, no one would take him seriously. Rape is something that most of the time "just happens". And when it is planned, the planning mind most certainly is not troubled by moral concerns. The feeling, emphatizing side of the human being has already been disconnected. The interesting thing is, how does this disconnection come about? I don't want to take any blame away from men, but I think that if women (any woman) is really interested in finding out the true causes behind rape, then they should look very carefully at _themselves_ as women to see what role, if any, the (stereo)typically feminine plays in this phenomenon. Because general outrage obviously has no effects on rape statistics. When I hear women discussing rape I always have the feeling that they just wish it wouldn't happen anymore, that it would just go away, and that we could have a nice and peaceful world where nothing bad happens, tomorrow, if only men stopped with their ununderstandable businesses. This is not a constructive or realistic approach. Shit happens, and the only way to stop it from happening is to go to the source, to really dig into how it comes about. This might not always be flattering or enjoyable. I still miss women participating in the whole of world events as individuals. Women want equal rights, but they don't want to get dirty under their nails - psychologically speaking. The proverbial ostrich, head in the sand, easily comes to mind. One more thing: remember that in any act of violation of humanness, both the victim and the perpetrator lose their humanity - the latter actually even more so. It is useless to blame, left or right. It is useful to remember that humanness is something precious that can be lost. Best regards, Andreas __________________________ andreas.carter@pi.se ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:53:48 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: "population vs. food" I have no desire to see every inch of "arable" land on the planet crowded with as many people as possible. At some point, is a discussion of quality/ humanness of life appropriate? It is also more than a question of "distribution" of food. I mean, the production of food by many modern methods is itself a terribly costly thing. Both in terms of environmental degradation and in terms of the capitalist exploitation that pushes out little farmers to create "unemployment", misery and starvation in the name of "increased agri. productivity". Lisa >I think it is a generalization to suggest that the food supply has >reached the point at which it cannot keep up with population. You >underestimate the potential of technology for good. While while you say may very well be true, it is also true that the amount of land under cultivation is decreasing, top soil is blowing away, and the amount of food produced per year, for the first time, just about balances the world population (though badly distributed). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:14:04 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: neither "pro" nor "anti" >>> Ben Toth 11/17/95, 07:01am >>> My broad methodological concerns are: how much probability and statistical theory do you need to have to write about statistical methods from a cultural perspective? (probably lots!) how to write about science without being either pro- or anti-science? Ben Toth Ben, on the first, I'm interested, but I'm not sure what you mean by "a cultural perspective." Do you want to be able to understand the stats methods in order to detect their misuse? Then yes, lots of study is required. I still can't even evaluate the use/applicability of many stat methods that I see in journals, which means that sometimes I can't make an informed judgement on the validity or importance of the conclusions, unless I find some other good reason for tossing it out. How to write about science? What I hope for in general is "good" analysis, good as defined in part by scientific standards. Include analysis from the point of view of those who are most affected by outcomes, without assuming that science producers themselves are entirely responsible for the acts of transnational corporations, other big capitalists and their supporters in governments and elsewhere. I mean, don't leave out important parts of the picture. Give "science" just what it deserves, no more and no less. I don't know if this is helpful in terms of specific instructions, it is just my wishlist, or reaction to your post. Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:27:45 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Science? Culture? In-Reply-To: <199511201451.OAA04228@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "J.PRITCHARD" at Nov 20, 95 02:18:51 pm In the last mail J.PRITCHARD said: > > I should like you to expand upon what you do not > understand about a sexual act not being a sexual act because far from > being simplistic your reply may give some insight innto how men view > rape. False assumption: all men view rape the same way. > It may be true to say that not all acts of rape are merely acts of > power. Many women are raped by men who are known to them. In such > cases rape may reflect men's conceit in assuming that all women must > want sex with them and in finding that it is not willingly given, > take it anyway. False assumption: all men share said conceit. > Other acts of penetration are not sexual but can be seen as acts of > power `can be seen as'--oddy ambivalent expression > Some men talk as though once stirred , sexually or powerfully, they > cease to have any control over themselves and become, as the song > goes 'a man with a prick where his brain ought to be'. Clearly only > men can comment on this. This one is harder to diagnose. Possibly the assumption is that rape by men is so singular that nothing women do could serve as an analogy. Or that women are never driven by violent or irrational urges. These suppressed premises do not seem self-evident. > Rape would seem to come into a different category, even so because to > resort to using his sexual organ as a means of violence, whether or > not the act is sexual, is above a powerful symbol of how man defines > himself and his own power. His appeal is not to his 'hailed male > logic' or to his 'superior physical strength' although this may aid > him, his true self emerges through his penus [sic]. Poor fellow, poor > animal! Which man is this? Are you talking about rapists, or men generally? To see what these errors come to, consider this: "Baby-snatching would seem to come into a different category, even so because to resort to using children as an object of theft, whether or not the act is maternal, is above a powerful symbol of how woman defines herself and her own power. Her appeal is not to her `feminine intuition' or `physical beauty' her true self emerges through her womb. Poor girl, poor cow!" The point is not to trade insult for insult. It's about the fallacy of hasty induction. Brendan. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:33:36 PST Reply-To: michael@mb1.misc.pdx.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michael Flower Subject: Kauffman's latest For those interested in a less daunting account of complexity than that in Kauffman's earlier book, his new one (recently mentioned) is entitled AT HOME IN THE UNIVERSE: THE SEARCH FOR THE LAWS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COMPLEXITY (Oxford University Press, 1995). +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Michael Flower University Honors Program (HON) Portland State University P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 E-mail: flowerm@pdx.edu Voice: (503)725-5362 Fax: (503)725-5363 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:36:26 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: rape >Date sent: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 07:53:46 -0500 >Subject: Re: okinawan rape >Jeffery brings gay men into the rape oppressed group. This tends to >imply that rape follows sexual preference rather than the more likely >argument that rape is primarily about power and not sex. In a book >called Male Rape (I can find but cannot remember reference) it states >quite categorically that male rape (i.e the rape of men) is almost >always perpetrated by heterosexual men. It may be the 'victims' are >gay but the attackers usually are not. > It hardly needs mentioning that the victors in war 'rape and >pillage' again as a demonstration of power. It is strange that men >(and it is almost always men) use so intimate a part of their body to >vent hate-there is no question but that it illustrates a uncivilised >want of self-control and rationality. Can men really understand >themselves why men rape? > >>Jane > >Clearly from a woman Jane, Actually it was I not Jeffry who brought gay men into the picture. And frankly, I find the statement that most male-male rapes tend to be perpetrated by hetersexuals very hard to beleive (and not just because of the mechanics involved). It may be true, but I would very much like to know what the statistics are and how the researchers define the issue. So if that book is handy to you ... -- Tim Smith (tws@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu) University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center (412)624-7055 -office (412)688-8351 -home Personal Web address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~tws Neural Processes in Cognition address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/npc/ Also check out: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/neuroscape/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:18:08 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: protein synthesis >>> A. H. Brush 11/18/95, 01:22pm >>> For example, the shape and behavior of a single protein cannot be prediced by the information stored in the base sequence of the gene or genes that produce the protein. Alan Um, not at all? Cannot be predicted? Does it not give us a very big clue? Or why not? Considering what I've already posted on protein structure, I'd appreciate more explanation here. Otherwise, the above makes no sense to me. And, what's the point? Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:40:06 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: definition of rape Rape is a violent crime, in which the motivation is violence, power, humiliation of another, in which some element of sexuality is used as one of the weapons. It's "about sex" insofar as sex is seen as violent, coercive and dehumanized/ depersonalized, and as far as sex is used as an excuse, an opportunity and a tool for domination. It is true that some twisted persons do find violence and degradation sexually stimulating. This is generally a result of twisted training, that abuse becomes associated with sexual gratification. More normal people are turned off by such horror. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:52:40 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: biochemical machinery -Reply >>> Mark Burch 11/19/95, 11:35pm >>> If proteins had free will and had a wild weekend, we would not be able to observe it, because it would be indistinguishable from "experimental error." L: Fine, okay. It is difficult to understand how mechanistic thinking continues to persist in biology, given that it is 1) bad poetry and 2) bad science. By 1) I mean that organisms do not even closely resemble machines on aesthetic grounds (and I consider aesthetics to be the electromotive force of evolution, not survival). L: Bad science? How? Sorry I don't have time right now to do much more reading such as the books you mention, could you, would you give us a paragraph or two? Organicism would be a nice place to return to, before biology became like a can of paint left open, leaving us with a gummy mechanism and an ethereal vitalism, with no way to recombine the two. L: "Vitalism"??? What vitalism? Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:57:52 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: biochemical machinery -Reply >>> Bo Dahlin 11/20/95, 05:38am >>> I believe we have to recognize non-human creative intelligences (yes, plural) at work in all phenomena of life. And that means accepting teleological processes as well. Bo Like What?? And what in the world do you mean by "purpose" ? Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:00:52 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply >>> Howard Schwartz 11/20/95, ...Under the circumstances, she may wish to reflect on her belief that such verbal indiscretions, by themselves, should be sufficient cause to terminate careers. L: "Verbal indiscretions" are never "by themselves". Don't you expect that what comes out somebodies' mouth is revealing of the assumptions, attitudes, etc that pervade that person's life and all decisions, such as disciplinary ones within his command? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:09:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Leon F. Shartsis" Subject: Re: okinawan rape X-cc: Alana Suskin , Amos Levi , Andy Bartalone , Lara Levin , Ellen Mann , Cliff Becker <74044.175@compuserve.com>, Robert hall In-Reply-To: <9511201548.AA39960@umabnet.ab.umd.edu> On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Andreas Carter wrote: > On Nov 20, 1995 Jane Pritchard wrote: > > >If this is not a fair representation, then please provide counter > >arguments. > > The presentation is fair enough of one side, namely that of male violations > of women. The power that women have to completely deny a man his masculinity > on the other hand, especially in their roles as mothers, is rarely mentioned > in this context. Obviously it is difficult for a woman to understand the > level of aggression that that can arouse in a man. But it is also obvious > that this aggression exists. Is this the old shibboleth of blaming the rapist's mother for the rape? What about the rapist's grandmother? First grade teacher? I don't know about you, but I live in world that routinely and customarily supports and reinforces the worst aspects of my masculinity. > Rape, and other acts of unspeakable violation happens again and again. But > every time a specific case comes up as the focus of a public discussion > there is the same surprised outrage on the part of many women. As if these > things actually don't happen. As if the world actually looks different from > what we see on the news every day. But it did happen - again. And although > the world on the news is not the whole world, it is still from the news that > we get most of our image of the world of today. I don't understand the import of the above. It is a positive turn of events that folks are still shocked and moved by rape. I find that hopeful. It is also my experience that the "news" mostly ignores and underreports rape. > The forces that lie behind the act of rape cannot be grasped by the > intellect - they have to be perceived intuitively by going quite deep into > the darker regions of the soul. Only by going there and really getting into > the feeling of violating someone else's individuality can one also develop > forces which could, eventually, somehow, create a society where things like > that don't happen. > > Actually, maybe this is why this subject is pertinent to this > high-level-intellectual list. In the phenomenon of rape we come in touch > with an area of human life which really cannot be subjected to plain > intellectual speculation effectively. I think it would be hard to find a man > who is prepared to intellectually defend the act of rape in general. And in > any case, no one would take him seriously. Rape is something that most of > the time "just happens". And when it is planned, the planning mind most > certainly is not troubled by moral concerns. The feeling, emphatizing side > of the human being has already been disconnected. The interesting thing is, > how does this disconnection come about? Rape is not something that "just happens" anymore than old tired arguments apologizing for rape "just happen". The facts in this case are that the sailors planned the rape. The only disconnection I can discern in the above passage is your argument from reality. Women have made advances in our thinking about rape. (they obviously have not reached everyone) They did so with a combination of empirical work and theory. I see some sembelence of theory in your post, but precious little empiricism. > I don't want to take any blame away from men, but I think that if women (any > woman) is really interested in finding out the true causes behind rape, then > they should look very carefully at _themselves_ as women to see what role, > if any, the (stereo)typically feminine plays in this phenomenon. Because > general outrage obviously has no effects on rape statistics. The next time you are assaulted I would hope that you examine in an intuitive fashion _your_ role in that assault. You are in effect taking the blame away from men and placing it squarely on women. I think that you would benefit from examining what role, if any, (stereo)typically moronic reasoning and a general lack of empathy play in your own thinking about this issue. The outrage of women _has_ made a difference in the incidence of rape. This is especially clear on college campuses. The more power women have in their environment the less rape happens to them. > When I hear women discussing rape I always have the feeling that they just > wish it wouldn't happen anymore, that it would just go away, and that we > could have a nice and peaceful world where nothing bad happens, tomorrow, if > only men stopped with their ununderstandable businesses. This is not a > constructive or realistic approach. Shit happens, and the only way to stop > it from happening is to go to the source, to really dig into how it comes > about. This might not always be flattering or enjoyable. I too wish that I lived in a world where rape didn't happen. I too wish that it would go away. If men _did_ quit raping then the vast majority of rape would disappear. True, it is unrealistic to expect that rape will disappear on its own. This fact does not negate the desirability of its absence. What is not enjoyable is having to respond to idiocy akin to your opinions about rape. > I still miss women participating in the whole of world events as > individuals. Women want equal rights, but they don't want to get dirty under > their nails - psychologically speaking. The proverbial ostrich, head in the > sand, easily comes to mind. > > One more thing: remember that in any act of violation of humanness, both the > victim and the perpetrator lose their humanity - the latter actually even > more so. It is useless to blame, left or right. It is useful to remember > that humanness is something precious that can be lost. > > Best regards, > Andreas Or, in your case, willingly discarded. It may also be that you are attempting to shield your own humanity by bestowing upon the victims of rape the qualities rightly reserved for their rapists. (This I believe to be the "flattering and enjoyable" aspect of this post.) I find that I now have run out of indignant energy. I apologize for delurking under such poor circumstances. I fear that I have only contributed to the intellectual degradation of this list. We may agree or disagree about some aspects of rape, but Andreas has clearly passed beyond the point at which he is dispassionately discussing, and moved to condoning. I cannot condone his condoning. Leon F. Shartsis. Thank you for your polite attention. lshartsi@umabnet.ab.umd.edu or general@carnap.umd.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:40:03 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: rape -Reply What's "mechanics" got to do with it? My impression from my reading about these things, and conversations with repulsive people, is that there are similar dynamics behind various assaultive sex/hate crimes. Members of a group of rapists are frequently showing off to each other just how cold and vicious they can be. Targets are somewhat interchangeable for some rapist/killers, whether alone or in a group, i.e. the point is not so much if they are or claim to be homophobic or misogynist, they'll rape and stomp any body available. And the fact is that if they stomp in the head of a drag queen, after raping him, or dismember the prostitute rather than paying her, either way, such crimes are often not high on the cops' list of priorities. So much the better. Why target the unpopular? Because they can. >>> Tim Smith 11/20/95, 09:36am >>> And frankly, I find the statement that most male-male rapes tend to be perpetrated by hetersexuals very hard to beleive (and not just because of the mechanics involved). It may be true, but I would very much like to know what the statistics are and how the researchers define the issue. So if that book is handy to you ... -- Tim Smith (tws@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu) University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center (412)624-7055 -office (412)688-8351 -home Personal Web address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~tws Neural Processes in Cognition address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/npc/ Also check out: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/neuroscape/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:59:48 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Monica J. Casper" Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply To Howard Schwartz: Thank you for pointing out that the sailors in this case are all African Americans; you're right, I was not aware of this. I also now find myself speculating on this absence in the media coverage; usually the media are very quick to jump on any racial element in such cases. You are also correct that my use of the term "boys" would likely have been other- wise. Having clarified this, however, I stick by my position against the Admiral. "Verbal indiscretions" in the Admiral's case are part and parcel of his role as commander of this nation's sailors in the Pacific. According to the hierarchy of the U.S. military, not only is he ultimately responsible for the sailors' actions and fates, any utterances he makes about the case are never "by themselves." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:17:03 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply At 11:00 AM 11/20/95 -0700, you wrote: >>>> Howard Schwartz 11/20/95, >...Under the circumstances, she may wish to reflect on her belief >that such verbal indiscretions, by themselves, should be sufficient >cause to terminate careers. > >L: "Verbal indiscretions" are never "by themselves". Don't you >expect that what comes out somebodies' mouth is revealing of the >assumptions, attitudes, etc that pervade that person's life and all >decisions, such as disciplinary ones within his command? > No I don't, actually. My observation has been that people can act in relatively civilized ways even despite the fact that they have within them a good many uncivilized impulses -- including, for example, the rage that has recently made its way onto this list. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:44:10 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply I agree with howard that people are contradictory and that speech does not reflect/represent some "true" interior intention, speech is a social and therefore local performance, occuring within contexts that may be quite contradicted in other contexts. We seem however, to be wandering far afield and I wonder how to bring this all back to the relations of science to culture. Do people have thoughts or resources, for instance, on the ways that recent scientific claims that "boys will be boys" articulate with these occurances, or the ways that the military constructs itself as a particular sexual culture (Susan Faludi did a wonderful piece of reporting (awful close to ethnography) of "The Citadel") and how its sexual logics help bolster its military C3I logics? How rape becomes a thinkable activity within these logics? HOw are these C3I sexual logics (or maybe it's not c3i but rather a commodity logic in which some people can be seen alternately as human and subhuman-propertiable) refracted through our scientific culture generally? While I think that the discussion has been important, I do wonder how our work can impact both the discourses and world on these issues. --Matthew >>L: "Verbal indiscretions" are never "by themselves". Don't you >>expect that what comes out somebodies' mouth is revealing of the >>assumptions, attitudes, etc that pervade that person's life and all >>decisions, such as disciplinary ones within his command? >> > > No I don't, actually. My observation has been that people can act in >relatively civilized ways even despite the fact that they have within them a >good many uncivilized impulses -- including, for example, the rage that has >recently made its way onto this list. > >Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:45:25 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: emergent properties: Lamark and Marx I suggest some caution in talk of Lamark. "Not too popular" is a heck of a euphemism for "absolutely no evidence and no known mechanism." I'm aware of the study with bacteria, it presents a fascinating puzzle. Puzzle being "how does that happen?" i.e. what is the mechanism? and "how could it be a result of darwinian natural selection?", never doubting for an instant that it is _exactly_ that. The problem with Lamarkism has been 1) until this study there was _NO_ evidence of anything like this, and 2) there has never been and still is not known any mechanism by which "lamarkian evolution" could take place. Also, let us not overemphasize Marxian idealism. Marxian thought is _materialist_, if not entirely, then in its best aspects. Consciousness/ false consciousness, laws, beliefs, everything human is seen as both socially constructed and a result of specific, concrete forces and circumstances. To paraphrase Marx "Humans do make history, but not just as they please." IE. We receive culture that is constructed before our arrival, which is full of constraints and opportunities, and then reject, revise, respond to it, and to all current circumstances, sometimes quite creatively. My views lately combine a marxian "historical materialism", neodarwinian theory and ecological anthropology to get what has been called "materialist anthropology", or something like that. I refuse to reify "culture" as I think much of traditional cultural anthropology tends to do. From the point of view of an individual, "cultural" or "social" forces are felt materially, directly through others' disapproval, reward or punishment. So in some respects, I reject the common distinction between "social" and "environmental" factors - to any one living individual, all of these must be dealt with, because all of them impact one's life, liberty, status, food supply, reproductive output and pleasure. Lisa >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/19/95, 11:05pm >>> In genetics, Lamarkian genetics is an example of downward causation, but is not too popular, *except* that there are now some studies that seem to be explicable in no other fashion. For instance, some bacteria were engineered with the ability to produce certain amino acids... Some *mutated* to begin producing the aa again, and at a rate much faster than would be predicted my normal rates of mutation. In other words, they seem to have the ability to modify their own rates of mutation in response to environmental stimuli! Cassirer argues that cultural forms evolve that determine much of the way we think. Durkheim wants to go for a full-blown group or societal mind. And of course, Marx asserts the importance of a class' consciousness in determining the individual's form of thought. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 14:52:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: joke is on me this was too funny...had to report it..got a posting today to:jefkmd....thats me subject:emergent properties...a thread i was interested in and posting about body of text:PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME it hurt real bad! jeffrey kramer ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:22:44 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply -Reply >>> Matthew Weinstein 11/21/95, 12:44pm >>> I agree with howard that people are contradictory and that speech does not reflect/represent some "true" interior intention, speech is a social and therefore local performance, occuring within contexts that may be quite contradicted in other contexts. L: Do tell, then, is all speech "local performance" which never tells us anything about one's "interior"? Or just some speech? And how shall I tell the difference? And what's the point? The one who actually "does the deed" bears sole responsibility and should be punished, but the top controller that makes light of it, that creates the culture that creates the rapist, that only used "social" "speech" should be exonerated? (The "loss" of his career might amount to early retirement, but then his income would probably increase when he gets a job lobbying congress on behalf of military industry... My heart really goes out to him.) This relates to larger list-topics because it seems to me that to white-wash the admiral is to deny the very concepts of the social construction of culture and the social responsibility of the culture-creators. If we can't blame the extraordinarily powerful military for creating and condoning a sexist culture, how the hell can we pick on scientists' evil "mechanistic" studies of molecular biology for creating ... what? Just wondering, Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 14:47:22 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply -Reply >L: Do tell, then, is all speech "local performance" which never tells >us anything about one's "interior"? Or just some speech? And how >shall I tell the difference? All language/communication takes place in a context, to an audience, in dialogue. Analyzing language must take into account that context/dialogue. It is precisely in doing so that one understands the situation as socially and not individually constructed. It is through this analysis that blame can be placed not just on the admiral but on the particular structure of the military that we have "opted" for in the U.S. (top down, in which agency vanishes as you descend the hierarchy). >If we can't blame the extraordinarily powerful military for creating >and condoning a sexist culture, That's exactly the analysis I'm pushing for. That's what my subsequent paragraph called for. >how the hell can we pick on >scientists' evil "mechanistic" studies of molecular biology for >creating ... what? Lisa, would you also put "evil" in quotes? Some way back (and I've deleted the messages) there was a call for organic over mechanic metaphor. I wonder what space that leaves for those who see themselves by force or willing identification as cyborgs? >Just wondering, >Lisa me too. --Matthew ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:48:20 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: okinawan rape >The power that women have to completely deny a man his >masculinity >on the other hand, especially in their roles as mothers, is rarely >mentioned >in this context. Why on earth would it be?? And if we did, then I would ask you to explain precisely the ways in which this masculinity is being denied; to outline fully the degree to which, after committing the act of rape, the heretofore denied masculinity has been restored; and a clear explanation concerning the appropriateness of the act of rape as a "response" (?) to the supposed denial of a man's masculinity. But then the answers to these queries would ultimately demand a genealogical account (a more appropriate discussion for this list, perhaps?) of the conditions through, in, by which this, as yet undefined, conception of masculinity has been produced, and which, by most reasonable accounts, establishes and supports "male" domination of women's bodies--rape would be only the most overt occasion or instance of this domination, the construction and maintenance of 'masculinity' its ultimate condition of possibility . . . . . >Only by going there and really getting into >the feeling of violating someone else's individuality I'm fairly certain that the 12-year-old victim not only had nothing to do with mothering her rapists, badly or otherwise, but also did very little to "violate their individualities." >When I hear women discussing rape I always have the feeling that >they just >wish it wouldn't happen anymore O gee (giggle, twitter), silly us. >Shit happens, and the only way to stop >it from happening is to go to the source, to really dig into how >it comes about. This might not always be flattering or >enjoyable. Enjoyable to whom? if I were to take the point that rape proceeds from anger and a feeling of having one's personhood threatened, then by your "reasoning" I suppose I would have to conclude that it would be enlightening to me to be threatened in this manner. The resulting enlightenment, however, would be a disclosure of my complicity in generating the context(s) within which I may, at virtually any given moment, *be raped*. Hmm. Very enlightening Mr. carter. Thank you. I *am* thoroughly Angry and, according to the shreds of individuality left me (on Mr. Carter's account) as one particular coincidentally-female subject (And it just so happens that I've a domineering father to point a finger at too!), I guess I'd be justified (encouraged?) in rounding up some home girls, snagging a little boy on his way home from school, and brutalizing him for my own pleasure, against his sobs and pleas for mercy. Yes? However, following my "human" inclinations (which, incidentally, is a specious distinction, since I've not noticed in my male basset hound lately the capacity to objectify female basset hounds . . . ) and asserting the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Mr. Carter effectively stole away from "men" as constructed by his message, I choose to 1. log off and not allow this to ruin my day and 2. not for one moment take Mr. Carter's remarks as representative of the sensibilities of men in general. And no, I don't think that my selling some of my books under the duress of pending spring student fees is tantamount to prostitution. Gina Camodeca SUNY @ Buffalo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:01:59 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Re: okinawan rape - anticipating more flames |:-| Ok, before all you guys start going crazy flaming me, please lets get a few matters straightened out. The subject of the thread is the "okinawan rape". A twelve year old girl has been molested, and it will quite probably affect the rest of her life. This is something that has already happened. We can feel disgusted about it. We can wish it would have been different. But we can't go back and change it. What we can do is change the way we move into the future. When we move from the historical perspective with given facts into the unknown future we also have to go from the particular case to the general. If we want to stop rape from happening in the future we have to leave the particular rape on okinawa and all other single instances of rape and go to a general discussion of how rape comes about at all. What I tried to suggest in my post is that one can often get the impression that there behind the outrage and indignation over a particular case hovers a quite unwarranted surprise - unwarranted considering statistical reports that tell us that a woman gets raped every so and so many minutes, every day, year round, not to mention all the other horrors perpetrated by members of humanity. What would be warranted is a look into the general psychology of the human being. We have evidence that it is possible for one human being to rape another, that is, to violently violate the integrity of another. What does that tell us about human beings? That the human-being-as-such is a rapist? That everybody usually rapes everybody else? No. But that individual human beings can do each other great harm, yes. And here already we actually have to leave the specific subject of rape and go on to the wider and more general subject of "good" and "evil", and the psychological forces in general that we as human beings are subjected to. Throughout history, women _and_ men have not only been raped, but also tortured, gassed, beaten, robbed, napalmed, landmined and in other most ingenious ways had their humanity denied or violated. Why? Which leads us in turn even further afield to the question of the meaning of life. Why do bad things happen to good people? I don't think it is possible to answer that question without running the risk of sounding cynical. Some random points to sum it up though: 1. Rape is a particular case of the general human ability to cause great harm to other human beings. 2. It is important to be clear about whether one is discussing particular historical facts, general human psychological tendencies and possibilities, the general or particular structures of society, or possible future developments. 3. One should generalize as little as possible :¬/ How does this connect to science-as-culture? Well, I'm not sure that it does. Except maybe, again, through showing that there are regions where conventional scientific thinking does not really reach, or at least cannot come up with answers that actually change culture, or society. This applies not only to the darkest regions, but also to the other end of the spectrum. A moral culture, where rape for example is more rare, can never develop together with a science that understands the human being to be the result of purposeless mutations, some kind of haphazard molecular-genetic tragicomedy sailing around on a speck of dust in an endless universe among universes. In reality every human being is an unfinished book - the last chapters of which we have to write ourselves. Maybe we should choose a merrier subject? Best regards, Andreas __________________________ andreas.carter@pi.se ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:53:16 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: metaphor in science >>> janet atkinson-grosjean 11/18/95, 11:48pm I'm a writer/editor now. My ambition is to cultivate the common touch--to present scientific ideas to the intelligent lay reader in such a way as to spark the *spine-tingling moment* in others. L: Cool! Brief intro: I'm preparing my graduate liberal studies thesis on the cultural impact of metaphors in postmodern science--particularly focusing on chaos/complexity theories and consciousness studies. L: I'm interested in metaphors [and chaos/complexity]. The [scientific/rhetorical] point of metaphors is to represent and convey some understanding, some salient point/s about something else, which the metaphor helps to capture in some respect. Of course, no metaphor is perfect or unproblematic. The concept to be illustrated may be wrong to begin with, or the metaphor does not fit it [non sequitor]. Several different metaphors might be equally to the point, then the choice of which one to use may be one place where unexamined assumptions and biases or particularities of one's own experience come in. I suspect it is often the unintended aspects and implicities of such metaphors that are the appropriate subject of critique. What do you think, Jan? As a teacher, I try to create metaphors/analogies that are also suited to my audience, because otherwise it does not do the job of communication. Example: at a volunteer ethnic folkarts ensemble performance, I was in charge of makeup, among other things. Dealing with unpractised men, I struggled with the explanation of "foundation" application [it's just that the women were mostly pre-trained...] Then it came to me! I said: Men, think of it as _stain_, not paint. Ooohh, they all said, and perfect communication had been achieved, i.e. they all did it correctly after that. [There I was, presuming things about many men's experience in a particular field...] ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:42:30 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: blame , metaphor >>> Matthew Weinstein 11/21/95, 01:47pm >>> ...It is through this analysis that blame can be placed not just on the admiral but on the particular structure of the military that we have "opted" for in the U.S. (top down, in which agency vanishes as you descend the hierarchy). L: Leaving aside for the moment that properly problematized "opted", are you saying that it's the top-down-ness that contributes to a culture of rape? Or am I not quite following you here? I suspect there are other, larger factors, and not just in the military. MW: Some way back (and I've deleted the messages) there was a call for organic over mechanic metaphor. I wonder what space that leaves for those who see themselves by force or willing identification as cyborgs? L: I am interested in the metaphor thread. I would love to see an example of organic rather than mechanic metaphor. I don't get the thing about cyborgs - who are they? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:55:26 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Gee, thanks, Andreas... ..for leading us away from discussion of the Blame the Victim award for which Andreas has now been nominated. But is there any chance that he will actually back up his nearly as offensive assertion below with anything other than ... his assertion? "A moral culture" my eye. What, are we going to have to get religion now? in order to ever be free of rape? Ridiculous. >>> Andreas Carter 11/20/95, 02:01pm >>> A moral culture, where rape for example is more rare, can never develop together with a science that understands the human being to be the result of purposeless mutations, some kind of haphazard molecular-genetic tragicomedy sailing around on a speck of dust in an endless universe among universes. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 18:09:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: okinawan rape I do not wish to receive private assaults from those on this list who wish, implicitly or explicitly, to call me a "femi-nazi" or those who wish to cast speculative aspersions on my upbringing. I will forward to this list any future messages I receive at my account re: the subject of rape or re: my comments on this list . Since this *is* a "public" forum for discussion, and since general discussion on this subject was called for (not by myself), I would like to assume that those of you who have something to say as per this public discussion will do so where everyone/anyone interested/concerned can hear and respond--Not behind the cyberbushes where, it seems to be presumed, I might be a vulnerable target for undisclosed affront. Gina Camodeca SUNY @ Buffalo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:26:20 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "ap palma, philo@CCU" Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions X-To: Arie Dirkzwager In-Reply-To: <9511201519.AA02020@phil.ccu.edu.tw> please unsubscribe me nur Brot und Wasser essen, Vater und Mutter vergessen ap palma@CCU to have a complete address please finger palmaa@phil.indiana.edu On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > Hello you all. I'm just new to this list. Let me try my 0.02$ contribution: > At 07:32 20-11-95 -0500, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > >In a message dated 95-11-18 02:20:50 EST, you write: > > > >>To deny "reality" is incoherent. I can't imagine how one would go about > >>arguing such a claim in a totalizing fashion. All we do/think starts > >>from where and what we are. So, of course i would not say there is no > >>"reality itself." Of course, how one argues all this is not quite so > >>straightforward, but I wanted to at least get any potential silliness out > >>of the way. > > > >I thought that some were denying the above. We are in total agreement. > -------What about us human beings being PART of "reality itself" and saying > that nothing we know about (including ourselves as "observators") is outside > reality (and what else is "reality itself"?). If so, could we say that > reality's thinking and theorizing takes place in our brains? And that the > larger part of reality's development as a self-organizing system is human > responsibility? And that love and justice (or the lack of them) are > important characteristics of this reality, not less important than the > infrastructure studied by physicists and biologists? > So far so good - I'll wait and see if these remarks belong to this list. > Arie > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 01:37:22 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Re: okinawan rape (getting tired of it, anyone?) On Nov 20, 1995 Gina Camodeca wrote: >>The power that women have to completely deny a man his >>masculinity on the other hand, especially in their roles as >>mothers, is rarely mentioned in this context. >Why on earth would it be?? And if we did, then I would ask you >to explain precisely the ways in which this masculinity is being >denied; In those cases when it in fact is denied - and I have certainly not said that it _always_ is - it is something which cannot be explained, anymore than a rape victim can explain how she - or he as the case might be - feels. That is, the explanation cannot usually in any way convey the corresponding feeling of complete and utter disgust and degradation. > to outline fully the degree to which, after committing the >act of rape, the heretofore denied masculinity has been restored; As I said in my original post, the perpetrator loses his humanity to at least the same extent as the victim. And as far as I'm concerned, masculinity is not necessarily something that should be sought after as such. It quite often expresses itself in the most ridiculous ways. That doesn't mean that denying it or violating it cannot have bad effects. Rape happens. How it happens has to be explained if anything is going to be done about it. If such explanations exist they very rarely make their way into public debates on the subject. The angry woman who feels free to aggressively blame men in general without noticing that she thereby does not take one step towards a solution of the problem, is on the other hand less rare. >and a clear explanation concerning the appropriateness of the >act of rape as a "response" (?) to the supposed denial of a man's >masculinity. This is where you have gotten everything wrong. You think that rape is an act of reason!? I said it in my post - if you want to understand rape you have to _beyond_ reason. You have to find something more. As long as you have not found something in yourself which mentally could do something corresponding to rape you will never understand the rapist and you will remain the perpetual victim. You suffer, and if you have male children, there is no way you can know that you are not bringing them up to be rapists too. Who are the rapist's mothers - really? Do they have mothers or do they come down from Mars just to piss you off? Where is cause and effect in _your_ reasoning? Are you truly interested in understanding why it happens or do you feel better sitting around fuming - at least then you always have someone or something to blame because the world isn't the way you wish it was, right? >(And it just so happens >that I've a domineering father to point a finger at too!) It figures. > I guess I'd >be justified (encouraged?) in rounding up some home girls, snagging >a little boy on his way home from school, and brutalizing him for >my own pleasure, against his sobs and pleas for mercy. Yes? Here again you are presuming that I am justifying something - which in turn would justify _you_ to do something? I'm afraid I don't follow. >and asserting the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY Mr. Carter effectively >stole away from "men" as constructed by his message, On the contrary, I lay personal responsibility not only on men but also on women - on the individual, to be exact. The human individual is the only being in the known cosmos that can carry responsibility. But as we see quite often there is no guarantee that he, or she, does just that. __________________________ andreas.carter@pi.se ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 01:39:56 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Re: Gee, thanks, Andreas... >But is there any chance that he will actually back up his nearly as >offensive assertion below with anything other than ... his assertion? > "A moral culture" my eye. What, are we going to have to get >religion now? in order to ever be free of rape? Ridiculous. Obviously, something is needed, no? *You* called it religion. >>>> Andreas Carter 11/20/95, 02:01pm >>> >A moral culture, where rape for example is more rare, can never >develop together with a science that understands the human being to >be the result of purposeless mutations, some kind of haphazard >molecular-genetic tragicomedy sailing around on a speck of dust in an >endless universe among universes. __________________________ andreas.carter@pi.se ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:51:23 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "ap palma, philo@CCU" Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply -Reply X-To: Matthew Weinstein In-Reply-To: <9511202058.AA02752@phil.ccu.edu.tw> please unsubscribe me nur Brot und Wasser essen, Vater und Mutter vergessen ap palma@CCU to have a complete address please finger palmaa@phil.indiana.edu On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Matthew Weinstein wrote: > >L: Do tell, then, is all speech "local performance" which never tells > >us anything about one's "interior"? Or just some speech? And how > >shall I tell the difference? > > All language/communication takes place in a context, to an audience, in > dialogue. Analyzing language must take into account that context/dialogue. > It is precisely in doing so that one understands the situation as socially > and not individually constructed. It is through this analysis that blame > can be placed not just on the admiral but on the particular structure of > the military that we have "opted" for in the U.S. (top down, in which > agency vanishes as you descend the hierarchy). > > >If we can't blame the extraordinarily powerful military for creating > >and condoning a sexist culture, > > That's exactly the analysis I'm pushing for. That's what my subsequent > paragraph called for. > > >how the hell can we pick on > >scientists' evil "mechanistic" studies of molecular biology for > >creating ... what? > > Lisa, would you also put "evil" in quotes? Some way back (and I've deleted > the messages) there was a call for organic over mechanic metaphor. I wonder > what space that leaves for those who see themselves by force or willing > identification as cyborgs? > > >Just wondering, > >Lisa > > me too. > > --Matthew > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:29:53 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply >>>> Howard Schwartz 11/20/95, >...Under the circumstances, she may wish to reflect on her belief >that such verbal indiscretions, by themselves, should be sufficient >cause to terminate careers. > >L: "Verbal indiscretions" are never "by themselves". Don't you >expect that what comes out somebodies' mouth is revealing of the >assumptions, attitudes, etc that pervade that person's life and all >decisions, such as disciplinary ones within his command? > Well, lets get closer to home. Have you ever made a statement which was indiscrete, but which did *not* accurately reveal your assumptions and attitudes? Maybe I'm just less precise than most, but I'm sure I have. If you have also, then I think you would have to answer your question : "No, what comes out of somebodies' mouth is not always revealing of assumptions etc." Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. So in order to find out the truth about the persons basic assumptions you would have to investigate. But that would be a little to ponderous for us and the media these days. The General's comments seem to me to stink with unfit assumptions. And I would like to see an investigation to see if that were the case, and if so, to determine his fitness to command and to influence those under him. If he is found to be unfit, he should be terminated. **But that is very different than making that judgement from one statement**. I think this is a good discussion for this group. Our society seems more and more willing to make judgements on sparce information, nearly by reflex. People with a background in science hopefully can encourage a more rigorous weighing of facts and not be driven by mass indignation and the press. [by the way, I'm sure I am attacking a stonger version of Lisa's comments than she probably intended] -- Tim Smith (tws@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu) University of Pittsburgh - Neuroscience and Psychology Learning Research and Development Center Personal Web address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~tws http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/neuroscape/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:38:33 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Tim Smith Subject: Re: rape -Reply Tim Smith 11/20/95, 09:36am >>> >And frankly, I find the statement that most male-male rapes tend to >be perpetrated by hetersexuals very hard to beleive (and not just >because of the mechanics involved). It may be true, but I would very >much like to know what the statistics are and how the researchers >define the issue. So if that book is handy to you ... At 11:40 AM 11/20/95 -0700, Lisa Rogers wrote: >What's "mechanics" got to do with it? Well... the idea of hetersexual male-male sexual acts seems semantically a bit problematic. I don't think I can explain what I meant without being a little vulgar. As far as the mechanics go... I don't think I can explain what I meant without being a little vulgar.If anyone really wants to know email me privately and I'll flesh it out. -- Tim Smith (tws@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu) University of Pittsburgh - Neuroscience and Psychology Learning Research and Development Center Personal Web address: http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/~tws http://neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu/neuroscape/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:31:06 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: emergent properties: Lamark and Marx In-Reply-To: <95Nov20.094838hst.11333(1)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> _____________________________________________________________________________ On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > I suggest some caution in talk of Lamark. "Not too popular" is a > heck of a euphemism for "absolutely no evidence and no known > mechanism." I'm aware of the study with bacteria, it presents a > fascinating puzzle. Puzzle being "how does that happen?" i.e. what > is the mechanism? and "how could it be a result of darwinian natural > selection?", never doubting for an instant that it is _exactly_ that. Since you are admitting that you will accept no other possibility than darwinian natural selection, you are saying that darwin's theory is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a theory, and therefore you are practicing religion, not science. > > The problem with Lamarkism has been 1) until this study there was > _NO_ evidence of anything like this, and 2) there has never been and > still is not known any mechanism by which "lamarkian evolution" could > take place. Sure there is. Retroviruses are an obvious possibility. McClintock's work with transposable elements points out another possibility. The results found by Cairns and Hall (directed mutation) are telling us that something damned interesting is going on, and it would be foolish to remain close-minded to new possibilities. It's time to let go of those quaint Victorian notions about a blind watchmaker tinkering with evolution. Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 22:56:29 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: emergent properties X-To: JEFKMD@aol.com In-Reply-To: <951120090437_111576602@mail04.mail.aol.com> Fractals are usually generated by a recursive formula, but yes the patterns produced are certainly holarchical. Mark _____________________________________________________________________________ On Mon, 20 Nov 1995 JEFKMD@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 95-11-20 01:06:45 EST, you write: > > > > >Mark Gilbert's comments reminded me of Koestler's idea of the holarchy > >which he described in his book "Janus." A holarchy is comprised of wholes > >within wholes. Each whole, or holon, is two-faced, a whole comprised of > >parts and a part of a more inclusive whole. > > > is this also the origin of mandlebrodt's fractal or am i playing too loose? > jeffrey kramer > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 23:12:25 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: protein synthesis In-Reply-To: <95Nov20.072122hst.11405(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> As you may imagine, there is a strong program in biochemistry to predict the secondary and tertiary structure of proteins from the sequence of amino acids. There has been some success with secondary structure. You can predict to some degree whethera certain sequence will tend to form an alpha helix or a beta sheet. But the attempts to predict tertiary structure have failed miserably. There are many examples of two proteins with similar sequences that fold to form completely different structures with different functions, and divergent sequences with remarkably similar shapes. A lot of effort goes into database searching for sequence homologies because the results can be quite fascinating, although everyone takes them with a grain of salt. I believe Alan was making a point about emergent properties using the example of protein folding. Although the final shape of the protein is largely determined by the primary sequence, we as yet cannot make accurate predictions. On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > >>> A. H. Brush 11/18/95, 01:22pm >>> > For example, the shape and behavior of a single protein cannot > be prediced by the information stored in the base sequence of the > gene or genes that produce the protein. > Alan > > Um, not at all? Cannot be predicted? Does it not give us a very big > clue? Or why not? > Considering what I've already posted on protein structure, I'd > appreciate more explanation here. Otherwise, the above makes no > sense to me. And, what's the point? > > Lisa > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:56:38 GMT+0 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "J.PRITCHARD" Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: rape Brendan wrote (inter alia) and I thank him because I genuinely do want to understand: >To see what these errors come to, consider this: >"Baby-snatching would seem to come into a different category, even so >because to resort to using children as an object of theft, whether or not >the act is maternal, is above a powerful symbol of how woman defines >herself and her own power. Her appeal is not to her `feminine intuition' >or `physical beauty' her true self emerges through her womb. Poor girl, >poor cow!" >The point is not to trade insult for insult. It's about the fallacy of >hasty induction. This is an interesting analogy. It assumes that motherhood is essential to women which incidentally, is in furtherance of procreation. Are you impling that in relation to men, rape is too? Clearly, not all men rape any more than all women are maternal. I think I agree that any woman who defines merely through her womb to the point of baby snatching, is impoverished and merits the description, 'poor girl, poor cow'. I think it is true to say that in most cases, female baby snatchers do not harm the child but, albeit misguidely, want to love it. Does your anology extend so far to rape, as to say that that is men's intention toward their victim-or is 'the true nature of man' to have a propensity towards harm? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:27:39 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "A. H. Brush" Subject: metaphor An interesting recent treatment of the use of metaphor in biology is in Evelyn Fox Keller's book "Refiguring Life. Methphors of twentieth cnetury biology. Published by Columbia U. Press, 1995. Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply In a message dated 95-11-20 15:20:38 EST, you write: > Do people have thoughts or >resources, for instance, on the ways that recent scientific claims that >"boys will be boys" articulate with these occurances, Certainly there is a whole literature by sociobiologists such as David Barash, Randy Thornhill, etc. implicitly justifying rape, while claiming that "is" does not imply "ought." However, the smirking asides, such as Barash's "rape is common among the birds and the bees," and his claim in Psychology Today that most men fantasize their wives being gang-raped (apparently based 1.) on hid own fantasies and 2.) on his research on forced copulation in Mallard ducks (odd how Barash gets into the mind of the Mallard). The ecologist David Jantzen has claimed that there is rape in plants (apparently very stealthy) insofar as some plants' pollen contains chemicals which counteract other chemicals contained in the seeds of some plants which repell certain types of pollen. There is also the claim that fish rape, based on the fact that in fish which lay eggs in an open sand-nest, some other male fish may swin by and spray sperm on them. By this definition someone who masturbated into a test-tube of a Nobel Prize Winner in Shockley's eugenic sperm bank in California would be committing rape. There is also justification of homosexual rape by an article in Science which claims that spiney-headed worms commit homosexual rape. In fact what they do in insert a plug into the sperm duct of a competing male to prevent it from mating, and this has nothing to do with homosexuality, but is a heterosexual competition strategy. I could go, but see my article Rape and Sociobiology in Science for the People 1984. Also in anthropology many media leapt on Derek Freeman's claim that rape was common in Samoa to discredit Margaret Mead's claims about a sexual paradise. Freeman is often claimed to have refuted Mead, even by leftitists, but in fact he studied a different village some 60 years later which was influenced by the nearby US military base, and some of the drinking, fighting and raping habits of the US Troops had caught on among base workers. E. O. Wilson, in Playboy, has an interview of rape, where he seems obsessed with African rapists in "tribal" wars and keeps talking about the "dark side" of human nature in association with stories about rapes by people of color. Similar language of possible unconscious association has appeared in this discussion, interestingly. Words for rape in many languages have their roots in words for "stealing." Often rape is linguistically, at least, a kind of crime against another male's property in females. This may shed some light on rape. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: biochemical machinery In a message dated 95-11-20 07:42:38 EST, you write: >e.g. homeopathic medicine within Anthroposophy. And this research produces useful results! Can you produce some citations about homeopathic medecine that shows it produces useful results? Everything I have read about it describes it as a sham. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:30 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: definition of rape In a message dated 95-11-20 13:26:23 EST, Lisa wrote: >Rape is a violent crime, in which the motivation is violence, power, >humiliation of another, in which some element of sexuality is used as >one of the weapons. Another meaning of the word rape is to steal, as in The Rape of the Lock. If a man steals from a woman is it the desire to do violence, etc., or does he have what she wants and is willing to knock her down to get it? Violent crimes against women are not typically described in such language. They are defined by the nature of what the man steals. Only rape is not. >It's "about sex" insofar as sex is seen as violent, coercive and >dehumanized/ depersonalized, and as far as sex is used as an excuse, >an opportunity and a tool for domination. > It is about self gratification, regardless of morality. It is akin to pillaging in war, or to robbery, including white collar crime. It's philosophy is: If I want it, I should have it. The desire and the character, along with the situation, produce the behavior. > > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply In a message dated 95-11-20 13:26:56 EST,Lisa wrote: >L: "Verbal indiscretions" are never "by themselves". Don't you >expect that what comes out somebodies' mouth is revealing of the >assumptions, attitudes, etc that pervade that person's life and all >decisions, such as disciplinary ones within his command? This is the Freudian notion of the slip of the tongue revealing the truth. But even he never said it revealed the whole truth about a person, only an aspect he/she was desperately trying to avoid. My point is that to define a person en toto based on one statement is unsound. Surely one would look for further evidence. I am reminded of the college president (I cannot remember who), who made a stupid remark about blacks. He had an exemplary record of concern for diversity, etc., but the howls went up for him to resign even though his record was splendid. He did not resign, or at least not at the time. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:38 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: okinawan rape -Reply In a message dated 95-11-20 14:04:06 EST, Monica wrote: >"Verbal indiscretions" in the Admiral's case Was there more than one indiscretion? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: okinawan rape (getting tired of it, anyone?) In a message dated 95-11-20 20:55:48 EST, you write: > You think that rape is an act of reason!? The young decided to rape someone after they realized they didn't have enough money for a prostitute. It was problem solving behavior, how to get what they wanted, i. e., sex. To argue otherwise is to argue that all behavior is non-rational. Good old Freud strikes again. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:35:30 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: rape In a message dated 95-11-19 Jane wrote: >> It hardly needs mentioning that the victors in war 'rape and >>pillage' again as a demonstration of power. No. In war, rape and pillage are examples of men getting many things that they want for free, having objectified their enemy to make it easier to kill, it is also easy to take what they want. The power permits them to gratify themselves in a variety of ways, but each man decides for himself which. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:46:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: okinawan rape (getting tired of it, anyone?) In a message dated 95-11-20 20:55:48 EST, you . Andreas, write: >On the contrary, I lay personal responsibility not only on men but also on >women - on the individual, to be exact. The human individual is the only >being in the known cosmos that can carry responsibility. I think this is an amazingly provincial and Eurocentric as well as naive statement.(I suppose you'll call it a flame, but it's just an opinion). There are plenty of cultures where the social group (say, in traditional China, the family) is held responsible for the acts of one of their members. You would probably say this is just a mistake on the part of the traditional Chinese. The word responisiblity has many meanings, both causal and moral. Certainly instittutions and cultural traditions and viewpoints can be held responsible, in part at least for people's behavior -- certainly causally, and in some cases morally, where the person is not of bad intent, but is operatiing and grave misconceptions and misperceptions of what is going on in the world or among his/peers due to cultural worldview and social conditioning. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:17:38 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: okinawan rape >Jeff Kramer writes: Let's not turn this list into an Oprah or Donahue forum!!! Certainly a discussion of scientific justifications of rape or misconstruals or correct understandings of rape is hardly irrelevant to the forum. Since this topic is a bit more personal than quaternions or second order infinities, it might involve some personal feelings and annecdotes as well as analysis. This is hardly bad, as many social and biological science accounts of rape disguise personal feelings (whether sociobiological pro-rape or feminist anti-rape) under pseudo-objectivist jargon and bean-counting. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:20:03 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: Currency Jeffrey Kramer posted Nov. 18 re: okinawan rape > the following vignette is absolutely current. . . . > > four american servicement were convicted of raping a 12 year old > Okinawan girl, inflicting pain and provoking fury at every level you > might imagine. and again Nov. 19 > . . . secondly i think there is often some value in situations which > are marked by such a rush to judgement to see if a different frame of > reference is enlightening. > > that was all,and i have no interest in defending it further and becoming > increasingly identified with the topic. Perhaps the reason is normal delays in publishing, but Canadian papers had reported up to those dates that the American servicemen were charged but not yet tried let alone convicted. Doubt about "absolutely current" claims reduces confidence in anything else discussed -- which is why in our professional work we adduce dates etc. where known. -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:22:07 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: okinawan rape A recent, interesting, science-related article which epitomizes the role of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology in the surreptitious justification of rape, sexual assault, etc., that participants outside of the US may have missed is the NEw York Times article by Natalie Angier on the latest sociobiology of sexual harrassment, which starts with somehing like "Birds do it, bees, do it, even Senators do it." Apparently the Senator Packwood case led to a need for biological justification of sexual harrassment. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:54:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Minnesota Joe Cleveland Subject: Re: okinawan rape (getting tired of it, anyone?) X-To: Andreas Carter In-Reply-To: <199511210049.TAA08691@mailbox.syr.edu> Mr. Carter: As long as you continue to send posts to the SaC list that effectively remove responsibility for rape from the rapist (as much as you deny that you do this, this is, in fact, what the words you've been writing do--see Leon's response)--that's how long we will continue to write about this subject on this list. (Perhaps this is a matter of being more attentive to how we use language.) An example of removing responsibility from the rapist: whenever you ask "who's his mother?" you do this. I also find it interesting that you do not ask the question that, if we are going to follow this sort of simplistic familial reasoning, would seem more to the point: who's his _father_? When Gina wrote asking that you describe more fully your implication that rape is an appropriate response of "threatened" masculinity to "threatening" femininity--you responded by reading this statement as describing rape as a rational act. Gina's words do not, in fact, do that. Things may be clarified here if we think of rape, not as something that "cannot be explained" as you posit in your last post, but as something that takes place in a culture--a cultural act. Many aspects of American culture emphasize the victimization of women as an appropriate male response. Women are often, for example, felt to be the proving ground of masculinity: this can be seen in most male "locker room" talk. I'm sure that you've noticed it. Every time a man gets mad--and it's perfectly acceptable for a man to be angry in our culture, no so for women (yes, this may be changing, but let's not split hairs)--at a woman and our culture offers up "fuck you" as a not simply possible but appropriate response... To deny these aspects of our culture, we would need blinders at best. If we do not deny these aspects of our culture (& despite what you've written, I assume that you do not) then we must acknowledge that "personal responsibility" requires us to be responsible to (not for) that culture. I.e., we must act accordingly &, attempting to counter and disable our "rape culture", we must recognize that even as we attempt to do so, we are in that culture: It effects us. That is as difficult a thing to recognize for a man, as it is necessary. (Note that this list is an attempt by people who identify themselves as part of a culture to investigate and perhaps intervene in that culture--and that that ability to intervene in that culture is predicated on being part of it.) If we are interested in reading a good exploration into how masculinity is defined in & by our culture, I recommend a book by Anthony Easthope called _The Masculine Myth in Popular Culture_ (Routledge, 1990 [1986]). If you want something a bit more intellectually innovative, I recommend a book called _Male Fantasies_ by Klaus Theweleit. Another interesting, but not particularly rigorous (perhaps that's not surprising given that term's masculinity and the aim of this book), book we might find useful is by John Stoltenberg, _Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice_. Joe Cleveland ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:30:41 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bo Dahlin Subject: Re: biochemical machinery -Reply >>>> Bo Dahlin 11/20/95, 05:38am >>> >I believe we have to recognize non-human creative intelligences (yes, >plural) at work in all phenomena of life. And that means accepting >teleological processes as well. >Bo > >Like What?? And what in the world do you mean by "purpose" ? >Lisa Like what "What??" (Sorry, do not compute). As for "purpose" I thought it was a fairly evident term. But in a world of mechanisms it doesn't have a reference, of course. Purpose is synonymous with goal or aim, as far as I know. Bo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 15:37:10 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John Soyland (Dr A J Soyland)" Subject: Re: metaphor >An interesting recent treatment of the use of metaphor in biology is >in Evelyn Fox Keller's book "Refiguring Life. Methphors of twentieth >cnetury biology. Published by Columbia U. Press, 1995. > > Alan Oh dear, I'll have to resort to self-publicity. An interesting (fairly - read that both ways) recent treatment of the use of metaphor in psychology is in A.J. Soyland's book "Psychology as Metaphor". London and Thousand Oaks: Sage John __________________________________________ A. J. Soyland Lecturer in Culture & Communication __________________________________________ Department of Psychology | Email: psa003@cent1.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University | Phone (office): (01524) 593887 Lancaster, LA1 4YF | Fax (department): (01524) 593744 UK | ___________________|______________________ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:42:36 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bo Dahlin Subject: Re: Trenchantly held opinions >nothing we know about (including ourselves as "observators") is outside >reality (and what else is "reality itself"?). If so, could we say that >reality's thinking and theorizing takes place in our brains? And that the >larger part of reality's development as a self-organizing system is human >responsibility? And that love and justice (or the lack of them) are >important characteristics of this reality, not less important than the >infrastructure studied by physicists and biologists? >So far so good - I'll wait and see if these remarks belong to this list. >Arie Indeed they do! Wish I had time to say more. Bo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:57:42 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bo Dahlin Subject: Re: biochemical machinery >In a message dated 95-11-20 07:42:38 EST, you write: > >>e.g. homeopathic medicine within Anthroposophy. And this research produces >useful results! > >Can you produce some citations about homeopathic medecine that shows it >produces useful results? Everything I have read about it describes it as a >sham. Sorry, I have no citations, just experience (own and others). There has also been an impartial evaluation of the Anthroposophic hospital in Sweden, and it didn't say anything about 'sham', on the contrary. Bo ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:18:16 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: embarrassment of riches?/digest A number of people (about 40 in the last few days) have signed off the list, citing as their main reason the volume of postings (about which they have expressed a variety of opinions ranging from finding them interesting to 'Apart from one brief part of a discussion of Bloor's work and a tiny bit on Lammarckism I couldn't detect any discussion of science as culture.' Here's another not atypical example: 'I liked the idea of the list, but quickly got turned off when 90% of the posts seemed to be either introductory (which I could understand) and on the okinawa rape case, which hardly seemed the sort of thing in which I was interested. I was only subscribed for about two weeks. Perhaps I'll give it another try later, after the list has had more chance to develop in topics I can see as science as culture.' I have been preoccupied with other things for the last few days (including an article on 'Psychoanalysis and/of the Internet' - any takers?) and have archived the list, so I don't know yet what I think. I may comment when I have read through them. I _am_, however, concerned about the number of objections/sign-offs on these grounds (some were people I know and was delighted to have with us) and suggest that people think twice before posting a riposte and more than twice about multiple messages on a single day. I have no wish to limit debate, but bear in mind that some people have limited disc space, some have to pay by the message received and many are pushed for time. I would also appreciate list members' thoughts on this problem. Do we have an embarrassment of riches or incontinence? My software gives name of sender and subject but not forum, so I have to open the message before I know which forum it's from. *****I would greatly appreciate it if subscribers would begin the 'Subject:' line of their postings with SaC: If you find that there are too many messages, you may wish to receive a single digets once a day. To: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu Body of message: send sci-cult digest Bob Young Forum Moderator __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:41:56 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: representations Re: Okinawa Rape I have had a number of private postings suggesting that it might be an idea to pause for a time in the consideration of this matter - one which I can readily see has its place on this list for a variety of reasons. However, as in any multi-topical discussion, there are matters of balance of the conversation to consider. I would hate to lose many more subscribers who are put off by the volume of mail on a particular issue, no matter how important that issue is. Please co-operate and forbear for a time. Thanks, Bob Young Forum Moderator __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 09:47:15 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: definition of rape -Reply X-To: BRoths@AOL.COM >>> Bertram Rothschild 11/21/95, 05:35am >>> Another meaning of the word rape is to steal, as in The Rape of the Lock. If a man steals from a woman is it the desire to do violence, etc., or does he [sic] have what she [sic] wants and is willing to knock her down to get it? L: What are you talking about? Rape is not simple theft. The rapist does not take some piece of property with him. I truly hope you do not mean what it looks like you are saying here. "She has it" and rape is "him taking it"??? Rape is not only _not theft_, it is not _just sex_ either. BR: It is about self gratification, regardless of morality. It is akin to pillaging in war, or to robbery, including white collar crime. It's philosophy is: If I want it, I should have it. L: But why is _rape_ self gratification? Doesn't that term usually refer to masturbation? "I want it" indeed. _I_ claim that wanting sex is _not_ the same as wanting to rape. The only way that those two things become the same thing is in the mind of someone who doesn't count her as a human with a will and rights of bodily autonomy. If you totally ignore the idea that she could say no, or if you think that it doesn't matter if she says no, _then_ maybe sex and rape are the same thing. Except for the gratuitous beating, slashing etc that he sometimes adds on. Don't you know -- rapists in this culture often pass up sex with obvious, available, willing, even loving women in their lives [not even counting prostitutes] because they would rather _rape_. Some of them even prefer to rape their wives rather than make love with them. So, the problem is not that they just go for what they want. The problem _is_ what they want. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:39:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: protein synthesis Lisa writes: >Um, not at all? Cannot be predicted? Does it not give us a very big >clue? Or why not? Considering what I've already posted on protein structure, I'd >appreciate more explanation here. Otherwise, the above makes no >sense to me. And, what's the point? In the last couple of years (think 94) AAAS had a big series of sessions on protein folding. The damned thing seemed to be that although everyone assumed that protein 3-D structure was in priniciple predictable from aa sequence and energy levels, no one can really do it for non-trivial structures. I think Science or Nature had a news article reviewing the series of workshops after they were held. Perhaps this is like the n-body problem, that everyone assumed was solveable in prinicple and that no one has shown is goedel-unsolvable, but that no one can solve in general form, and which people in recent decades have tended to not sweep under the rug but use as paradigmatic of complex systems. Hope someone with more biophysics knowledge illuminates this.-Val ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:11:57 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: Rhetoric 101 In-Reply-To: <199511211503.PAA02483@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "J.PRITCHARD" at Nov 21, 95 10:56:38 am In the last mail J.PRITCHARD said: > > Brendan wrote (inter alia) and I thank him because I genuinely do > want to understand: > > >To see what these errors come to, consider this: > > >"Baby-snatching would seem to come into a different category, even so > >because to resort to using children as an object of theft, whether or not > >the act is maternal, is above a powerful symbol of how woman defines > >herself and her own power. Her appeal is not to her `feminine intuition' > >or `physical beauty' her true self emerges through her womb. Poor girl, > >poor cow!" > > >The point is not to trade insult for insult. It's about the fallacy of > >hasty induction. OK I'll explain. I put the baby-snatching stuff in inverted commas because it is not what I think. It is a rotten argument. In fact, it's a parody of Jane's rotten argument. My hope was that by this parody, I could get Jane to see what was wrong with her own argument. The best laid plans, eh? Brendan. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:47:24 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lynda Bruce Subject: Re: Science penetrates phenomena /digest/Sac To All, Greetings, Perhaps the rape discussion should be posed within another metaphor... Several years ago, I noticed within the introduction of a textbook on philosophy of science phrases such as "science penetrating phenomena." I wondered about this... Did the phenomena want to be penetrated? Was this rape? and if so.... -Perhaps science was inadequately mothered or -what was the phenomena "doing there anyway" or -what is science's need to penetrate virgin phenoemena when there was plenty of other phenomena around that was used to it or -it is the nature or identity of science to penetrate phenomena against its will or -what did phenomena do to emasculate science anyway so that science has been driven to penetrate to regain its identity as a penetrator or -science emerges from a culture in which male's violence toward women, sexual abuse of children, rape are ultimately market commodities.... I, for one, have been emotionally, theoretically and philosophically engaged in the discussion of rape...I would like to see how science can answer the issues. I intend to use some of the responses on this list within the next hour--when I attend a psych of women class. I think all threat or disparaging comments made to the women (or men) off list should be posted for all to observe the pressures on women to remain silent on these issues. Lynda ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:53:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Fwd: Mad Science Sci Cult This appears to be an important conference relevant to the interests of people on this list: --------------------- Forwarded message: From: aja@ST-ANDREWS.AC.UK (Andrew Aberdein) Sender: HOPOS-L@UKCC.UKY.EDU (A Forum for Discussion of the History of the Philosophy of Science) Reply-to: HOPOS-L@UKCC.UKY.EDU (A Forum for Discussion of the History of the Philosophy of Science) To: HOPOS-L@UKCC.UKY.EDU (Multiple recipients of list HOPOS-L) Date: 95-11-20 15:53:19 EST Is this the sort of thing? Regards, Andrew Aberdein >SUBJECT: CFP: Mad Science >NEWSGROUPS: alt.horror >FROM: schleip@vax.sbu.ac.uk >DATE: 16 Aug 95 17:51:06 GMT >ORGANIZATION: South Bank University > > CALL FOR PAPERS > First International Virtual Conference on Mad Science (IVCMS'96) > London, England > 29 March 1996 > > > Theme > > Mad science is a much maligned domain of human knowledge and its >practitioners have for too long been relegated to B-movies and remote >ancestral estates. IVCMS provides an international forum for the >presentation, discussion and extension of research into these darkly >powerful pseudosciences and dangerous technologies which fall beyond the >scope of conventional science and good taste. The purpose of the conference >is to promote a general understanding of mad topics within the broader >scientific community, to encourage new researchers to dabble with things >best left alone, to attract commercial sponsors to the potential benefits >of mad science in the business world, and to replace the old drooling >maniac stereotype of the mad scientist with a new drooling maniac image >which is more appropriate to the modern era. The conference will be hosted >in a suitably baroque homepage to avoid the overheads of unpredictable >atmospheric conditions and revolting peasants. > > > Focus > >Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: > Creating life to satisfy egocentric motives. > Unleashing entities beyond human control and comprehension. > Tampering with the life-sustaining forces of the Universe. > Exceeding the limitations of the human body via grotesque metamorphoses. > New applications for old technologies (alchemy, necromancy, etc.). > Ill-advised collaboration with alien and/or supernatural intelligences. > Life-long devotion to researching the pointless and inane. > Callous disregard for human experimental subjects. > Exacting bizarre revenge on contemptuous and derisive peers. > > > Submission Details > >Authors are invited to submit papers to the Programme Chair at the >following address: > > Paul Schleifer, IVCMS Programme Chair > School of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics > South Bank University > 103 Borough Road > London SE1 0AA, England > Email: schleip@sbu.ac.uk > > All submissions should reach the Programme Chair by 29 December 1995. >Papers should not exceed 5000 words and should be submitted in electronic >formats. HTML or ASCII are preferred, but PostScript and word-processor >formats are also acceptable. Figures may be sent as URLs or in standard >image file formats, such as GIF and JPEG. Submission by email is strongly >encouraged. Papers will be refereed by a panel of at least three deranged >experts. Posthumous papers will be welcomed. > > > Important Dates > >Paper submission: 29 December 1995 >Notification of acceptance: 26 February 1996 >Conference: 29 March 1996 > > > Programme Committee > >Postmortal General Chair > Howard P. Lovecraft, From Beyond > >Programme Co-Chairs > Victor Frankenstein, Modern Prometheus Ltd > Paul Schleifer, South Bank University > >Programme Committee > Marc C. Allain, First Church of Mad Scientist > Peter Armstrong, Swiss Bank Corporation > Pope Max Flax Beeblewax, 5-College Discordian Society of Saint Rufus > Sue Black, South Bank University > Cosmic Cat, CCHQ > Dr. Ahmed Fishmonger, Institute for Parallel Studies > Dr. Henry Gee, Nature > Dan Hanley, South Bank University > Donna Kossy, Kooks Museum > Ross McNaughton, South Bank University > Burti Montague-Leon, BP Sema > Dr. Omega, Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow International > Dr. Judith Ramsay, South Bank University > Dave Scott, (unaffiliated freelance mad scientist) > Dr. Scratching, Human Secretions Institute > Allan Songhurst, Bavarian Illuminati Inc > Neil Walton, Dastardly Machinations > Xero, Planet X > >Local Arrangements and Reception Chair > Igor, The Cellar > >Home Page URL > http://www.scism.sbu.ac.uk/cios/paul/MadScience/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Andrew Aberdein Department of Logic and Metaphysics, The University, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AL, Scotland, U. K. http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_sa/personal/aja/ Telephone [Office] (01334) 462464; [Home] (01334) 465170 Facsimile (01334) 462485 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 18:20:38 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John Soyland (Dr A J Soyland)" Subject: Re: Fwd: Mad Science Actually, if you read that fwd message, I think that you find that it is a joke, and not a conference. John __________________________________________ A. J. Soyland Lecturer in Culture & Communication __________________________________________ Department of Psychology | Email: psa003@cent1.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University | Phone (office): (01524) 593887 Lancaster, LA1 4YF | Fax (department): (01524) 593744 UK | ___________________|______________________ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:32:08 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: biochemical machinery -Reply In a message dated 95-11-21 10:49:32 EST Bo writes: > As for "purpose" I thought it >was a fairly evident term. But in a world of mechanisms it doesn't have a >reference, of course. Purpose is synonymous with goal or aim, as far as I >know. There is an ironic history of biologists' use of purposive language while denying its reality or literalness. Kant (1790s) had the theory that we must talk of organisms in purposive terms, although we must think of physical explanations as ultimately being in Newtonian mechanistic terms. He claimed that Newtonian mechanics was constitutive of our knowledge, but purposive thought (used in art and biology) was reflective judgement, and played a regulative role in describing organic wholes. Colin Pittendrigh in an article on biological clocks in the fruit fly in the book Behavior and Evolution edited by Simpson and Roe and him (I think) , in the late 1950s coined the term "teleonomic" to mean purposive language no literally meant, as when an evolutionist might say "The bird developed wider wings in order to fly longer distances over the ocean" etc. This position with respect to teleonomy is a lot like Kant's. However the word got used by Francois Jacob and others for other purposes, mainly because biologists want to talk about various purpose-like mechanisms without committing themselves the to the dreaded teleology which they associate with religion. Actually, even Aristotle had individual purposes, but, contrary to myth, didn;t really have a single overall purpose to the universe. This was added on by Christian scholastics in their interpretation and cooptation of Aristotle. I've heard some biologists use "teleonomic" to mean really Aristotelean purposes, but think that "teleology" means guided by God, so they have to avoid it, but they don;t realize their teleonomy is really what Aristotle and others would have called teleology. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:49:52 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: blame , metaphor > >L: I am interested in the metaphor thread. I would love to see an >example of organic rather than mechanic metaphor. I don't get the >thing about cyborgs - who are they? I know about the idea of the cyborg from Donna Haraway's Manifesto for Cyborg's. Her basic argument is that the boundaries between animal, human and machine have all been thoroughly trespassed, largely through military research, and that it is naive to continue thinking through those three categories (likewise organic and mechanistic). To quote at length: Haraway: Contemporary science fiction is full of cyborgs--creatures simultaneously animal and machine, who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted. Modern medicine is also full of cyborgs, of coublings between organism and machine, each conceived as coded devices, in an intimacy and a power that was not generated in the history of sexuality.... Byt the late 20th century, our time, a mythic time, we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in shourt, we are cyborgs. The cyborgis our ontology; it gives us our politics... Haraway, D. J. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In D. J. Haraway (Eds.), Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (pp. 149-181). New York: Routledge. pp. 149-150. Personally, as much as my whole oevre is a genuflect in Donna Haraway's direction, I've found the idea of the cyborg increasingly problematic recently; but I still want to insert it into any discussion that would try to oppose mechanical (bad) to organic (good) metaphors. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:47:18 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Lamarck X-To: burch@HAWAII.EDU I suspect, Burch, that you do not know what I am talking about. What do you think is the definition of lamarckian evolution? And how would retroviruses or jumping genes be a mechanism of lamarckian evolution? Be specific. Also, explain just what you think it would take to "falsify" current evolutionary theory, including how and why it would be falsified. I am curious. And then there would be some actual content to chew on here, in addition to your sweeping and inaccurate generalizations. So, don't just throw darts, tell us, please, what do you mean by the "quaint blind watchmaker", why do you attribute that belief to me, and what is your brave, new, better alternative? Falsifiability applies to hypotheses. Theory, as in neodarwinian theory, is not "just a theory", it is a very seriously well supported body of thought that is not at all disturbed by your comments. What's next, is Dalton's "atomic theory" falsifiable too? Does information about subatomic particles and their components "falsify" the idea that there are indeed atoms, or that they have different properties for each of the "elements"? To call evolutionary theory "religion" on the basis you offer is the worst kind of nonsense, naive anti-science worse than I expected, and just plain fighting words to me. Lisa >>> Mark Burch 11/21/95, 01:31am >>> Since you are admitting that you will accept no other possibility than darwinian natural selection, you are saying that darwin's theory is not falsifiable, therefore it is not a theory, and therefore you are practicing religion, not science. It's time to let go of those quaint Victorian notions about a blind watchmaker tinkering with evolution. Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:50:23 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: What's wanted >From a recent sign-off: I was hoping to find a list dealing more with how science is shaped by culture, and how science has and will alter cultural values, political struggles, life style, and environment. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 12:56:00 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ben Gardiner Subject: "Future of this list" I share the concern Bob Young has expressed about abuse of this list, and the sheer _boredom_ of idle back-and-forth on a subject that, however important, is not germane to the stated purposes of the list. As one who has been managing free-for-all electronic lists for the past ten years (on AIDS) I can testify that freedom has its price. The people who make the trouble, who bore others, who dominate a list, are not the nice people, are usually not the wisest people either. There are one or two lists that achieve a high quality of discussion (now, in 1995) but they are both moderated. It takes quite a bit of energy and time to moderate. It is my suggestion that a couple of volunteers might be found who would be a filter against useless noise, if others are willing to permit such limitations. My own feeling is that the subject is worth discussing, and the initial list included scholars and scientists with very admirable qualifications for this kind of discussion. So far, my archive of 210 messages is 444k in about 10 days. This is too much for most recipients. A limitation of one response and one rebuttal might be made before an argument is moved to private email. Anyone who had a particular interest could probably write to the two nattering individuals and ask to have copies of their further disputations. Or form another list on that subject. In today's information flood, we do have responsibility to limit our output. How many readers here read, for example, the entire issue of any newspaper? There is still no good way to imitate, electronically, the way one can flip through a newspaper and pick the few items one wants to read. And when we are organized, I suggest we contact those who have left the list, inviting them to return to a new and more regulated process. Ben From: Ben Gardiner Return address: ben@maggadu.queernet.org AIDS Info BBS 1-415-626-1246, fax 1-415-626-9415 8-N-1, 2400 baud (free) also voice 415-626-1245 at itsa.ucsf.edu by gopher homepage for AIDS: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~beng/aidsbbs.html homepage for BOOKS: http://sibyllineofbooks.com homepage for PLAYS: http://playwrights.org ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:06:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: emergent properties Certainly the term "emergent evolution" was made well known by Lloyd Morgan's book of that name (1913 or so). Interestingly, although "supervenience" has been all the rage in philosophy during the 70s and 80s, the term emergence has been revived by Kim and others to emphasize that the higher level order or stucture causally effects the lower order one, while the non-reductive supervenient property (always accompanying, but not reducible to the lower order elements or laws) is epiphenomenal, that is does not effect the lower order structures. Philosophers, afraid of emergence as somehow "non-scientific" or "mystical" tend to eschew emergence for "anti-reductionist." (This seems like the similar replacement of "idealist" by "anti-realist" -- somewhat wishy-washy). One way to characterize emergence would be as the opposite of reducible. In the hypothetico-deductive model of science, this would mean that the emergent property is not deducible from the lower-level laws and initial conditions. It has seemed to me (but may be incorrect) that vitalism, dualism, appeals to entelechies, etc. is the denial of ontological reductionism or compositional reductionism -- that is, that there are some other "spiritual" entities there besides quarks or atoms or molectules or whatever. But denial of compositional reductionism (all there is are atoms or whatever) does not entail denial of theoretical or epistemological reductionism (that we can't deduce, predict, the emergent properties from the simples or atoms and their laws). The latter could, within the hypothetico-deductive model of deducing from laws and initial conditions (also covering law model or deductive-nomological model of Hempel et al) could be rigorously proven by Goedel-like proofs of non-deducibility, or at least proofs of computational complexity, where it would take a computer bigger than the universe or running longer than the life of the universe to do the calculation. This would seem to me to show non-reducibilibity relative to a set of entities and laws rigorously, if one could do it. Some of the stuff relating probability to non-recursiveness or chaos theory to Goedel-type results might lead in this direction, but I don't know of any solid or interesting results here that directly yield something like the undecidabiliity of the generalized n-body problem solution or the collision problem for particle systems.-Val ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:21:43 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noretta Koertge Subject: Re: Metaphor For a specific critique of the common allegation that rape metaphors played an important role in 17th century theories of scientific method, see Alan Soble's IN DEFENSE OF BACON, an article which appeared in the Canadian journal, Philosophy of Social Science, this summer. For a critique of feminist utilization of metaphors in constructing critiques of science, etc., see the section called METAPHOR MADNESS in Daphne Patai's and my PROFESSING FEMINISM: CAUTIONARY TALES FROM THE STRANGE WORLD OF WOMEN'S STUDIES. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:15:29 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Useful Commands To leave the science-as-culture forum, send the following message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu (leave the subject line blank) unsubscribe sci-cult It is possible to subscribe to to the forum in index (table of contents) or in digest (one mailing with all the messages for the day). To do this send the following message to: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu (leave the subject line blank) set sci-cult index or set sci-cult digest MINI REFCARD This section includes a number of commands which are useful to forum members. Unless otherwise indicated all commands should be sent to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu, leaving the subject heading blank. It is possible to send multiple commands in the same message provided that there is one command per line. TYPE THE COMMAND: IF YOU WANT TO: HELP receive commands information INFO receive a list of files LIST find out what listserv lists exist INDEX sci-cult receive a list of files associated to sci-cult REVIEW sci-cult find out who is on the forum REVIEW sci-cult (country find out what countries subscribers come from GET name-of-file receive a file The HELP command is particularly helpful for subscribers who are new to listserv forums. There are a lot of documents with useful information on listserver services. For a list of available documents send the command INDex DOC. Some particularly useful documents for forum members are LISTSERV REFCARD and LSVSTART. To receive a copy of the first send the following message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu GET LISTSERV REFCARD To get a copy of the second send the following command to listserv@earncc.bitnet GET LVSTART PS (Postscript) GET LCSTART MEMO (plain text) __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 18:06:37 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ed Morman Subject: SaC: Metaphor In-Reply-To: <9511212223.AA22241@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> There's an article I judge to be excellent on the analogy made between women and non-European peoples in nineteenth century human science. It's a good article on both (1) the scientific construction of notions of race and sex, and (2) the power of metaphoric thinking in science. It's by Nancy Stepan and Sander Gilman, and originally appeared in _Isis_ around 1985, I believe. It's been republished in two recent anthologies, including Sandra Harding's _Racial Economy of Science_ (1994?). Sorry not to provide a more complete citation, but I'm on my way out the door. Ed Morman Librarian Johns Hopkins Institute of the History of Medicine ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:04:08 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Lamarck At 11:47 21-11-95 -0700, you wrote: -----snip---- >To call evolutionary theory "religion" on the basis you offer is the >worst kind of nonsense, naive anti-science worse than I expected, and >just plain fighting words to me. >Lisa May be this (coming from another list) is relevant?: The controversy between "evolutionism" and "creationism" is still active in the background of the discussion on how to teach the right attitude towards science. It's a red herring: Do you know what it means when someone gives you his word? Certainly NOT that he gives you a book with facts on history and some prescriptions on how to live not to be punished. Giving one's word is making oneself and one's intentions clear, with the assurance that one can be trusted. In the Holy Bible God gave us His Word. It is a big mistake to take his bible for a holy Book of scientific revelations on history and pre-history. When you believe that, you make it a very unholy bible and it is quite unhealthy to read that book in such a way. On the other hand scientists believing evolution is a true theory, who do have the right tools to fight people who believe it isn't, do NOT have the tools to fight people who take God's word for it and put their faith in Him. When THEY choose to put their faith in science and be "evolutionists" they make a mistake as serious as the "creationists" who put their faith in a Book. In my opinion the difference between "belief" and "theory" on the one hand, and "faith" and "religion" on the other hand, should be clearly taught in school - but I understand that is unconstitutional in the U.S.A.. Is it strange that all kinds of weird and even dangerous religions and beliefs flower given this lack of education? Sorry folks, just my opinion, but I thought someone should say it - Arie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:04:28 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Fwd: Mad Science At 18:20 21-11-95 GMT, you wrote: >Actually, if you read that fwd message, I think that you find that it is a >joke, -------and quite a good one ! (?) Arie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 19:37:01 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "A. H. Brush" Subject: converging threads Interesting how two threads on this group came together. There may (or may not) be a lesson to learn. In the early '80s a particular aspect of avian behavior came to be called rape. It was first noticed in waterfowl, but was subsequently observed in other groups as well. Editors of various ornithological journals objected to the term as it implied motivation, intent and cognition on the part ofthe ma les which was not measurable or documented. Subsequently, the metaphor was dropped and the term extrapair forced copulation (EFC) used. A similar situtation met the use of the term divorce in those cases where mater, perhaps in a subsequent year or mating in the same year left the original mate for another individual. CLearly, they did not go through the legal steps of divorce. Metaphor in this cases is inapproperiate. Cheers, Alan ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 20:42:53 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rita Zurcher Subject: Re: SaC: Metaphor It's by >Nancy Stepan and Sander Gilman, and originally appeared in _Isis_ around >1985, I believe. It's been republished in two recent anthologies, >including Sandra Harding's _Racial Economy of Science_ (1994?). Sorry not >to provide a more complete citation, but I'm on my way out the door. The citation for the book: THE 'RACIAL' ECONOMY OF SCIENCE, Sandra Harding, ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:07:15 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: janet atkinson-grosjean Subject: what's wanted/ new thread/ reference Just to affirm that I, too, was hoping to find scholarly discussion on this list rather than hyperbole. I support the call for a moderated list. One of the best moderated lists is Psyche-D, moderated by Patrick Wilken. The archives of Psyche-D represent the best of current thinking on the science of consciousness. A new thread: More and more, scientists are reaching out to mass audiences. Often, books *by* scientists, about their work, reach bestseller status. What is going on here? I'd like to think there is a move to demystify science; a redefinition, if you like, of what constitutes *popular* science. Some may detect a return to science as natural philosophy, in which there is/was a role for the dedicated amateur. Today, even Nobelists write for the general reader yet the academy continues to denigrate *popularizers.* Does the trend indicate a new *turn* in science? Is science-for-the masses postmodern science? Comments anyone? The Stepan piece is Appropriating the Idioms of Science: The Rejection of Scientific Racism by Nancy Leys Stepan and Sander L. Gilman in The Bounds of Race Perspectives on Hegemony and Resistance, ed Dominick La Capra, 1991, Cornell U.P. (as well as in the Harding already mentioned.) Jan Janet Atkinson-Grosjean Graduate Liberal Studies Program Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre Vancouver, BC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 06:47:05 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Correction: set sci-cult digest Someone has kindly pointed out that in one of my postings (reflecting on volume of postings) I said that to get the daily one-message digest you should send the message send sci-cult digest. The correct message is set sci-cult digest. Sorry. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:16:35 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: re what's wanted/ new thread/ reference Janet Atkinson-Grosjean posted: >A new thread: More and more, scientists are reaching >out to mass audiences. Often, books *by* scientists, >about their work, reach bestseller status.What is going >on here? I'd like to think there is a move to demystify >science; a redefinition, if you like, of what constitutes >*popular* science. Some may detect a return to science >as natural philosophy, in which there is/was a role for >the dedicated amateur. Today, even Nobelists write for >the general reader yet the academy continues to >denigrate *popularizers.* Does the trend indicate >a new *turn* in science? Is science-for-the masses >postmodern science? Comments anyone? Perhaps this quote provides one perspective: 'The grand narrative of progress, where the development of scientific knowledge supposedly results in the emancipation of humanity, is most clearly associated with the project of modernity. Here scientific knowledge replaces myths, beliefs and superstition by discovering the 'truth' of the world. Science becomes the guarantor and route to truth and emancipation.The emancipation of humanity thus requires that people are given access to scientific knowledge, since the condition of their emanicpation is that they live subject to the 'laws' uncovered by science. ... the educational programme which is legitimised here focuses on primary education as a condition for initial schooling of everyone into science ... By contrast the grand narrative of speculative unity privileges higher education and particularly the university ... as sites for the production of knowledge ... The search for scientific knowledge is not disturbed by 'wordly' considerations; the state allows universities to produce knowledge 'for its own sake' in return for universities not interfering in the running of the state.' (Usher and Edwards (1994) Postmodernism and Education London: Routledge pp 172-173) What strikes me is - and I am not trying to be trite or anti-science - that with the increasing privatisation of education, and therefore the privatisation of access to knowledge, knowledge becomes something to be bought ... hence, over the last couple of decades, a demand has been created for populist interpretations of science ... perhaps first initiated in terms of marketing through television epics about the history of science (Bronowski, in the UK for example)... followed by the book in paperback form... such that the market for such populist readings is now not only huge but also one way in which we can buy into an 'educated' life-style ...construct an 'educated' identity ... differentiate ourselves by 'education' not class ... so, while this may be a new trend in science, it seems also to be an effect of wider social and economic change ... Andy ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:33:50 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: biochemical machinery -Reply In-Reply-To: <95Nov20.075521hst.11378(4)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > It is difficult to understand how mechanistic thinking continues to > persist in biology, given that it is 1) bad poetry and 2) bad > science. By 1) I mean that organisms do not even closely resemble > machines on aesthetic grounds (and I consider aesthetics to be the > electromotive force of evolution, not survival). > L: Bad science? How? Sorry I don't have time right now to do much > more reading such as the books you mention, could you, would you give > us a paragraph or two? > I don't have the book here with me, and I don't think I could really do justice to his arguments, but they involve examination of the nature of machines and a comparison with organisms in terms of chaos theory, open systems, historicity, trajectories, etc. Organisms are self-organizing and follow non-Newtonian trajectories through phase space. Machines are externally organized and follow newtonian trajectories. Entropy is a source of disorder and breakdown for machines, but is a source of organization for organisms. Yates calls his theory "homeodynamics" which is distinguished from homeostasis. Definitely not pomo. (BTW, the editors of the book are Boyd and Noble; Yates' chapter is a summary.) Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:56:41 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Mr B.P. Larvor" Subject: State philosophy In-Reply-To: <199511220021.AAA19964@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Arie Dirkzwager" at Nov 22, 95 01:04:08 am In the last mail Arie Dirkzwager said: > In my opinion the difference between "belief" and "theory" on the > one hand, and "faith" and "religion" on the other hand, should be clearly > taught in school - but I understand that is unconstitutional in the U.S.A.. > Is it strange that all kinds of weird and even dangerous religions and > beliefs flower given this lack of education? > Sorry folks, just my opinion, but I thought someone should say it - > Arie The trouble is, it's not clear. Which is not to say that there is no difference between science and religion, but it's not the sort of simple distinction that can be `clearly taught in schools'--in fact I doubt that it can be `clearly taught' anywhere. What can be `clearly taught' is some version of the science myth, but I don't think I'd want to call such `teaching' education. Grounds for this opinion: the history of philosophical efforts to identify the essence of science. If it were as simple as Arie seems to think, we call all have rested content with Popper. Brendan. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 07:24:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: biochemical machinery In a message dated 95-11-21 11:10:19 EST, you write: >Sorry, I have no citations, just experience (own and others). There has >also been an impartial evaluation of the Anthroposophic hospital in Sweden, >and it didn't say anything about 'sham', on the contrary. Bo, as you well know, personal experience is wonderfully unreliable. It's OK that you have no citations, though you do comment on the Swedish hospital, as if you do. I recall the French laboratory that claimed it had clear evidence that homeopathic medicine worked (or that supported homeopathic theory). However, when investigated by CSICOPP, their claims evaporated. Further, one of the lab workers was a secret believer in homeopathic medicine and had many opportunities to alter results. So, without any better information, I will continue to believe what many articles have taught me about homeopathy - a sham. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 07:24:43 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: definition of rape -Reply Lisa In a message dated 95-11-21 12:36:32 EST, you write: L: What are you talking about? Rape is not simple theft. The >rapist does not take some piece of property with him. I truly hope >you do not mean what it looks like you are saying here. "She has it" >and rape is "him taking it"??? Rape is not only _not theft_, it is >not _just sex_ either. > >BR: It is about self gratification, regardless of morality. It is >akin to pillaging in war, or to robbery, including white collar >crime. It's philosophy is: If I want it, I should have it. I think my above comment explains my meaning. We are a bundle of desires that impinge on us all the time. We are also socialized about how to express those desires. But the socialization process is faulty, and often thin - witness the number of people who would steal if they thought they could get away with it. War is an example, white collar thievery, another, and raping a woman another. Until rather recently, raping women was a fairly safe thing for a man to do. The only possible consequence was the so called "shot gun" wedding. > But why is _rape_ self gratification? Doesn't that term usually >refer to masturbation? "I want it" indeed. The term does not only refer to masturbation. It represents the gratification of an impulse that provides pleasure. Eating, smoking, writing, etc. Our society is woefully ignorant about how to train its children about how to manage pleasure. >I_ claim that wanting sex is _not_ the same as wanting to rape. It is certainly fair to make such a claim The only way that those two things become the same thing is in the >mind of someone who doesn't count her as a human with a will and >rights of bodily autonomy. All crime would seem to be of that nature. The white collar criminal could care less about the humanity of his/her victims, etc. We surely agree on that point. > Don't you know -- rapists in this culture often pass up sex with >obvious, available, willing, even loving women in their lives [not >even counting prostitutes] because they would rather _rape_. Some of >them even prefer to rape their wives rather than make love with them. > That is an interesting observation. It does not match with my experience in working with rapists. I must apologize for not having citations about this readily available. I packed my books for an impending move which now has been delayed until the end of January. If I can find it, I will report about research in the area. Bert Rothschild > > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:06:50 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: State philosophy X-cc: strijbos@cs.vu.nl At 09:56 22-11-95 +0000, you wrote: >In the last mail Arie Dirkzwager said: >> In my opinion the difference between "belief" and "theory" on the >> one hand, and "faith" and "religion" on the other hand, should be clearly >> taught in school - but I understand that is unconstitutional in the U.S.A.. >> Is it strange that all kinds of weird and even dangerous religions and >> beliefs flower given this lack of education? >> Sorry folks, just my opinion, but I thought someone should say it - >> Arie > >The trouble is, it's not clear. Which is not to say that there is no >difference between science and religion, but it's not the sort of >simple distinction that can be `clearly taught in schools'--in fact I >doubt that it can be `clearly taught' anywhere. What can be `clearly >taught' is some version of the science myth, but I don't think I'd want >to call such `teaching' education. > >Grounds for this opinion: the history of philosophical efforts to >identify the essence of science. If it were as simple as Arie seems to >think, we call all have rested content with Popper. > >Brendan. -------I agree it is very difficult to find ways to clearly distinguish between "science" and "religion" - to find a true "story" (myth?) about their systemic relation. To work on that (among other things) the deptmnt. of philosophy of the Amsterdam Free University opened recently a discussion list (phils-vu@nic.surfnet.nl) to host "Discussions on the Philosophical Bases of Managing the Information Society". Science and religion are important forces in society and to "manage" them it should better be clear what they are - probably we have to dive into the philosophy of science (starting from Systems Theory and Cybernatics?) Anybody interested is welcome to subscribe to this new list. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:40:36 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Popularisation of science On the question of why eminent scientists are writing popularisations, I think that there has been a change of rationale. There was a time when they did so as part of the role of wise person, accompanying their Nobel Laureateships. Sherrington, Medawar and Schroedinger come to mind. Nowadays, I think they do so as part of a public relations exercise under the banner of the (to me emetic) 'public understanding of science'. The people who do it are more likely to be hustlers than those in the previous generation. They are trying to re-establish the almost universal defrence to science which existed before the bomb, silent spring, Chernobyl, genetic engineering, etc. I also think that their uderlying approach betrays an implicit contempt for laypeople. I should add that I also think that some do so for the best of motives. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:03:33 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ed Morman Subject: SaC: Metaphor article by Nancy Stepan X-To: janet atkinson-grosjean In-Reply-To: <9511220537.AA15596@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> > The Stepan piece is Appropriating the Idioms of Science: The Rejection of > Scientific Racism by Nancy Leys Stepan and Sander L. Gilman in The Bounds of > Race Perspectives on Hegemony and Resistance, ed Dominick La Capra, 1991, > Cornell U.P. (as well as in the Harding already mentioned.) Well, this shows that even librarians can be wrong when they don't check their citations. "Appropriating the Idioms of Science" is the OTHER article by Nancy Stepan in the Harding anthology. It has little to do with metaphor, but is an excellent article. The one I meant to cite is by Stepan alone, rather than Stepan and Gilman. Here is a good citation to it: Nancy Leys Stepan, "Race and Gender: The Role of Analogy in Science," _Isis_ 77 (1986): 261-277. Reprinted in David Theo Goldberg, ed., _Anatomy of Racism_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992), 38-57, and in _The "Racial" Economy of Science: Toward a Democratic Future_, edited by Sandra Harding (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 359-376. Ed Morman Librarian Insitute of the History of Medicine The Johns Hopkins University ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:48:33 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noel Gough Subject: Re: "Future of this list" >A limitation of one response and one rebuttal might be made >before an argument is moved to private email. Anyone who >had a particular interest could probably write to the two >nattering individuals and ask to have copies of their further >disputations. Or form another list on that subject. I strongly support this suggestion. Noel Gough Contact details for 1 September-30 November 1995: Noel Gough MSTE Royal Bank Fellow Faculty of Education Queen's University Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada Internet: goughn@educ.queensu.ca (613) 542 6275 (home) (613) 545 6000 extn 7242 (office) (613) 545 6584 (fax) After 30 November 1995: Noel Gough Associate Professor Faculty of Education Deakin University 662 Blackburn Road Clayton Victoria 3168 Australia Internet: noelg@deakin.edu.au Telephone area code: 03 (International: +61 3) 9244 7368 (desk) 9244 7286 (messages) 9562 8808 (fax) 9836 8241 (home) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:23:56 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noel Gough Subject: Re: what's wanted/ new thread/ reference Janet Atkinson-Grosjean writes: >A new thread: More and more, scientists are reaching out to mass audiences. >Often, books *by* scientists, about their work, reach bestseller status. >What is going on here? I'd like to think there is a move to demystify >science; a redefinition, if you like, of what constitutes *popular* science. >Some may detect a return to science as natural philosophy, in which there >is/was a role for the dedicated amateur. Today, even Nobelists write for the >general reader yet the academy continues to denigrate *popularizers.* Does >the trend indicate a new *turn* in science? Is science-for-the masses >postmodern science? Comments anyone? Like McLuhan said of art, "popular" is anything you can get away with (with a little help from publishers' marketing departments). It's a cause for optimism that books like Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart's (1994) _The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World_ (New York: Viking Penguin) attract both "popular" and "academic" attention because they are not _just_ "popularizers" (in the sense that, say, Gleick is -- and I am _not_ denigrating science journalism). Science-for-the masses is not postmodern science per se but the current manifestations of science-for-the masses may be part of the conditions of postmodernity that make it harder for the academy to denigrate popularizers and to resist postmodernist cultural pressures to break down the Enlightenment legacies (in scientists' practices and rhetoric) of Eurocentrism, androcentrism... etc etc.. And a Good Thing too. Noel Gough Contact details for 1 September-30 November 1995: Noel Gough MSTE Royal Bank Fellow Faculty of Education Queen's University Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada Internet: goughn@educ.queensu.ca (613) 542 6275 (home) (613) 545 6000 extn 7242 (office) (613) 545 6584 (fax) After 30 November 1995: Noel Gough Associate Professor Faculty of Education Deakin University 662 Blackburn Road Clayton Victoria 3168 Australia Internet: noelg@deakin.edu.au Telephone area code: 03 (International: +61 3) 9244 7368 (desk) 9244 7286 (messages) 9562 8808 (fax) 9836 8241 (home) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:36:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Minnesota Joe Cleveland Subject: SaC: Popularization of Science The introduction to John Brockman's new book, _The Third Culture_ (Simon & Schuster, 1995) addresses this issue. He implies that, by writing to a general audience, scientists are reclaiming their place in society as intellectuals--a place usurped in the 30s by those who studied literature. Scientists have been able to reclaim this place (& I'm not sure how much of a hierarchy is at play in this "place") because, Brockman posits, "science" has become "public culture"--note that he doesn't say "_popular_ cuture." (What follows goes through what I've just written in more detail, quoting extensively from Brockman's book.) You are probably familiar with the book, _The Two Cultures_ by C. P. Snow (1959) to which Brockman's title refers. The two cultures Snow identifies are the "literary intellectuals" and the "scientists." "He [Snow] noted with incredulity that during the 1930s the literary intellectuals, while no one was looking, took to referring to themselves as 'the intellectuals,' as though there were no others," (17). "How did the literary intellectuals get away with it? First, people in the sciences did not make an effective case for the implications of their work. Second, while many eminent scientists, notably Arthur Eddington and James Jeans, also wrote books for a general audience, their works were ignored by the self-proclaimed intellectuals, and the value and importance of the ideas presented remained invisible as an intellectual activity, because science was not a subject for the reigning journals and magazines," (18). Brockman continues: (sorry for the lengthy quote, but it seems to the point.) In a second edition of _The Two Cultures_, published in 1963, Snow added a new essay, "The Two Cultures: A Second Look," in which he optimistically suggested that a new culture, a "third culture," would emerge and close the communications gap between the literary intellectuals and the scientists. In Snow's third culture, the literary intellectuals would be on speaking terms with the scientists. Although I borrow Snow's phrase, it does not describe he predicted. Literary intellectuals are not communicating with scientists. Scientists are communicating directly with the general public. ... ... The wide appeal of the third-culture thinkers is not due solely to their writing ability; what traditionally has been called "science" has today become "public culture." ... [18] ... The third-culture thinkers are the new public intellectuals. [19] Brockman's introduction continues with a short discussion by a group of scientists of these issues. Brockman would object that these "third-culture" "popularizers" of science are "talking down" to their audience. They _are_ writing to an audience that requires them to let go of some of their professional discourse--is this "writing down"? Does this approach betray "an implicit contempt for laypeople" as Robert Young posits? Are scientists responding to the public's desire to know? What does it mean that "what traditionally has been called 'science' has today become 'public culture'"? Everybody's buying computers? Brockman implies that it's public culture because the "change" that's happening in society is or is due to science and technology. (Or, maybe we should ask what it means that so many dissertations in the humanities recently are on "chaos"?) I'll stop here for now-- Your turn! Joe Cleveland jclevela@mailbox.syr.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:44:32 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: Popularisation of science But isn't this also reflective of a change in the status of scientific practice itself; of science's alignment with government and the military industrial complex? As foucault notes (and I get this from an essay on tactics of Bedouine women by Lila Abu Lughod) that shifts in tactics are correlates with changes in the operations of power. Depending on the public trough of course means depending (increasingly so) on the public and hence on organs of persuasion that may not have been *as* necessary previously. As for the arrogance of science, I think as the subject matter moves into more obscure areas, by which I simply mean areas that seem removed from the lives of those of us who aren't working in the labs, or are directy effected by disease X, Y or Z, as science works on smaller and smaller particles; on further galaxies; as this distance grows,and people will act to create popular, counter sciences (the rise of new age science, alternative medicines, et c.). Science is increasingly elite, and there is no clear separation between eliteness and arrogance. Finally, I've been haunted this morning, after reading the writings on the popularizations of science and popular sciences (homeopathy for instance) that what is at stake for most people outside of the sciences in re-writing science (as alternative practice, as popularization) is only partially a deeper understanding of particular phenomenon, but also, in the words of a Harvard physician (name escapes me) who recently became a patient herself, a hand resting on the wheel. --Matthew Bob Y wrote >On the question of why eminent scientists are writing popularisations, I >think that there has been a change of rationale. >There was a time when they did so as part of the role of wise person, >accompanying their Nobel Laureateships. Sherrington, Medawar and >Schroedinger come to mind. >Nowadays, I think they do so as part of a public relations exercise under >the banner of the (to me emetic) 'public understanding of science'. The >people who do it are more likely to be hustlers than those in the previous >generation. They are trying to re-establish the almost universal defrence >to science which existed before the bomb, silent spring, Chernobyl, genetic >engineering, etc. I also think that their uderlying approach betrays an >implicit contempt for laypeople. >I should add that I also think that some do so for the best of motives. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:04:37 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: SaC: Introduction and thought I'm in organization theory, a field I fell into after philosophy cut off my allowance. My interest in organizations has generally been in the way that they cut themselves loose from reality. They typically manage this by the social construction of the organization around a fantasy of its perfection, a fantasy I call the "organization ideal," which serves as the core of their ideology, or organizational culture. Recreation and preservation of this fantasy leads the organization to reject discrepant information, which makes the maintenance of the fantasy increasingly tendentious, leading to an increased rejection of discrepant information, and so on. As a result, the organization becomes incapable of coping in the world. An example of the way this works was provided by NASA when they launched the Challenger. Before this event, NASA had been having terrible problems with impingement of rocket exhaust on the synthetic rubber O-rings that sealed the combustion chambers. Now, this rubber loses its flexibility when it becomes cold, and this flexibility was the key to the O-rings' functioning. The night before the launch, there was a frost, leading the engineers to believe that the O-rings would lose their flexibility and the rocket, if launched, would blow up. They made their concerns known to NASA management, which treated their arguments as acts of insubordination. Near as I can tell, NASA management was acting within a fantasy of perfect NASA, which did not make mistakes. Having decided they would launch on that day, they were confident that their decision was correct, since they had made it. The results are well known. The idea of science as culture has a certain appeal to me, but there are consequences to pushing it too far. Synthetic rubber *does* lose its flexibility when it gets cold. I don't mind calling that a fact, and I say that the engineers were right to oppose the launch on the basis of it. NASA management made a mistake when they redefined it in terms of their own ideology. Somewhere in the gap between the engineers and NASA management lies a distinction between science and culture that needs to be preserved. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:22:55 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: Popularisation of science I'm reading a book now: Charles E. Rosenberg _Explaining Epidemics_ (Cambridge 1992) which is largely concerned w/ the 19th century, but which also treats the crises of professional legitimacy and how these crises are playing themselves out, specifically around issues of "stature" in re: to medical professionals, i.e. psychiatrists. I haven't read the entire book, so I can't yet offer a critique more thorough. And I'd like to point out, by way of useful segue (I hope), that some who have called for a moderator and a firm limit of two posts per subject have already contributed to *this* discussion, which has had quite a bit of play. And wherein there have been some ideas proffered possibly as problematic as those posted by some regarding the proliferating phenomenon of rape; for instance, Robert Maxwell's assertion that there can be a clear dichotomy assumed between scientists with "good intentions" who wish to disseminate "wisdom" (define please?) and those who want only circulation in the public sphere. Um, I don't hear anyone squawking about the need for censorship here. Though I feel a bit burned by the rape discussion--I do think the assumptions posted required address and I suppose since I feel that way I must garner the chastening from others who found the subject matter tawdry--I don't think a moderator is necessarily a good thing, and a two response limit on posts would be often counter- productive, I would say. The current discussion (on-going) re: the popularization of science is case in point. Gina Camodeca SUNY @ Buffalo ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:37:41 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noel Gough Subject: Re: SaC: Popularization of Science Reading Joe Cleveland's remarks on Brockman's _The Third Culture_ and Snow's _The Two Cultures_ reminds me that two other other works on science as "public culture" that might be of interest to folks on this list are: Broderick, Damien (1994) _The Architecture of Babel: Discourses of Literature and Science_ (Carlton: Melbourne University Press). Kuberski, Philip (1994) _Chaosmos: Literature, Science, and Theory_ (Albany NY: State University of New York Press). Broderick (who in addition to being a fine scholar working at the intersections of literature and science is also one of Australia's best science fiction authors and critics) provides an excellent reassessment and extension of Snow's work, while Kuberski is more resolutely literary. I've reviewed both books in the most recent issue of _Configurations_ vol. 3 no. 3, 1995, pp. 437-46. I can email a copy as an attachment if anyone's interested. Noel Gough Contact details for 1 September-30 November 1995: Noel Gough MSTE Royal Bank Fellow Faculty of Education Queen's University Kingston Ontario K7L 3N6 Canada Internet: goughn@educ.queensu.ca (613) 542 6275 (home) (613) 545 6000 extn 7242 (office) (613) 545 6584 (fax) After 30 November 1995: Noel Gough Associate Professor Faculty of Education Deakin University 662 Blackburn Road Clayton Victoria 3168 Australia Internet: noelg@deakin.edu.au Telephone area code: 03 (International: +61 3) 9244 7368 (desk) 9244 7286 (messages) 9562 8808 (fax) 9836 8241 (home) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:39:28 -0500 Reply-To: kbusch@island.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kim Buschmann Subject: Re: SaC-list conventions While I agree with those who found much of the debate on rape to be less than impressive , I disagree with the proposed curatives. I am not in the least interested to see debate curtailed by the notions of relevance as determined by an appointed/annointed moderator. I am quite capable of remembering those particular disputants and subject- headings from whom or about which I am no longer keen to hear. My DELETE button serves as a most effective censor. Limitation of postings to two per discussant per subject would , I'm afraid , inhibit the development of meaningful consideration. The medium is already one disposed to truncation , let us allow the possibilty of a progressive dialogue without arbitrary constraints on response. Those who persist in repetition or the idle slinging of epithet will , again , be introduced directly to my virtual trash bucket. In a good mood, Kim Buschmann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 09:48:24 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: Lamarck -Reply Arie, I don't see the connection to Lamarckism here. Do you think Lamarckism is a form of evolutionism? It's not clear to me what you're saying about creationism, i.e. what is your opionion of it, either. Lisa >>> Arie Dirkzwager 11/21/95, 05:04pm >>> May be this (coming from another list) is relevant?: The controversy between "evolutionism" and "creationism" is still active in the background of the discussion on how to teach the right attitude towards science... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:28:52 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: Evolutionary Anthropology I've appended much of John's post to the end of this for reference, because it's been several days since he posted, [although only two days since I read it.] BTW, some of my other current readings include Cornel West's _Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought_, Germaine Greer's _Sex and Destiny_, SciAm Oct article _The New Social Darwinism_, Engels' _Origin of Family, Private Property and the State, and a really great article on the pre-historic ecological destruction of Easter Island and the recent archeology done there, by Jared Diamond in Aug95 Discover, _Easter's End_. I also want to pick up some stuff recently recommended on this list. In return, I highly recommend Sarah Hrdy's _The Woman that Never Evolved_. It is a quick and readable treatment of female behavior and gender relations in other primate societies. The evolutionary implications are quite different from the male supremacist dreck which is rightly deplored. My point is Hrdy is not good because her results are "PC", she's good because she's doing *better science*. >>> John Giacobbe 11/17/95, 07:37am >>> Recently, Lisa Rogers (L) responded to a post of mine (J) with some interesting questions that I would like to attempt to address. J: My idea was primarily concerned with the development of a cultural mode, and I would state that from a scientific point of view, there was no clear event horizon after which culture and humanity appeared. ... I would consider that the possession of culture is not a human only behavioral pattern. ... Chimpanzees (among other "non-human" primate groups), display all the attributes that one would generally define as criteria of culture. I believe it not too much of an extrapolation to consider that our pre-hominoid ancestors displayed similar behavioral patterns... L: I do so thoroughly agree with this!! J: I am not familiar with the Boyd and Richardson approach, perhaps you could tell me about this. I have fashioned my ideas after many researchers in both the anthropological (Dunnell, Leonard, Kirsch, Rindos, et al.) and biological (Mayr, Dawkins, Suzuki, and a bunch of guys I can't remember now working on meme theory) fields. L: I'm one of those that crosses that division of anthro/bio. I'm in an anthro department, but in a biology-like program. I don't recongize the anthro names you mention, Mayr I know, Suzuki and meme stuff don't interest me, Dawkins' book _the Selfish Gene_ I enjoy very much [2nd ed's the best]. [Altho I'm sure Dawkins puts us all in the fire for those that hate mechanical metaphors...] If you read CA, you may have caught some stuff on foraging and on sexual selection and mating strategies, including some work with Ache and Hadza peoples, comparing them with the Kung by Hawkes and/or O'Connell [archeologist], Blurton-Jones, Draper, etc. A couple of key theoretical sources within biology would be Charnov, George Williams 1966, and Maynard-Smith. M-S wrote _Evolution and the Theory of Games_, applying "game theory" methods from poli-sci/econ to darwinian evolution. Any of that sound familiar? Boyd and Richerson have worked up a version of cultural group selection [I think it's a type of meme theory], that sounds similar enough to what you're talking about that you may want to take a look. I remember their first big thing, because we've worked out on it in classes. It was 1984, in CURR ANTHROPO, I think, and they've done more since. One of the key difficulties in this kind of thing for me is the distinction/ relation betweeen darwinian fitness and "cultural fitness", and between individual and group fitness. This is all highly problematic, and the first thing I look for is to see if this can be made clear. Of course, the point we may all agree on is that they are related, intertangled in some way, and the differences are about how to approach the problem and the various views/definitions of the issues. For the term "selection", it is important to be clear if one mean's it in the darwinian sense, of affecting differential rates of literal genetic reproduction, or not, whatever the source of the "selective pressure." This is my way of subsuming much that is "cultural" into a directly, individual-based, darwinian view. I mean, just because an "environmental factor" consists of the behavior of one's neighbors, that doesn't lessen the concrete effects upon one's darwinian fitness; it may have a bigger effect than food supply. Just as social status within a wolfpack determines whether any one wolf will breed each year. "Peer pressure" is exactly right! "Group selection" in a darwinian sense is bogus, as far as I can tell. Williams took care of that, marking the beginning of the neodarwinian revolution within evolutionary biology. Boyd and Richerson try to approach "cultural evolution" by accepting that limitation with respect to darwinian fitness of individuals only. They address the spread of ideas/behaviors [memes] as a result of "cultural group selection". This is one reason that they got a serious reading in my program: they didn't try to hang on to *group selection as a mechanism of biological evolution*. The retention of that idea, with the claim that it applies to humans if no other species, is a common problem I have observed in the social sciences. It also is confusing to me to use "fitness" in multiple ways, sometimes individual/biological, sometimes about survival of the "culture" per se. Some people distinguish between the survival of a meme or meme-set and the physical survival [including bio-reprod.] of specific people. Survival of the meme-set could occur by spreading to un-related [genetically] body-brains, while the original carriers/inventors of a meme become biologically extinct. That's part of Richerson/Boyd's gambit. But they also relate meme-survival back to bio-survival in some ways. I shan't try to say much more for them, it's been a while since I studied it up, and it's not the approach I have chosen to take in my own thought. Enough for now, Lisa John: About fitness, I would think we need to expand fitness from the biological Darwinian definition, somewhat along the group fitness lines. I would say that it is not contradictory, but that we are only changing the unit of selection from the individual to the culture group. Group selection theories put up red flags for many, so I hate to use this term, but it is clear that a cultural mode requires a group to succeed. There is no culture without the group, and that is its strength. Hence selective forces must act on the group, even supersede those acting on the individual. Briefly, I would define cultural fitness as the differential ability to access resources, capture energy, and survive as an intact cultural group. Fitness would be an environmental specific thing, and no developmental stages need apply. A group is fit for the local environment at a specific time, by being well adapted to survival in that environmental system. I would agree that you are right that the process of selection is not random, but its application flows from so many causal sources that it will often appear to influence cultural development in that way. That is the reason we see so much equifinality in forms that cultures take to deal with the same basic problems, such as subsistence, group organization, technology. So many minute factors are involved in applying the selective pressures that resulted in a particular form of cultural expression that it may appear to be a randomly applied force. ... that we must consider that although many selective forces are environmentally derived and survival-related, there are also selective forces that are applied from within a cultural system, such as sexual selection, exogamy and endogamy rules, tradition, conservatism, all those things that may not appear to ascribe any selective advantage with regard to biological fitness, but are none the less necessary for fitness within a given cultural system.. peer pressure! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:26:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Giacobbe Subject: Re: Evolutionary Significance of Science - Reply Redux Recently, Mark Gilbert made a suggestion concerning several posts to the list regarding evolution, science and culture, such that: > I thought John and Lisa's comments were insightful. But how > about something specific to the thread name. Science studies, > constructed/constructs the terminology and techniques, and > "discovered" evolution (careful there). But what about the return > move: how has evolution constructed or discovered science? I believe that I would respond by saying that evolution does not really act as an active force in anything. Evolution is really the post facto result of a set of environmental circumstances. Environmental conditions are set, and individuals live within them. Those individuals that are adapted well to these circumstances survive at a differentially higher rate than those with less efficient adaptive strategies. Evolution occurs as the result of selective forces, it does not direct those forces nor the adaptive strategies which deal with them. This may seem like a bit of semantic wrangling, but it is really at the heart of explaining the precess of evolution. With regard to Mark's question, I would take the tack that science is a part of humans adaptive strategy. It is clearly a particularly good one, as may be seen by humans' success at such things as population growth, adaptive radiation, energy capture, and clear ecosystem dominance. I would further suggest that science is really an extension of a basic adaptive mode that attempts to modify the environment through the application of technology. Science, from an evolutionary perspective, is a method of developing superior technologies. I realize we, as scientists, think it is a bit more than that, but as far as the process of evolution is concerned, that's all that matters, higher concerns such as the quest for knowledge for knowledge sake don't really matter. Evolution is only concerned with an organisms differential adaptive success. Well, I could go on, but perhaps I have given Mark and others a bit to chew on, and I invite comment on these ideas. Thanks for your time, John A. Giacobbe Western Archaeological Services, Inc. Catalinus@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:26:20 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Giacobbe Subject: Lamark - Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit Mark and Lisa are having quite a nice little row, and I hesitate to get involved, but what the heck. I think that Lisa is coming from the premise that, in science, we generally accept a theory until a better one comes along and refutes it. Lamark developed his theory (with its most well known premise that acquired characters are inherited) some time before Darwin came along and clearly refuted this notion. Researcher since then have generally found no evidence that acquired characters are inherited. This does not mean that those who hold with a Darwinian model of evolutionary processes are practicing religion by doubting other theories (and I don't think Lisa meant to imply that), but that there is no clear alternative theory that presents a substantial body of evidence to refute it. It is considered true because it has not yet been falsifiable, not that it could never be so. This is the difference between science and religion. You mentioned retroviruses, and they are a quite interesting conundrum, but I would caution against tumbling a 100 year old theory over these little buggers. Many virologists do not even believe such a expressive mechanism exists, and even those that do are not at all sure of the workings of the process. I'm not up on Cairns' and Halls' work with directed mutation, but this is still a generally unacceptable notion. How does the direction proceed? What mechanism directs the mutation? That is the key problem with Lamarckian notions. Darwinian evolution does not require an unknown mechanism to direct its processes, Lamarckian evolution proponents have never offered a credible explanitive model for this directive process. I think I still hear the beat of the blind watchmakers' heart. Thanks for your time, John A. Giacobbe Western Archaeological Services, Inc. Catalinus@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:33:26 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: SaC: Philately of Science (fwd) I didn't even realize it, but this is a thread that has been started on the HOPOS list; I thought it was part of SaC. Anyway, I posted it there, but since it is closer to the concerns of this list, I thought I would cross-post it here, where it fits better anyway. My apologies to those on HOPOS who have (I think) already seen it (it may not have even gone through--I got an error message and a confirmation message both. Who knows.) On Wed, 22 Nov 1995 cebik@UTKVX.UTK.EDU wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Will Wagers wrote: > > If your going to create a variable > > taxonomy like that, then everything is a branch of Chemistry. > > > > Will > > > Or alchemy. > > LBC Historically, it is possible to argue that, to an extent. I'm not up on all the science-from-magic-and-alchemy literature that has appeared recently, but one interesting book from Louis Dupre titled _Passage to Modernity_ (Yale, 1993) asserts the central importance of astronomy and alchemy to the historical appearance of modern science. Beginning with Pythagorus, there was been a mounting drive to separate the events in the heavens from the domain of earth. Dupre shows that separation did not finally take hold in Europe until the late middle ages with the triumph of nominalistic theology. Until then, the middle ages were dominated by the view that God was immanent in his creation; that the physical world was something of a second testimony to divinity, next to the scriptures. Hence the terms natural theology and natural philosophy. That bifurcated universe was uncritically accepted by the founders of modern science, e.g., Kepler and even Galileo. It was so much a given fact that it was a remarkable achievement when Newton reunited the heavenly and earthly under one systematic approach. But the motivation for that move may very well have come from astrology and alchemy (Newton was sympathetic to both). Anyway, to get back to the statement at the beginning here, Dupre writes, Too often the cosmology of the early modern age continues to be viewed as a prehistory of the scientific revolution as if there had been nothing between the Aristotelean world picture and the mechanistic one. Such a view overlooks a prolonged attempt to understand the universe through chemistry rather than through the laws of mechanics. Until the end of the seventeenth century alchemy developed side by side with mechanical physics as an alternative science (Dupre, 1993, p. 52). What alchemy and astronomy shared (and to a lesser degree, mechanics) was a belief in the interconnectedness of the cosmos. These two contending directions, the centripetal and centrifugal we might call them, remained in tension, until the centripetal gained ascendency along with the rise of modern science. The centrifugal might also be called transcendent, where the important governing principles are not part of the world, but in a domain that exists outside (and above) this world. Neo-platonism is one of the better known expressions of this tendency. On the other hand, a centripetal concern would try to concern itself with this world and to see its principles of operation as operating continuously throughout the rest of the cosmos. Interestingly, a centripetal commitment is characteristic of early nature-religions' forms of mysticism like the Dionysiac cult in Greece. They held to a complete unity of all existence: human, divine, animal, inorganic. Later Greek religion and philosophy brought about a progressive separation of those various segments, a segmentation that, for good or ill, structures our collective cultural "mental"-scape (hmm, couldn't think of a better term here right now...). Then various regulatory and empowerment functions were apportioned to those different segments, hardening their separation into an absolute difference. It took the transgressive efforts of magical-consciousness in the form of alchemy and astronomy to keep those boundaries permeable. Without that form of thought, science could not have benefited from the resurgence of centripetal thinking that marks the genesis of the modern age. best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:35:07 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: definition/anthropology of rape [my last word] This non-flammatory response to Bert I intend to be the end of my contributions to the "rape thread", as Bob Y. has asked us to chill it. >>> Bertram Rothschild 11/22/95, 05:24am >>> Until rather recently, raping women was a fairly safe thing for a man to do. The only possible consequence was the so called "shot gun" wedding. L: In this culture, I largely agree. A little farther back in time and in some other cultures this is not so. Rape was not "safe" because women had power, and others would defend and avenge them. In parallel with some modern patterns, those who were abused most were those without allies and relatives for defense and refuge, such as in a wife-beating culture like the Yanomamo of the Venezuelan Amazon. I suspect another factor is that in smaller scale societies, rapists are not anonymous, and women are seldom alone. L: I claim that wanting sex is _not_ the same as wanting to rape. B: It is certainly fair to make such a claim L: I'm glad we agree. L: The only way that those two things become the same thing is in the >mind of someone who doesn't count her as a human with a will and >rights of bodily autonomy. B: All crime would seem to be of that nature. The white collar criminal could care less about the humanity of his/her victims, etc. We surely agree on that point. L: Well... OK. But let's not miss the difference either. Difference being that a person's *will of their own body/self* is more of a core aspect of humanity than *possession of stuff/money* IMO. Plus, forced insemination has the potential effect of forced pregnancy/ birth, which is effective slavery, at very high cost to the pregnant one in every way. These are some of the reasons that I regard rape as not "theft", but an assault upon one's humanity itself, and human rights of self-determination. L: Some of them even prefer to rape their wives rather than make love with them. B: That is an interesting observation. It does not match with my experience in working with rapists. L: I think there is little research on spousal rape, only two small new books out when I read up on it in 1990, tho one was quite good. I don't recall a title, but they should pop up easily under subject= rape, spousal. There was a publicized case in the State at that time, and I got involved in lobbying to change the laws here. I can report that Utah did become the 47th state to outlaw spousal rape. [Embarrassing that it took that long to do it, but good that it got done.] Thanks for your sensible reply, Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:22:29 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: Organizational Culture: NASA Somewhere, Howard, I've seen an analysis of the Challenger disaster that made sense to me and is compatible with your ideas. It puts it in the context of a common organizational pattern wherein the top is surrounded and cushioned by layers of yes-people. This type of "corporate culture" is created by the continual promotion of the yes-people, those who never challenge the "ideal" or ideology, who always tell those on top exactly what they want to hear, in order to gain further promotion, etc. A contrasting type is created by the promotion of people who tell the hard truth, which creates a corporate culture that values safety, accuracy, etc. Now, NASA and such do not just "like" yes-people in a vacuum. The more that the person-carrying shuttle had cost-overruns, delays, etc, and the more people have been itching to cut gov. spending [in mostly the wrong places, of course] the more that NASA's special project, funding, raison d'etre, were being [still are] threatened. Hence, less and less tolerance/credibility for bad news, doubt and whistle-blowers. I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the present shuttle system is an extremely over-priced, ineffective program, but it is a giant pork project for a lot of powerful people who don't want the feed trough rocked. Some say that this was known "scientifically" from the beginning [the cost-ineffectiveness, plus danger in general], but NASA went for the shuttle with _pilot and passengers_ because it was thought to be very popular with the public, which might save NASA from being cut back big-time even then. So, there are economic/self-interest factors, acting through personnel practices, creating corporate "culture", which _claims_ a scientific and public interest basis for doing what is actually self-serving, at least in the short run. And of course, it can get away with this because...? Partly because people seem to respect "scientific claims" without actually looking at the "science" itself? To evaluate the validity of the claim? Or because the wealthy who stand to make money off NASA have enough clout with Congress to get what they want? Or both? Anybody else want to take it from there? Is this a good example of how some people want to be talking about relations between science and culture around here [on SaC] ? Lisa p.s. cold temperatures also caused the 0-rings to shrink, so they didn't fill the space that needed filling, i.e. they are gaskets >>> Howard Schwartz 11/22/95, I'm in organization theory, a field I fell into after philosophy cut off my allowance. My interest in organizations has generally been in the way that they cut themselves loose from reality. They typically manage this by the social construction of the organization around a fantasy of its perfection, a fantasy I call the "organization ideal," which serves as the core of their ideology, or organizational culture. [snipped for length, by lr] Somewhere in the gap between the engineers and NASA management lies a distinction between science and culture that needs to be preserved. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 15:55:59 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "S. Ravi Rajan" Subject: Re: Popularisation of science >On the question of why eminent scientists are writing popularisations, I >think that there has been a change of rationale=8A I find all the postings on this issue interesting and fascinating, but I wonder=8A are we in the wider community writing about science doing our job adequately? Let me elaborate on my specific concern=8A I recently attended a workshop on the Human Genome Project at Stanford where one of the scientist-speakers, Kenneth Kidd, speaking about the marginalization of ethical concerns in the Project, commented that "there are no rewards for ethics in science", implying that his peers were not going to reward or even recognize him in any way for the time he spends working on such issues. Having been a fan of Science as Culture for many years, I realize that a great deal of work has been done on the issue of accountability, or lack thereof in many areas of science. But could anyone on this list enlighten me on any project (undertaken by historians and social scientists studying contemporary science) to address the intrinsic institutional and disciplinary problems involving accountability, ethics and democracy in the structure of modern science? A project that engages with scientists, and ideally, searches for alternative institutional and democratic ways of re-organizing science? I have just come across Richard Sclove's new book, but are there others? If so, what are their approaches and outcomes? ********************************* Dr. S. Ravi Rajan Geography, 501, McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Phone: 510 642 0380 (o); 642 3903 (messages); 236 9998 (home) =46ax: 510 642 3370; E-Mail: srrajan@violet.berkeley.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 19:30:11 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Hamburg <71203.3312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: ethics & research S. Ravi Rajan describes a particularly apt cutting edge of the relationship between science and culture in his concern about the petty place ethics is assigned in ethically charged research. Rather than fuss so much about the ways in which scientific facts have absolute objective value, or about the extremes of constructivism where no fact can stand unchallenged, we might well look at the ways in which science blinds itself to its own impact on culture. This self-blinding in the name of freedom from values is itself inevitably value driven. Ignoring ethical questions means taking a particular ethical stand. Ignoring issues of power and meaning never makes them go away. How does one practice science responsibly? paul hamburg harvard university ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 02:48:52 -0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Danilo Curci Subject: Re: SaC: Popularization of Science I subcribed this list, but I haven't the time too read all letters: so, apologize me if my intro will be short - I'm an Italian medical doctor and a psychologist - and if I'll say something about this subject probably repeating what other people did yet write. I'm 47 years, and I was concerned with Science, Computer Science, Cognitive Science, and Phylosophy of Science many years ago, when I was a student, and also a researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Human Mind Simulation. Now, I forgot many things, and I think I'd be not able to contribute to the list with an enough high quality level. What I'm wondering, since a few years, is about the enormous difference, at least in Italy, between the interest of in a general sense on Science, its methods, its philosophy... (not, I think, its : I think that also if a religious background made the biggest scientists, the word Science begun to have a sense, and - also - a power, after Galileo ... I mean when it clearly distinguished and separated itself from religion: this fact had good and bad consequences, but I think that THIS is Science - a different question obviously, is for Culture) .... from twenty or more years ago. My generation begun and grew in an atmosphere of big enthusiasm for every new acquisition and conquest of Science and of Technology: for me, in that time, also Marx and Engels could be read as big precursors in many ideas of the contemporary Science-Culture, for example the challenge to the reason that the development of Computer Sciences (that begun in a phylosophical, more than in a technical way and context - and today I think that this fact is too often forgotten) was making to all rational human beings (Computer Science is for me on the opposite side of , also if many people believe the contrary). What is changed, now? I think that fear about techological disasters is not the right answer: I remember we were more terrified by the hypothesis of the than now; nazism and Hiroshima were nearer in the time. Today a lot of people write and speak against all, and act too (see terrorism), it seems completely without a scientific way to analyse situations. Is it the of the world situation that keep people far from science, or a big delusion because the best scientists and couldn't arrest the increasing confusion about the destiny of human kind ? I don't agree about the thesis that Science NEED to be more and more occupied to study even more little pieces of the reality: it wasn't true in the past (at times of Newton or of Einstein, nor of Watson and Crick). I think that Science is a piece of Culture that it can "dominate" in an olistic way just respecting its internal rules and philosophy: paradigmas change, also is sudden ways, but still are paradigmas, or models, that need a big deepness of thougth: so, perhaps, here again in a different way as believe, Science need time, it's slow in its understanding of our physical and mental space. Human beings seem do not let give it that time any more... Danilo Curci ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Danilo Curci MD - Medico Psicologo, Psicoterapeuta Via Plinio,74 - 20129 Milano (Italy) Tel.+39-(0)2-23 60 410. Fax.+39-(0)2- 23 60 410. e-mail: quadrant@iol.it ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 22:54:21 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Organizational Culture: NASA At 04:22 PM 11/22/95 -0700, Lisa Rogers wrote: >Somewhere, Howard, I've seen an analysis of the Challenger disaster >that made sense to me and is compatible with your ideas. It puts it >in the context of a common organizational pattern wherein the top is >surrounded and cushioned by layers of yes-people. This type of >"corporate culture" is created by the continual promotion of the >yes-people, those who never challenge the "ideal" or ideology, who >always tell those on top exactly what they want to hear, in order to >gain further promotion, etc. > Lisa, Sounds familiar. I think you may have run across my book (Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay: The Theory of the Organization Ideal, NYU Press), or across something written by someone who did. Rare, but it happens. >A contrasting type is created by the promotion of people who tell the >hard truth, which creates a corporate culture that values safety, >accuracy, etc. > >Now, NASA and such do not just "like" yes-people in a vacuum. The >more that the person-carrying shuttle had cost-overruns, delays, etc, >and the more people have been itching to cut gov. spending [in mostly >the wrong places, of course] the more that NASA's special project, >funding, raison d'etre, were being [still are] threatened. Hence, >less and less tolerance/credibility for bad news, doubt and >whistle-blowers. I think it is becoming more and more obvious that >the present shuttle system is an extremely over-priced, ineffective >program, but it is a giant pork project for a lot of powerful people >who don't want the feed trough rocked. > >Some say that this was known "scientifically" from the beginning [the >cost-ineffectiveness, plus danger in general], but NASA went for the >shuttle with _pilot and passengers_ because it was thought to be very >popular with the public, which might save NASA from being cut back >big-time even then. > >So, there are economic/self-interest factors, acting through >personnel practices, creating corporate "culture", which _claims_ a >scientific and public interest basis for doing what is actually >self-serving, at least in the short run. And of course, it can get >away with this because...? [snip] All of this is true, but what caught my interest in this connection was that NASA officials truly came to believe their bullshit. I vividly recall the press conferences NASA held after the explosion, in which reporters would ask whether this mistake or that mistake could have been made, and in which NASA spokespeople responded with the most sincere indignation, saying, in effect, "NASA does not make mistakes." My point here is that something was lost in NASA's culture. I'd like to call it reality, to claim that it has something to do with what science is, or ought to be about, and to say, finally, that if it could be subsumed under the category of culture, the Challenger would still be making regular orbits. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 01:04:31 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: Evolutionary Significance of Science In-Reply-To: <9511221930.AA05203@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, John Giacobbe wrote: > I believe that I would respond by saying that evolution does > not really act as an active force in anything. Evolution is really the > post facto result of a set of environmental circumstances. Well said! Too often we treat and talk about evolution as if it were the creative force that survived the death of God (which I think was finalized in the sixties, but I could be mistaken). Properly speaking, as John points out, evolution is a matter of differential--and I believe, comparative (i.e., "competitive"--but more on that below)--rates of survival in a given eco-niche. The eco-niche and its relation to the capacities or capabilities of the population in question are the determining factors, not some near-cosmic force called "evolution." By comparative I mean that part of the array of forces involved in the evolutionary process are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the populations resident in the respective eco-niche. Typically, the only aspect of this dimension that is considered is the competitive: "nature red in tooth and claw," as Darwin put it (or something to that effect). Wallace had a different model in mind, one much closer to a cybernetic idea; namely, the immediate environment--which included other populations--acted as a "governor" on a population: if it got too big it couldn't support itself in its domain; if too it had more room to grow, so to speak. In addition, I don't recall who now, but there have been a few evolutionary biologists who have called attention to the limitations of the tooth-and-claw model of evolution. They have pointed out that *cooperative* strategies have been at least as important, and likely much more important than competition in assuring an adequate rate of survival. Opportunism and being a good neighbor are likely to go much farther than general warfare or domination. Darwin was influenced, as many are likely aware, by models out of political economy that stressed competition over limited resources, where only a few can survive. I believe he also was influenced by the prevailing Hobbesian notion of nature being the war of all against all. > With regard to Mark's question, I would take the tack that > science is a part of humans adaptive strategy. It is clearly a > particularly good one, as may be seen by humans' success at such > things as population growth, adaptive radiation, energy capture, > and clear ecosystem dominance. I would further suggest that > science is really an extension of a basic adaptive mode that > attempts to modify the environment through the application of > technology. Science, from an evolutionary perspective, is a > method of developing superior technologies. On this count, you may be right; but given the two models of of evolution I sketched above, which is a better description of science: the domination and competition for limited resources model, or the cooperation and balanced adaptation model? Okay, so its a loaded question, but I don't think it's entirely unfair. While this may sound unduly critical, I don't mean it that way. Rather, I would like to stimulate some alternative ways of looking at this important issue. There are a lot of publications on the uses to which Darwinian theory has been put (many of them negative, unfortunately), but I won't try to go into those. I do think that evolution is the best model we have at this point for understanding many biological (and cultural) processes, but I'm not convinced we have the best model for evolution at this point. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 01:26:10 -0500 Reply-To: John Watt Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Watt Subject: Re: biochemical machinery >In a message dated 95-11-20 07:42:38 EST, you write: > >>e.g. homeopathic medicine within Anthroposophy. And this research produces >useful results! > >Can you produce some citations about homeopathic medecine that shows it >produces useful results? Everything I have read about it describes it as a >sham. > Homoeopathy certainly works with animals based on personal experience and on myself. Perhaps you need to look at another library? after all the drug companies would not want a competitor to work would they? For reference: Homoeopathoic books for dogs and other small animals. This list is not intended to be exhaustive - The Natural Remedy Book for Dogs and Cats by Dian Stein - The Crossing Press - ISBN 0 89594 686 6 NB: This book contains an extensive list of alternative practioners based in the United States. Dogs: Homoeopathic Remedies by George Macleod, MRCVS, DVSM - CW Daniel Company Ltd - ISBN 0 85207 218 X The Homoeopathic Treatment of Small Animals by CEI Day, MA, MRCVS, Vet FF Hon - CW Daniel Co Ltd - ISBN 0 85207 216 3 Homoeopathy - First Aid for Pets by CEI Day - Chinham Publications - ISBN 0 9520071 0 X Homoeopath for pets - by George Macleod - Wigmore Publications Ltd - ISBN 0 907688 00 4 A Veterinary Materia Medica and Clinical repertory ... by George Macleod - CW Daniel Co Ltd - ISBN 0 85207 257 0 Useful addresses: American Holistic Veterinary Medical Assn. 2214 Old Emmorton Road, Bel Air, MD 21014 - TEL 410 569 0795 International Veterinary Acupunture Socy. 2140 Conestoga Rd., Chester Springs, PA 19425 - TEL 215 827 7245 National Centre for Homeopathy 801 N. Fairfax #306, Alexandria, VA 22314 - TEL 703 548 7790 American Veterinary Chiropractic Assn. POB 249, Port Byron, IL 61275 - TEL 309 523 3995 Hope this helps john@dogcensus.win-uk.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 01:29:55 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought In-Reply-To: <9511221605.AA32541@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > They made their concerns known to NASA management, which treated their > arguments as acts of insubordination. Near as I can tell, NASA management > was acting within a fantasy of perfect NASA, which did not make mistakes. [snip] > The idea of science as culture has a certain appeal to me, but there are > consequences to pushing it too far. Synthetic rubber *does* lose its > flexibility when it gets cold. I don't mind calling that a fact Here we have the classic distinction between the world of *real* facts and the often illusory and untrustworthy world of human activity, especially political activity (and of course there are other unreliable and spurious activities humans conduct, but politics is a great whipping boy right now). If we can purify human reasoning by getting them to stick to the facts (via rational rules of thinking and analysis), well, voila! all will be well. Culture is the domain of sloppy, self-interested fluff, and science the exemplar of clear reasoning skills that works with and produces facts. Of course, it does make mistakes, but by and large it achieves a greater and greater match with the way things are (like what O-rings do in the winter). > that the engineers were right to oppose the launch on the basis of it. NASA > management made a mistake when they redefined it in terms of their own > ideology. Somewhere in the gap between the engineers and NASA management > lies a distinction between science and culture that needs to be preserved. Question: who staffs NASA management positions? Elected representatives put in office by constituencies with no awareness of what science is? Are these people -- i.e., the management -- with no understanding of what facts are (much less, science)? Were they so ignorant that when a fact as simple as what synthetic rubber does in the winter confronted them, it had no impact on their reasoning processes (assuming they had any). So off they went to send several people to their death and to blow up a few million (or was it billion?) dollars in hardware in front of a viewing audience of tens of billions. Wow. That's quite an interesting group of people you found there. Ahh, for the want of the ability to recognize a nice neat fact, we slaughtered some otherwise fine people in the skies over Florida. C'mon... mark gilbert..............................................| mgilbert@osf1.gmu.edu |Need to examine | MarkGil@aol.com |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| |..................................... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 17:17:48 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology- back to Burch Thanks for your reply, Mark. Here's more. >>> Mark Burch 11/22/95, 12:33am >>> ... organisms do not even closely resemble > machines on aesthetic grounds (and I consider aesthetics to be the > electromotive force of evolution, not survival). L: I forgot to ask you about this part. Aesthetics as the "force of evolution"? I've got to hear more about this. I've no idea how to begin to know what you mean by this. MB: Organisms are self-organizing and follow non-Newtonian trajectories through phase space. Machines are externally organized and follow newtonian trajectories. LR: Okay, fine, _no_ metaphor is perfect, or it would simply be an identity. ("Let me explain that photosynthesis is like ... photosynthesis." Not very helpful.) The usefulness of a metaphor is in its _partial_ _specific_ similarity to the process at issue. No? I mean, who thinks or claims that organisms are exactly like machines in every way? Nobody I know of [not that I know everybody...] MB: Entropy is a source of disorder and breakdown for machines, but is a source of organization for organisms. LR: This is very puzzling to me indeed. It seems a contradiction in terms. MB: (BTW, the editors of the book are Boyd and Noble; Yates' chapter is a summary.) LR: I'd like to take a look at it, but if you can, I'd also like your comments on my questions above. Thanks for reply, previous and future, Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:34:51 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Chris J. MacDonald" Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology- back to Burch In-Reply-To: <9511231449.AA04273@ethics.ubc.ca> On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > Thanks for your reply, Mark. Here's more. > > >>> Mark Burch 11/22/95, 12:33am >>> > MB: Organisms are self-organizing and follow non-Newtonian > trajectories through phase space. Machines are externally organized > and follow newtonian trajectories. > > LR: Okay, fine, _no_ metaphor is perfect, or it would simply be an > identity. ("Let me explain that photosynthesis is like ... > photosynthesis." Not very helpful.) The usefulness of a metaphor is > in its _partial_ _specific_ similarity to the process at issue. No? The claim that organisms are self-organizing might have two different meanings, that I can think of. As far as their *origins* are concerned, organisms aren't literally *self*-organizing...they do it within an environment and in a context of selection. The selective process helps them organize. (In this sense, machines go through the same process.) If you mean that an individual organism literally self-organizes within its *lifespan*, (to the extent that they gather food, metabolize it, grow, etc.) I don't see any reason why machines can't do this. Thanks, Chris. ________________________________________ Chris MacDonald, M.A. U.B.C. Philosophy Department and Centre for Applied Ethics e-mail: chrismac@ethics.ubc.ca WWW: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/~chrismac ________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:07:19 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: Lamark - If Nihil Fits, wear it In-Reply-To: <95Nov22.093117hst.11405(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Rather than natter on about Lamarckian theory, I will give a few citations and others can pursue the ideas on their own if they see fit. One is a review: "The Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics," by OE Landman, Annual Review of Genetics 1991 25:1-20. The others are reports of the mechanism for adaptive mutation: Rosenberg, et al. "Adaptive mutation by deletions in small mononucleotide repeats" Science 265:405 (1994). Foster, et al. "Adaptive reversion of a frameshift mutation in E. coli by simple base deletions in homopolymeric runs." Science 265:407 (1994). Also the comments on p.318: "A boost for adaptive mutation." There is also an article in Sci Am (March, 1993, pp. 122-132) called "DNA's New Twists" which details the many ways that the central dogma is eroding, including retroviruses, transposable elements, and directed mutations. My point here is that there is a growing body of evidence for something called adaptive mutation, and it has a specific mechanism. It is clear to many biologists, including such luminaries as Lynn Margulis, that Darwinian theory needs to be revised. What I think is more interesting and more relevant to this list, is why is Darwinism defended so vociferously and why are there so many misconceptions about it? (I once had an anthro prof who told us that "In 1898, Darwin proved the theory of evolution!) I think it has to do with the history of science. The evolution/creation debates spawned two polarized camps: Fundamental creationism and Fundamental evolutionism (i.e. Darwinism). Right now would be an excellent time for students of the culture of science to study the paradigm shift as it happens and observe the behavior of scientists as they react to the new information. Some will adapt, and some will remain in denial. It is somewhat analogous to the situation with NASA and the o-rings. There is an institution built up around Darwin that is rapidly crumbling. How long will it be propped up? Other interesting issues which have come up revolve around falsifiability. Lisa claims that hypotheses, not theories, are falsifiable. Who decides when an hypothesis becomes a theory and is no longer falsifiable? In its day, phlogiston was a theory with a body of evidence supporting it, yet it was eventually falsified. Thoughtfully yours, Mark _____________________________________________________________________________ On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, John Giacobbe wrote: > Mark and Lisa are having quite a nice little row, and I hesitate > to get involved, but what the heck. I think that Lisa is coming from > the premise that, in science, we generally accept a theory until a > better one comes along and refutes it. Lamark developed his > theory (with its most well known premise that acquired characters > are inherited) some time before Darwin came along and clearly > refuted this notion. Researcher since then have generally found > no evidence that acquired characters are inherited. This does not > mean that those who hold with a Darwinian model of evolutionary > processes are practicing religion by doubting other theories (and I > don't think Lisa meant to imply that), but that there is no clear > alternative theory that presents a substantial body of evidence to > refute it. It is considered true because it has not yet been > falsifiable, not that it could never be so. This is the difference > between science and religion. > You mentioned retroviruses, and they are a quite interesting > conundrum, but I would caution against tumbling a 100 year old > theory over these little buggers. Many virologists do not even > believe such a expressive mechanism exists, and even those that > do are not at all sure of the workings of the process. I'm not up on > Cairns' and Halls' work with directed mutation, but this is still a > generally unacceptable notion. How does the direction proceed? > What mechanism directs the mutation? That is the key problem > with Lamarckian notions. Darwinian evolution does not require an > unknown mechanism to direct its processes, Lamarckian evolution > proponents have never offered a credible explanitive model for this > directive process. > I think I still hear the beat of the blind watchmakers' heart. > > Thanks for your time, > > John A. Giacobbe > Western Archaeological Services, Inc. > Catalinus@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:32:49 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology- back to Burch In-Reply-To: <95Nov23.065259hst.11384(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> There is a huge body of literature on self-organizing systems, both popular and technical, which I assumed most people were familiar with by now. Here is a quote from Waldrop's book Complexity (p. 102): "...neither was Darwinian natural selection the whole story. Darwin didn't know about self-organization--matter's incessant attempts to organize itself into ever more complex structures, even in the face of the incessant forces of dissolution described by the second law of thermodynamics." In Kauffman's view, self-organization and selection are two opposing forces which reach a dynamic equilibrium that he calls adapting to the edge of chaos. While one may imagine a self-organizing machine, I have never seen an actual example of one. Here the spector of promissory materialism rears its ugly head. Mark _____________________________________________________________________________ On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Chris J. MacDonald wrote: > The claim that organisms are self-organizing might have two different > meanings, that I can think of. > > As far as their *origins* are concerned, organisms aren't literally > *self*-organizing...they do it within an environment and in a context of > selection. The selective process helps them organize. (In this sense, > machines go through the same process.) > > If you mean that an individual organism literally self-organizes within > its *lifespan*, (to the extent that they gather food, metabolize it, > grow, etc.) I don't see any reason why machines can't do this. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:45:30 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought At 01:29 AM 11/23/95 -0500, Mark Gilbert wrote: >Here we have the classic distinction between the world of *real* facts and >the often illusory and untrustworthy world of human activity, especially >political activity (and of course there are other unreliable and spurious >activities humans conduct, but politics is a great whipping boy right >now). If we can purify human reasoning by getting them to stick to the >facts (via rational rules of thinking and analysis), well, voila! all will >be well. Culture is the domain of sloppy, self-interested fluff, and >science the exemplar of clear reasoning skills that works with and >produces facts. Of course, it does make mistakes, but by and large it >achieves a greater and greater match with the way things are (like what >O-rings do in the winter). > Mark, What I take to be characteristic of science is not the way it gets things right, but its recognition of the possibility of getting things wrong, and the way it incorporates this recognition into its understanding of itself. What goes along with this is a willingness to recognize the existence of facts, even if it isn't always clear what the facts are or how they are to be interpreted. This is an ideal, of course. Actual organized science is subject to the same distortive processes as organized anything else. But ideals are important in the sense that they enable us to recognize deviations from them > >Question: who staffs NASA management positions? Elected representatives >put in office by constituencies with no awareness of what science is? Are >these people -- i.e., the management -- with no understanding of what >facts are (much less, science)? Were they so ignorant that when a fact as >simple as what synthetic rubber does in the winter confronted them, it had >no impact on their reasoning processes (assuming they had any). So off >they went to send several people to their death and to blow up a few >million (or was it billion?) dollars in hardware in front of a viewing >audience of tens of billions. Wow. That's quite an interesting group of >people you found there. Ahh, for the want of the ability to recognize a >nice neat fact, we slaughtered some otherwise fine people in the skies >over Florida. > >C'mon... > One thing worth noting about the Challenger case, and this sort of thing is quite common, is how well the facts were understood by the people who were working with them. The engineers associated with the rocket boosters were terrified when the shuttles were launched. There was something in NASA at the time that ruled those facts out of order. Whatever that was, it wasn't science. Calling it culture, mea culpa, certainly is too broad. Calling it narcissism might be too psychologistic. Whatever it is, it seems to me science needs to be distinguished from it, and possibly even protected from it. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 17:52:46 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Richard Cavendish Subject: SaC: Re: Pure maths >>Date: 22 Nov 1995 11:42:38 U >>From: "andrew pickering" >>Subject: Re: Pure maths >>The other day, I was forwarded a message from this listserv, in which a Mr >>Larvor wrote that, `I read a paper in which it was argued (more or less) >>that Hamilton developed quaternions for reasons to do with his being an >>Irish Tory. This paper is by Andrew Pickering in South Atlantic Quarterly, >>vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 417 - 466. Spring, 1995. It is reprinted in The Mangle of >>Practice >>Book by same fellow.' >> >>In case anyone was taken in by this, I thought I would mention that a causal >>connection between Hamilton's metaphysics (not his work on quaternions >>specifically) and his social position is posited in a 1981 essay by David >>Bloor which I explicitly CRITICISE in the works cited. See, for example, ch. >>4.6 of `The Mangle of Practice' (pp. 147-156). >> >>Andy Pickering ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 21:22:16 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology In-Reply-To: <9511231444.AA03173@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 22 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > LR: Okay, fine, _no_ metaphor is perfect, or it would simply be an > identity. ("Let me explain that photosynthesis is like ... > photosynthesis." Not very helpful.) The usefulness of a metaphor is > in its _partial_ _specific_ similarity to the process at issue. No? > > I mean, who thinks or claims that organisms are exactly like machines > in every way? Nobody I know of [not that I know everybody...] There's another way to consider the function of a metaphor. The two most common ways of understanding metaphor is as a substitute for a more complex or less intuitive description (e.g., "the atom is like a solar system"), not to be taken literally but only partially, and second, as a heuristic to teach essential concepts. The heuristic metaphor is left behind when the appropriate understanding is reached ("DNA is kind of like a blueprint..."). But there's another, more profound role a metaphor can play. Dan Rothbart, a philosopher, has argued a metaphor can function to establish the range of what is possible. What is possible is logically prior to what is. The metaphor involves the field in question, or the target, and it uses another, previously "alien" semantic field to restructure the sets of relations in the target field. The latter acts as a "donor." What it donates is the set of relations that determine the meaning of the previously alien notion to the field in question. What this means is the kinds of questions one asks, what one considers even to be possible, is different as a result of the restructuring. For example, a classic illustration of this point is when Newton was convinced of the viability of the wave model of optics over the corpuscle model. Wave behavior was well understood in harmonics, water, and sound. There are meaningful relationships and appropriate questions one asks in wave systems that would be meaningless in studying corpuscular systems. Indeed, what one thinks the phenomena are likely to do, what is possible, is different depending on whether an atomistic or wave model is presupposed. In other words, the questions the research will ask and what will seem to be useful avenues of research will differ. Both of these models began as metaphors. The corpuscular, or atomistic model, is inspired by the "billiard ball" metaphor of hard, elastic bodies that bounce off one another. The wave model is based on a metaphor of wave motion through a medium (remember the search for the ether?). On this version of metaphor, the metaphor is neither something we leave behind nor substitute for a more complex but accurate rendering. Instead, the metaphor will lay out the conceptual space in which we think of and explore the topic. Of course, some parts don't fit, like the ether in wave models of electro-magnetic fields. There are aspects of the metaphor that clearly don't carry over, important ones that do, and a few of which we're not sure (those are usually the interesting ones that help guide research). What kinds of conceptual commitments are entailed by the adoption of a machine or mechanistic (they are not the same thing) metaphor? And, BTW, an energy field model of DNA works great, and probably better than the static mechanistic model proposed by Watson and Crick's "Central Dogma." The former goes by the name of a "dynamic model of DNA" in the literature. best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:11:56 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Hamburg <71203.3312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: metaphors and machines Mark Gilbert looks at the power of metaphors to delineate (both in the sense of creating and limiting) a field of inquiry. he asks: <> i think this is a place where the relationship between poetic speech and the power of language becomes relevant. are there metaphors that barely make it as metaphor: they merely serve as sterile analogies, perhaps in the service of simplifying complex scientific concepts or for illustration. are there other metaphors that serve to open up thinking in a previously barred direction? what makes them different? what happens when metaphors are reified to the point where they mostly limit the imagination----perhaps this is the case with mechanistic models today. paul hamburg harvard university ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:18:36 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology In-Reply-To: <95Nov23.162609hst.11496(8)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Mark Glbert's comments were excellent. I will add that the mechanistic metaphor falls into the logical error of "extension transference" which is discussed at length in Edward Hall's book, "The Dance of Life." The machine is an extension of the organism. A machine is an imperfect organism, not the other way around. It is easier to uderstand machines, because they are less complex. Once we understand a machine, we apply that understanding to the organism, and in so doing, we reduce the complexity of the organism to that of the machine. This is destructive to our understanding of the organism, and ultimately, to the organism. The same thing is happening with studies of the brain and intelligence. The computer is an extension of the brain. It is illogical to study the brain as if it were a computer, because the brain is of a different logical type, having engendered the computer. Although the brain carries out computer-like functions such as computation, much of what the brain does is irreducible to computation. To view such things as feeling and intuition as varieties of computation is to do violence to humanity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 18:21:24 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: the machine metaphor Paul Hamburg posted: >i think this is a place where the relationship between poetic speech and the >power of language becomes relevant. are there metaphors that barely make it as >metaphor: they merely serve as sterile analogies, perhaps in the service of >simplifying complex scientific concepts or for illustration. are there other >metaphors that serve to open up thinking in a previously barred direction? >what makes them different? what happens when metaphors are reified to the >point wherethey mostly limit the imagination----perhaps this is the case with >mechanistic models today. Metaphors can be seen as a means of 'imaginative rationality' (in Lakoff and Johnson's sense) acting as a bridge between what we believe we know or accept as true, and what we imagine is possible. Where what we imagine is possible maps largely onto what we accept as true, the metaphor can quickly become 'sterile' and, in a sense, opaque, because it will fit so closely with what we know of the world, and not point the way to discovering something new. It leaves little to be revealed, in short. (I think this is what Mark Gilbert meant too.) So, in a sense, the question 'are there other metaphors that serve to open up thinking in a previously barred direction?' can only be answered 'yes', but what they are is a question of both power and imagination. 'What makes them different?' They reach parts of our imagination that other metaphors can't reach ? Or is it that the metaphors we choose are impoversihed from the beginning because they are often taken from the world created by humans (machines, computers, for example, and therefore subject to technological innovation and displacement) ? Mark Burch posted on the same topic: >It is illogical to study the brain as if it were a computer, because the brain is >of a different logical type, having engendered the computer. But if it's illogical why has the computer metaphor been so pervasive in cognitive psychology and learning theories ? Or rather why have so many scientists been using the metaphor ? How/why does a metaphor get replaced ? Andy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 12:13:20 GMT+2 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Marko Toivanen Subject: BOURDIEU - Discussion of Pierre Bourdieu's philosophy and sociology A N N O U N C I N G B O U R D I E U - DISCUSSION OF PIERRE BOURDIEU'S PHILOSOPHY AND SOCIOLOGY BOURDIEU is an electronic forum for discussion and debate inspired by the philosophical and sociological thought of Pierre Bourdieu. BOURDIEU is an open list - all interested parties are invited and encouraged to take part in posting and discussion. All topics related to the thought of Pierre Bourdieu are relevant for discussion on this list. In order to give an opportunity to a larger audience this list will be bilingual - discussions can be either in English or in French or in both. For more information, send the following command as an e-mail message to majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu info bourdieu To subscribe bourdieu, send the following command as an e-mail message to majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu subscribe bourdieu Discussions approriate for this list include among other themes the following: -Bourdieu and the classical sociology (e.g. Marx, Durkheim, Weber) -Bourdieu in the field French and international philosophy and sociology -Bourdieu and the critical theory -Bourdieu's study on education -Bourdieu and structuralism/poststructuralism -Bourdieu and masculine domination -Bourdieu and feminism -Bourdieu and politics -Bourdieu and anthropology (kinship, ritual, etc.) -Bourdieu and body (embodiment) -Bourdieu and arts (literature, painting, etc.) -Bourdieu and philosophy -Bourdieu as a "public scribe" -Autonomy, role and commitment of intellectuals in society -Theory and methodology in social sciences -The status of sociology and sociologists in society -Power use and abuse in academia -Cultural, social, symbolic capitals -Habitus and social classes -Symbolic violence ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 10:52:02 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: OK topics Tim Smith wrote Nov. 20 to the list Science_as_Culture that rape: > . . . is a good discussion for this group. Our society seems > more and more willing to make judgements on sparce information, nearly > by reflex. People with a background in science hopefully can encourage > a more rigorous weighing of facts and not be driven by mass > indignation and the press. I don't see rape as a good discussion, because of both method and content. The methods and content of "science" are sufficiently agreed that there is not much disagreement about science_as_culture -- even while we agree that the bounds of culture are infinitely elastic and there is no consensus about the best methods of discussing culture undefined. While glad to learn, I do not see the dialectics of rape as integral to either science or culture, let alone science_as_culture. The expectation that "people with a background in science hopefully can encourage a more rigorous weighing of facts" is ancient and honourable. It is found in the 19th century, when people from Le Play to Marx believed "scientific method" was sort of universal tool kit, that could be profitably directed at anything to make a science of it -- e.g. political science, domestic science, sciences of the mind, sexual behavior, crime, etc. Twentieth century Marxists made it a theoretical argument against tradition and democracy alike, arguing that "scientific socialism" offered genuine expertise about politics and human happiness, just as physics possesses more expertise about gravity and atoms than uneducated or unaided folklore. Unfortunately this common-sense expectation has failed twice over. Despite all their claims of "rigor," many of the social sciences founded a century ago have failed to find the solid knowledge they expected. The social sciences attempted to emulate the best current natural sciences, but failed to achieve similar results in either theoretical knowledge or practical utility. One reason may be fundamental differences between either the two types of knowledge available (in the natural and social sciences) or the two types of professional researcher. The most obvious sign of difference is that, despite a series of disputes and revolutions in thought, the natural sciences have converged successfully on unanimous beliefs: but the social sciences appear to diverge rather than converge. There are nowadays many more theories of mind, culture and behavior than ever before in history, many directly contradicting each other in their fundamentals, and none winning universal assent. An amusing result is that, at bottom (for example), Freudians are sincerely convinced Structuralists are a waste of space and vice versa: but this has not prevented their negotiating "peaceful coexistence" within particular institutions, and presenting a "common front" to defend the social sciences en bloc against criticism. The most obvious failure is that most social sciences aim at practical improvements in human life -- and after a century's effort cannot claim success anything like the physical sciences'. (Criminology is the obvious example. In the century since criminology was recognized as a "social science" it has not "discovered" anything that would surprise the intelligent layman, and its effects on either the incidence of crime or society's handling of criminals is indistinguishable from zero.) All this suggests that expecting "people with a background in science hopefully can encourage a more rigorous weighing of facts" is not supported by actual experience. (I do not mean to suggest no social sciences have discovered anything at all. Our civilization has been enriched by scores of new concepts, of which one is the practice of scrutinizing all supposedly intellectual proposals for evidence that they are covert bids for power. The proposition that citizens possessing "scientific method" deserve more authority than other citizens (e.g. when discussing social problems like rape) looks to me like such a disguised bid for power.) -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 16:56:35 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: the machine metaphor At 18:21 24-11-95 +0900, you wrote: ----snip------ >So, in a sense, the question 'are there other metaphors that serve to open up >thinking in a previously barred direction?' can only be answered 'yes', but >what they are is a question of both power and imagination. > >'What makes them different?' > --------I may point to the work of a Dutch philosopher H.Dooyeweerd ("A new Critique of Theoretical Thought") who distinguishes 15 modalities of functionality in reality each the field of a specific science. These modalities are related a.o. by showing analogies (metaphors) between one and another modality: we can apply arithmetic to measuring distances in geometrical space, not because distances are arithmetical numbers, but because there is an analogy between the field of arithmetics and the field of geometry. This goes up to the higher modalities: we may fruitfully distinguish "social space" or "space of ethics", both different from, but analogical to, geometrical space. The valid metaphors are to be found in reality, not in our imagination, although observation and imagination play their role in finding those powerful metaphors. If you think this too much philosophy for this list we may swith to another list, the one on "Philosophical bases of Managing the Information Society" for instance (Each "society" has its "culture" and "science" is part of it. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:39:55 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: Org-Cult: lies/sincerity This is a puzzle I've noticed before: how can people come to "sincerely believe" things that are obviously unreal to the rest of us? And how can we tell if one is really sincere or just a good liar, or does that sometimes amount to the same thing? Perhaps the best liar is one who is able to make some mental leap or gap, to actually believe one's own lies. Which implies some kind of mental compartmentalization or something like that as a mechanism, plus some incentive/motivation for doing so. Of course, one can use underlings and hirelings, such as the spokester for Shell, for instance, commenting on the recent Nigerian execution of ecological activists. He appeared so thoroughly sincere it was sickening to those who know and suspect some of the truth. But he didn't necessarily know or need to know what Shell is really up to, he's just a hired face. So much the better for him to be kept in the dark, so he can do more convincing PR. >>> Howard Schwartz 11/22/95, ... what caught my interest in this connection was that NASA officials truly came to believe their bullshit. I vividly recall the press conferences NASA held after the explosion, in which reporters would ask whether this mistake or that mistake could have been made, and in which NASA spokespeople responded with the most sincere indignation, saying, in effect, "NASA does not make mistakes." ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 02:06:42 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: sci cult #1 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 10:52:02 -0500 From: Donald Phillipson Subject: OK topics To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Tim Smith wrote Nov. 20 to the list Science_as_Culture that rape: > . . . is a good discussion for this group. Our society seems > more and more willing to make judgements on sparce information, nearly > by reflex. People with a background in science hopefully can encourage > a more rigorous weighing of facts and not be driven by mass > indignation and the press. I don't see rape as a good discussion, because of both method and conten t. The methods and content of "science" are sufficiently agreed that there is not much disagreement about science_as_culture -- even while we agree that the bounds of culture are infinitely elastic and there is no consensus about the best methods of discussing culture undefined. While glad to learn, I do not see the dialectics of rape as integral to either science or culture, let alone science_as_culture. The expectation that "people with a background in science hopefully can encourage a more rigorous weighing of facts" is ancient and honourable. It is found in the 19th century, when people from Le Play to Marx believed "scientific method" was sort of universal tool kit, that could be profitably directed at anything to make a science of it -- e.g. political science, domestic science, sciences of the mind, sexual behavior, crime, etc. Twentieth century Marxists made it a theoretical argument against tradition and democracy alike, arguing that "scientific socialism" offered genuine expertise about politics and human happiness, just as physics possesses more expertise about gravity and atoms than uneducated or unaided folklore. Unfortunately this common-sense expectation has failed twice over. Despite all their claims of "rigor," many of the social sciences founded a century ago have failed to find the solid knowledge they expected. The social sciences attempted to emulate the best current natural sciences, but failed to achieve similar results in either theoretical knowledge or practical utility. One reason may be fundamental differences between either the two types of knowledge available (in the natural and social sciences) or the two types of professional researcher. The most obvious sign of difference is that, despite a series of disputes and revolutions in thought, the natural sciences have converged successfully on unanimous beliefs: but the social sciences appear to diverge rather than converge. There are nowadays many more theories of mind, culture and behavior than ever before in history, many directly contradicting each other in their fundamentals, and none winning universal assent. An amusing result is that, at bottom (for example), Freudians are sincerely convinced Structuralists are a waste of space and vice versa: but this has not prevented their negotiating "peaceful coexistence" within particular institutions, and presenting a "common front" to defend the social sciences en bloc against criticism. The most obvious failure is that most social sciences aim at practical improvements in human life -- and after a century's effort cannot claim success anything like the physical sciences'. (Criminology is the obvious example. In the century since criminology was recognized as a "social science" it has not "discovered" anything that would surprise the intelligent layman, and its effects on either the incidence of crime or society's handling of criminals is indistinguishable from zero.) All this suggests that expecting "people with a background in science hopefully can encourage a more rigorous weighing of facts" is not supported by actual experience. (I do not mean to suggest no social sciences have discovered anything at all. Our civilization has been enriched by scores of new concepts, of which one is the practice of scrutinizing all supposedly intellectual proposals for evidence that they are covert bids for power. The proposition that citizens possessing "scientific method" deserve more authority than other citizens (e.g. when discussing social problems like rape) looks to me like such a disguised bid for power.) -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 02:14:58 +0900 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andrew Barfield Subject: apology Sorry, the previous message was a mis-posting by me as I was copying Donald Phillipson's message. No scrutiny intended! Andy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 10:16:18 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: Lamarck -Reply No way am I taking this offlist, Mark. I think a discussion of neo-lamarckism is exactly appropriate here. Others have commented on it already, and I'm sure we're not boring yet. Others can say so when they think so. And your own [recent and so far private] post ain't looking so non-flammatory yourself, dear kettle. Me, a new convert to darwinism? You must have forgotten my intro. But that's beside the point. I'd rather focus on the content of your argument against darwinian evolution. If it has already been "falsified", well, I would like to know, so I can set about changing the state of biology and all its relations. If I can make an argument about it that is sufficiently supportable, you may have just handed me a dissertation topic. I'll be as famous as Darwin, it'll be the great synthesis in reverse. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 13:14:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Sac, Re: metaphors in science In-Reply-To: <9511241559.AA07845@osf1.gmu.edu> In a direct e-mail, Bo asked about references for Dan Rothbart, a philosopher I mentioned in one of my recent posts. I thought maybe some others might be interested, so I'll make this available to the list.On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Bo Dahlin wrote: > I am interested in the reference to the philosopher Dan Rothbart you made. > Can you send me the details? Sure, Bo. I don't have all the references to his publications with me here, so what I'll do is forward your request on to him. By way of more biographical info, he is a philosopher of science with an interest in modeling, in particular, analogical modeling. It's from that area I took the ideas I mentioned in the last post. He is working in the rather well developed field of metaphor theory in analytic philosophy, in which a number of good publications have appeared. A couple that are especially good, and that I know Rothbart uses, are Eva Kittay's _Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Structure_ (Clarendon, 1987), and George Lakoff's _Woman, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind_ (Chicago, 1987). Some of the other important authors include Max Black, Mary Hesse and Paul Ricoeur (okay, not all of them are in the analytic tradition). One of Rothbart's older publications is "The Semantics of Metaphor and the Structure of Science," _Philosophy of Science_, 51 (1984) pp. 595-615. He has a book that is due out soon on modeling. Unfortunately, the rest of his papers that I have seen are pre-publication drafts, so I don't see where they end up. Like I said, I'll forward this on for that info. mark gilbert ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 13:43:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology In-Reply-To: <9511240821.AA01232@osf1.gmu.edu> On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Mark Burch wrote: > the mechanistic > metaphor falls into the logical error of "extension transference" which > is discussed at length in Edward Hall's book, "The Dance of Life." > The machine is an extension of the organism. A machine is an imperfect > organism, not the other way around. It is easier to uderstand machines, > because they are less complex. Once we understand a machine, we apply > that understanding to the organism, and in so doing, we reduce the > complexity of the organism to that of the machine. This is destructive to > our understanding of the organism, and ultimately, to the organism. It sounds like "extension transference" is simlar to what Mary Hesse, a philosopher who was at the London School of Economics, called a "negative analogy." In a metaphoric transfer, some features of the donor field are the basis of (or perhaps "inspire"?) the transfer itself, some features clearly do not carry over -- the negative analogies -- and some are unknown -- neutral analogies. The status of the negative and positive analogies are assumed to be correct, so all of the interesting work occurs in the neutral range. Specifically, what is the status of the currently neutral analogies; how do we transform the neutral into positive or negative analogies? I would assume the extension transference would be a neutral analogy because the relative complexity of the machine to organism would not be the feature that would logically drive the specific choice here (although it is certainly a general pragmatic consideration). So what should have been taken to be a negative analogy was classified as positive. Now if I understand you here, you are claiming that Hall is saying what I am terming a misclassification is a "logical error." That may be, but it's not clear to me that your explanation shows that. The reason I say that is that the attempt to reduce complexity via models and metaphors is not in itself a logical error. In a model the goal is to capture the important elements of the system and the important relations into which those elmements enter. By definition, the rest would be, in principle, irrelevent or unimportant for the purposes to which the model is being used. So, the reduction of complexity is a benefit to be sought, on this argument. Frankly, I'm sympathetic to your argument in general, but I'm not sure this is the way to get at the problem. What do you think? mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 14:01:13 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: unity / difference in universe/our understanding thereof thread I have noticed the "segmentation" and over-separation between fields/ subjects of study, such as reflected/shaped by the divisions of a university into departments. In this scientist's view, everything is interconnected, there is unity, common principles etc. uniting human and other species, earthly with astronomical and so on. Perhaps the difference between science and alchemy or whatever is the nature of or content of those unifying principles. I.E. "interconnected" in what way exactly? To agree to interconnection seems a beginning point for a discussion. To me, divisions between fields are or should be pragmatic, a matter of usefulness and convenience, of service to the workers that produce within them and to society at large. I'm not aware of a fundamental distinction between, say, physics and chemistry as ways to view the world today, such as Mark Gilbert [I think] alluded to in the 19th century. Do you think something like this is still going on? An over-separation between fields is often harmful to science itself, even in terms of its own ideals, as people end up duplicating effort, in-fighting and exaggerating small differences in point of view, rather than integrating and building upon. Of course, this "deviation from principles" is partly due to things like competition for departmental prestige, promotion and funding. (Part of the "culture of science" i.e. culture within "scientific establishment"?) >From this level of abstraction, and in addition to a history/ philosophy approach, I would like to see next some concrete analysis of a specific, current issue, in terms of universal principles / theoretical divides / "absolute difference" between fields. Anybody got one we could work out on? And Gilbert, does this make sense to you in context of your post? Lisa >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/22/95, 12:33pm >>> ...What alchemy and astronomy shared (and to a lesser degree, mechanics) was a belief in the interconnectedness of the cosmos. [snip] Interestingly, a centripetal commitment is characteristic of early nature-religions' forms of mysticism like the Dionysiac cult in Greece. They held to a complete unity of all existence: human, divine, animal, inorganic. Later Greek religion and philosophy brought about a progressive separation of those various segments, a segmentation that, for good or ill, structures our collective cultural "mental"-scape (hmm, couldn't think of a better term here right now...). Then various regulatory and empowerment functions were apportioned to those different segments, hardening their separation into an absolute difference. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 12:54:59 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: SaC: biological complementarities In-Reply-To: <95Nov24.071810hst.11337(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Our debates about Darwinian/Lamarckian evolution and mechanistic/organic metaphors reminds me of the particle/wave duality from physics. Here is my rubric: Darwin Lamarck random mutations acquired characteristics mechanism organism particle wave digital analog The wisdom of dialectical constructivism will allow us to recognize that evolution has both random and non-random elements. Actually I really like Dobzhansky's comment that "Life is the result of neither chance nor necessity. It is the result of pattern interacting with itself." Then there is Anatole France: "Chance is the signature God uses when he doesn't want to sign his own name." Actually one way to accomodate Cairnsian mutation into a Darwinian/Lamarckian synthesis is to say that under conditions of stress, an organism can enter into a hypermutable state, in which random mutations are produced at a much faster rate and the environment selects which ones survive. This is still natural selection, it is just enhanced under certain conditions. Others are saying, no the organism creates certain favorable mutations by specific mechanisms because it somehow knows which mutation is needed. This is, understandably, hard for many scientists to swallow. We can also recognize that organisms have both mechanistic and organic characteristics, and probably other elements we don't recognize. In some ways, an organism is like a very well designed machine; in other ways, it is a gooey sticky messy vibrating glob of stuff. Life is very multidimensional. When we create a metaphor, we select one of those dimensions to simplify and better understand something which is initially too complex to understand. This is fine, but I think it is important to return to the source and reevaluate the success of the metaphor. What often happens is that we forget that we created a metaphor and we study the metaphor rather than the original. The mistake of studying the metaphor exclusively and forgetting about the original is what I mean by "extension transference." I know that this happens quite frequently in science. But, the map is not the territory, etc. etc. The universe is chaotic, and "order is the chaos we befriend." I find it rather paradoxical that science, which seems to emphasize determinism in most things, resorts to randomness for the basis of genetic change. Or is it environmental determinism (selection of the phenotype by the environment) rather than individual determinism (an autonomous organism directing evolution by its own experience)? In everything I have studied in biochemistry, all the systems are very tightly regulated. There is nothing left to chance, except the reliance upon diffusion of chemical substances. Yet, when you get to the mechanism of genetic change, most scientists I know get very uncomfortable with the idea that there is any endogenous control to it. Why is this? I think that it has to do again with the history of the evolution/creation debates. Science had to topple a theocracy in order to attain political ascendancy and access to social resources. Implicit in the notion of nonrandom evolution is the idea that God is controlling it all. This idea had to be inverted, to place control in the hands of chance, rather than necessity. Mark ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 18:51:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought In a message dated 95-11-22 11:09:03 EST, you write: > They made their concerns known to NASA management, which treated their >arguments as acts of insubordination. Near as I can tell, NASA management >was acting within a fantasy of perfect NASA, which did not make mistakes. >Having decided they would launch on that day, they were confident that their >decision was correct, since they had made it. The results are well known. Isn't another explanation that it was a political decision based on their fear of embarrassing Reagan? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 17:36:25 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: Lamarck / Darwin I'm offline weekends, so you'll all be spared my relentless pursuit of this thread until Monday, at least. I'm trying to keep the subject lines thoroughly current and accurate, the easier to read or delete un-read. >>> Mark Burch 11/23/95, 12:07pm >>> Right now would be an excellent time for students of the culture of science to study the paradigm shift as it happens and observe the behavior of scientists as they react to the new information. Some will adapt, and some will remain in denial. It is somewhat analogous to the situation with NASA and the o-rings. There is an institution built up around Darwin that is rapidly crumbling. How long will it be propped up? Lisa: Stay tuned to "observe the behavior" of this particular scientist. Burch [and I must call you that to distinguish from Mark Gilbert] Burch has already alluded to a conciliation of Darwin and "Lamarck" in his post after this one. That is somewhat in the direction I was planning to go, but I think he gives far too much credit to Lamarck. I expect that "directed" mutations and such are easily accommodated within darwinian theory. One need only ask where did these molecular mechanisms come from? Probably they are a result of darwinian natural selection, of course. They obviously give an individual a reproductive advantage over individuals without it, under some circumstances. Does not the existence and operation of any molecular mechanism itself require some previous inheritance of that mechanism, the "instructions" for its use, etc? My understanding of lamarckism is that "acquired characteristics" are inherited by the next generation [he was talking about giraffes stre-e-e-etching their necks and such, for which there is still no evidence or proposed mechanism]. But how would one "acquire" a capacity for directed mutation to begin with? I don't think lamarck helps us with that question. If you do think so, please explain. Darwinian theory may be a little more resilient than you think, and maybe for all the _right_ reasons. "Crumbling institution" indeed. I just don't see this as a big problem for evolutionary theory in general. I've seen much too much being made of this issue in other forums as well. To me, it suggests a common misunderstanding of neodarwinian evolutionary theory itself. I've often noticed that it is badly understood and badly taught. I've generally attributed it to the poor state of science education and critical/technical thought in general, the scientific non-competence of text writers, suppliers, buyers and teachers, lack of political will to make _good_ current science education available, etc. I think it may also be due to the fact that evolution is a difficult subject, it includes many different aspects of biology, and is complex and subtle. It often seems counter-intuitive, perhaps especially because peoples' "intuitions" have already been shaped by the past misunderstandings and misteachings of darwinian evolution. The first thing I had to do at University in taking a degree in evolution was unlearn some of the way-outdated inaccuracies still standard in high school texts. For instance, any talk about evolution being about the "good of the species" is about 30 years out-of-date. Natural selection works most strongly on an individual-centered basis. Hence, the dissing of "group selection" arguments. But that's another story. Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 23:18:03 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Org-Cult: lies/sincerity At 09:39 AM 11/24/95 -0700, you wrote: >This is a puzzle I've noticed before: how can people come to >"sincerely believe" things that are obviously unreal to the rest of >us? And how can we tell if one is really sincere or just a good >liar, or does that sometimes amount to the same thing? Perhaps the >best liar is one who is able to make some mental leap or gap, to >actually believe one's own lies. Which implies some kind of mental >compartmentalization or something like that as a mechanism, plus some >incentive/motivation for doing so. > >Of course, one can use underlings and hirelings, such as the >spokester for Shell, for instance, commenting on the recent Nigerian >execution of ecological activists. He appeared so thoroughly sincere >it was sickening to those who know and suspect some of the truth. >But he didn't necessarily know or need to know what Shell is really >up to, he's just a hired face. So much the better for him to be kept >in the dark, so he can do more convincing PR. > >>>> Howard Schwartz 11/22/95, >... what caught my interest in this connection was that NASA >officials truly came to believe their bullshit. I vividly recall the >press conferences NASA held after the explosion, in which reporters >would ask whether this mistake or that mistake could have been made, >and in which NASA spokespeople responded with the most sincere >indignation, saying, in effect, "NASA does not make mistakes." > I've worked for years to understand people's capacity for self-deception, and, even so, I am always struck by it. There is so much effort that goes into it, indeed so much art and creativity, that I have to believe it is not just some sort of peripheral activity that some people engage in. It is very close to the heart of the human project itself. A suggestion, though. Don't think of it as people believing things that others don't believe, but rather as some people believing *in* some things that others don't believe in. Believing in something, after all, has to mean, to some extent, discounting what discredits what one believes in, doesn't it? But from there, you're off and running. Now science, as I recall, was built around the idea of dealing with some of the problems that arose from this "believing in." But then, of course, people came to believe in science. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 23:18:52 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought At 06:51 PM 11/24/95 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 95-11-22 11:09:03 EST, you write: > >> They made their concerns known to NASA management, which treated their >>arguments as acts of insubordination. Near as I can tell, NASA management >>was acting within a fantasy of perfect NASA, which did not make mistakes. >>Having decided they would launch on that day, they were confident that their >>decision was correct, since they had made it. The results are well known. > >Isn't another explanation that it was a political decision based on their >fear of embarrassing Reagan? > That certainly would have counted as pressure to launch, but it can hardly be the whole story. The explosion, after all, was a greater embarassment. What needs to be realized in this connection was that the facts were not equivocal. The engineers were not merely concerned about the possibility of a disaster, they expected it. In fact, when the launch went off without apparent mishap, one said to another "We dodged a bullet." On top of that was evidence of their subjective state. In the first place, their retrospective accounts maintained that they had not felt particular pressure. In the second, their subsequent behavior, before and after the launch, indicated a total lack of uncertainty about what they had decided. One could pick this up in the attitude they took to the public inquiry, in which their feelings of righteousness were palpable. This was noted by numerous commentators at the time. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:18:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: unity / difference in universe/our understanding In-Reply-To: <9511242104.AA07086@osf1.gmu.edu> On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > I'm not aware of a fundamental distinction between, say, physics and > chemistry as ways to view the world today, such as Mark Gilbert [I > think] alluded to in the 19th century. Do you think something like > this is still going on? Actually, the 19th century is a bit late; I was referring to the Middle Ages, up until Boyles at the very latest. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The reason this "ancient history" is important is these ideas had a profound influence on the structure established at the beginning of modern science, which is the point I was driving at. > >From this level of abstraction, and in addition to a history/ > philosophy approach, I would like to see next some concrete analysis > of a specific, current issue, in terms of universal principles / > theoretical divides / "absolute difference" between fields. Anybody > got one we could work out on? Actually, I wasn't talking about disciplinary divisions; that's another topic altogether. But it would be a good one to take a look at. What I wrote, to repost it for any who might have missed was: > >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/22/95, 12:33pm >>> [The ancient pre-Classical Greeks] > ...held to a complete unity of all existence: human, divine, > animal, inorganic. Later Greek religion and philosophy brought about > a progressive separation of those various segments, a segmentation > that, for good or ill, structures our collective cultural > "mental"-scape (hmm, couldn't think of a better term here right > now...). Then various regulatory and empowerment functions were > apportioned to those different segments, hardening their separation > into an absolute difference. The subject of the last line was the first: the domains of human, divine, animal, and inorganic. *We* see these as completely separate categories (for the most part; but even when people want to break down those separations, it is discussed in terms of a break, a transgression). To the divine was ceded that which is eternal and enduring; to the inorganic, mechanical powers; to humans, intelligence and problem solving, etc. mark gilbert ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 00:38:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: metaphors in science In-Reply-To: <9511240821.AA01232@osf1.gmu.edu> Here's some references on Rothbart that Mark Burch requested: "The Semantics of Metaphor and the Structure of Science," PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 51 (1984): 595-615. "Analogical Information Processing within Scientific Metaphor" in D. Helman, (ed.), ANALOGICAL REASONING. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988. "Discovering Natural Kinds Through Inter-theoretic Prototypes" METHODOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 1994. "The Epistemology of a Spectrometer" PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (1994) 61: 25-38. Hope it helps, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 09:02:15 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: SaC: lies/sincerity I believe that sincere belief is contextual. I grew up in a place where I never heard of Darwin, Marx or Freud and where the literal truth of the Bible was a certainty. When I went to university I tried to corect the errors of the professor of theology and changed my views only slowly as a result of studying the history of religion as taught there. The people in Amarillo (where mortages were paid at the large plant where nuclear warheads were assembled) believed fervently that nuclear deterrence was essential to peace. People whoi go to private schools tend to beieve that the profit motive is the best guide to what is worthwhile. I gave a talk about science and ideology to the graduate students of the lab of Prof. Bob Williamson, the discoverer of the gene for cystic fibrosis. None of those who attended had ever before heard a talk of the sort I gave. When I argue with Prof. Lewis Wolpert or other apologists for the status quo in science, they believe that I am wierd, not the advocate of a worthwhile genuine pooint of view. They have been socialised for decades in the self-conception of objectivist, positivist science and think people like me don't believe in facts. People inside large organisations have little opportunity to hear other points of view, and there are powerful constraints on them to see it the way the company does. This is often not cynical: it is false consciousness leading to sincerely held views from the subjective viewpoint. The best way to understand how this happens in a scientific discipline is to read Donna Haraway's _Primate Visions: Gemder. Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science_ (Routledge, 1989; also pb) __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 10:09:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Minnesota Joe Cleveland Subject: SaC: Metaphors, Truth, & Lying On this subject, I recommend Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense" (1873). (One place it can be found: _Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language_. Ed. and Trans. Sander L. Gilman, Carole Blair, and David J Parent. NY: Oxford U P, 1989. 246-57.) Writing this essay, N is responding, in part, to authorities that legitimate themselves under the sign of "science." After N, we might marvel at, not those times when we believe in lies, but at those times when we don't. Joe Cleveland (graduate student in English who used to study physics and mathematics, & now studies how disciplines in the humanities define themselves with respect [or a remarkable lack thereof] to "science.") Some selections: The "thing-in-itself" (which would be pure, disinterested truth) is also absolutely incomprehensible to the creator of language and not worth seeking. He designates only the relations of things to men, and to express these relations he uses the boldest metaphors. first, he translates a nerve stimulus into an image! That is the first metaphor. Then, the image must be reshaped into a sound! The second metaphor. ... Overlooking the individual and the real gives us the concept, just as it also gives us the form, whereas nature knows no forms and concepts, hence also no species, but only an _x_ that is inaccessible and indefinable for us. ... What is truth? a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which were poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adorned, and after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they _are_ illusions, worn out metaphors without sensory impact, coins which have lost their image and now can be used only as metal, and no longer as coins. ... Now, of course, man forgets that this is his situation; so he lies in the designated manner unconsciously and according to centuries-old habits--and precisely _by this unconsciousness_, by this forgetting, he arrives at his sense of truth. ... What, then, is for us a law of nature? It is not knows to us as such, but only in its effects, i.e., in its relations to other natural laws, which in turn are known to us only as relations. All these relations thus always refer back only to one another and are absolutely incomprehensible to us in their essence... ... _Language_, as we saw, and later _science_, works at the structure of concepts. As the bee simultaneously builds the cells and fills them with honey, so science works incessantly at the great columbarium of the concepts, the sepulcher of intuition, forever constructing new and ever higher levels, buttressing, cleaning, renovating old cells, and striving especially to fill this enormous towering edifice and to arrange the whole empirical, i.e., anthropomorphic, world in it. If even the man of action binds his life to reason and its concepts in order not to be swept away by the current and to lose himself, the researcher builds his hut right next to the towering structure of science in order to help with it and to find shelter himself under the existing fortification. And he does need shelter; for there are terrible powers which constantly press upon him, and which run counter to scientific truth with truths of quite another kind and under a different aegis. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:43:19 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: biochemical machinery -Reply Sci-Cult In a message dated 95-11-22 03:20:51 EST, you write: >1) I mean that organisms do not even closely resemble >> machines on aesthetic grounds (and I consider aesthetics to be the >> electromotive force of evolution, not survival). >> L: Bad science? How? An older source which makes an interesting point on the business about organisms as machines is Michael Polanyi, in "Personal Knowledge" and "The Tacit Dimension" (early 1960s) that machines are really more than physical systems. That is, a washing machine considered as a physical system might include a huge study of vibrations that it causes in the floor, their resonances, etc., as well as the hydrodynamics of the water sloshing around, but overlook the shaking out of little particles out of the pieces of two-dimentional crosshatched organic fibers sloshing around in the water, i.e. the actual cleaning of the clothes, which is the purpose of the machine. The machine analysis applies physical analysis to a process which is chosen with regard to the goal of the machine (in this case, clothes washing). Most of the detailed Eulerian analysis of vibrations on the floor would be irrelevant to the machines analysis, except insofar as some of them caused the washing machine to rock and spoil the clothes-washing function or purpose. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Val Dusek, Philosophy, U of NH, Durham, NH, 03824, USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:47:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: lies/sincerity At 09:02 AM 11/25/95 +0000, Bob Young wrote: > I believe that sincere belief is contextual. I grew up in a place >where I never heard of Darwin, Marx or Freud and where the literal truth of >the Bible was a certainty. When I went to university I tried to corect the >errors of the professor of theology and changed my views only slowly as a >result of studying the history of religion as taught there. > The people in Amarillo (where mortages were paid at the large plant >where nuclear warheads were assembled) believed fervently that nuclear >deterrence was essential to peace. >People whoi go to private schools tend to beieve that the profit motive is >the best guide to what is worthwhile. > I gave a talk about science and ideology to the graduate students >of the lab of Prof. Bob Williamson, the discoverer of the gene for cystic >fibrosis. None of those who attended had ever before heard a talk of the >sort I gave. > When I argue with Prof. Lewis Wolpert or other apologists for the >status quo in science, they believe that I am wierd, not the advocate of a >worthwhile genuine pooint of view. They have been socialised for decades in >the self-conception of objectivist, positivist science and think people >like me don't believe in facts. > People inside large organisations have little opportunity to hear >other points of view, and there are powerful constraints on them to see it >the way the company does. This is often not cynical: it is false >consciousness leading to sincerely held views from the subjective >viewpoint. > > The best way to understand how this happens in a scientific >discipline is to read Donna Haraway's _Primate Visions: Gemder. Race and >Nature in the World of Modern Science_ (Routledge, 1989; also pb) > Maybe so, but I don't think it's possible to get a full sense of the poignancy of self-deception until one sees it in universal form and therefore how it applies in one's own case. In the hope that no one will pin me down to precise wording, I would suggest that these self-deceptions all have the form "I am significant, my life has meaning, I am worthy of love on the basis that ____________ ." (In the blank, one fills in what one believes in.) A bit of reflection on the *true consciousness* that I presume stands in opposition to this *false consciousness* -- "I am not significant, my life has no meaning, I am not worthy of love." -- may help to give us an idea of why people create and cling to these little delusions. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 13:58:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: Popularisation of science One interesting phenomenon these days is that major scientists now have their kept journalists who write books popularizing (and praising) their work. For instance Gerald Edelman has (I believe) or had Israel Rosenfeld writing books and in The New York Review of Books, while Alcon (?) has another fellow writing a popularization of his neurophysiology. Similarly Leakey had Roger Lewin, although he has been a bit more independent sometimes. I'm not criticizing the accuracy of these journalistic presentations, which are very good ones, nor the work of Edelman, which I favor intellectually, but noting this institutional development. Every lab needs not only its own PR agent (our Institution's Center for Complex Systems in the center for Earth, Oceans, and Space, popularly known as Earth Wind and Fire, or Earth, Air, Fire and Water had one) but its own popular science writer. --Val Dusek,UNH,Durham,NH,USA03824 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:13:11 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: what's wanted/ new thread/ reference Sci Cult In a message dated 95-11-22 11:08:51 EST, you write: > It's a cause for optimism that books like Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart's (1994) _The Collapse of Chaos: Discovering Simplicity in a Complex World_ (New York: Viking >Penguin) attract both "popular" and "academic" attention because they are >not _just_ "popularizers" (in the sense that, say, Gleick is -- and I am_not_ denigrating science journalism). One survey (I think it was in Sci Am) claimed that the majority of readers of so-called "popular" science books were in fact not the huddled masses or the liberal arts educated people, but scientists in others fields, even in closely related fields. Scientists often (though they rarely admit it) look at these better popularizations to understand the technical stuff themselves, or at least see whether its worth investigating, before plunging into the calculational or technical details of the research articles in the field. Habermas even suggests (rightly, I think) in the book Technology and Science as Ideology that popular science writings read by scientists are a way that popular culture impinges on science. (I don't know if citing Habermas is an argument from authority or a way to discredit my point.) I have found a few cases where popular articles have fed back into the technical literature of sociobiology. Bouchard and his Minnesota Twin Profject (studies of identical twins reared apart) managed to make a name for himself solely by getting magazines like People, Newsweek, Discover, USNews to cover his twin anecdotes while NIH and NSF refused him grants (he got money from the [White Power] Pioneer Fund to tide him over). During the period when Bouchard's technical articles were being turned down by the peer reviewers at Science magazine, his unpublished work was being presented as published by Constance Holden (a supporter of biodeterminism and a critic of Head Start programs of disadvantaged mostly Black children) in the popular news and politics section in the front of Science magazine. Bouchard was unable to get published in a peer reviewed journal or get a grant from a non-racist mainstream federal science agency for 7 years (1980 - Nov. 1987), but basically circumvented the peer review process through popular journalist articles, and eventually Science published a review article covering the very research its own reviewers had rejected, in in their special issue on the HUman Genome Project. (After all Bouchard claims to show that IQ, personality traits, even religion and politics are strongly heritable). ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 14:21:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought Dear Al, the posting about the Helms and Social Forces alledged connection was on MULTC-ED@UMDD.UMD.EDU ON mON. nOV 6, 1995, 3:58 pm est. It was sent by Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education V600A8E6@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 18:26:57 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: SaC: Evolutionary Anthropology In a message dated 95-11-22 15:08:11 EST, you write: >"Group selection" in a darwinian sense is bogus, as far as I can >tell. Williams took care of that, marking the beginning of the >neodarwinian revolution within evolutionary biology. This is commonly said but is itself bogus. Williams' ( 1964) arguments, although elegantly stated, are often circular. He appeals to the absolute truth of individual selection in order to deduce that group selection is bogus. In fact Wilson in Quarterly Review of Biology in late 1970s showed a number of cases in which group selection could work. Since then there has been a great deal of work by both biologists and philosophers of biology on group selection. Certainly group selection is relatively infrequent but not non-existent. Populations which are broken up into isolated interbreeding subpopulations in small regions or compartments (such as beetles in cavities in wood, or rodents in communal borrows) can undergo group selection. See William Wimsatt, article called something like Reductionistic Resarch Programs and Their Biases in the Units of Selection Problem, in (I think) D. Reidel volume on Scientific Discovery, proceedings of the Conference in Reno, 1978. Wimsatt points out, using Wilson's (not EOs) work how group selection could be methodologically or heuristically overlooked because of reductionistic research program methodology. Williams uses parsimony (as in Parsimony, Sage, Rosemary and Time, often known as Ockham's razor [or its subcase Oswald's razor -- do not multiply Oswalds beyond necessity]) But Williams often identifies parsimony or Ocham's razor with individual selection itself, making many of his arguments circular. They were so convincing to the biological community because of ideological developments in society more than logical refutation of the group selection hypothesis. Williams attributes any non-linear, complex interactions of organisms with each other and various populations, or with environment to chance or accident. Those the very phenomena which might call for group selection are eliminated from the domain of things to be explained. See Fox Keller, in Journal of the Hist of Biol, 1988, approx pp. 200 - 205 or thereabout for a succinct statement and documentation of this. (also reprinted in her Secrets of Life, Secrets of Death, pp. 152 - 155 or so for relevant passage and quotes). It is individualism and competition in the social realm, not any knock-down arguments by George C. Williams, that appeared to kill of group selection. I might mention that the much misrepresented straw man of group selection Wynne-Edwards, was defending it to argue against Malthusianism that populations naturally regulate their numbers, and we can't have anyone undermining Malthus can we? Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 19:01:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: the machine metaphor In a message dated 95-11-24 04:24:00 EST, you (Andrew Barfield) write: >But if it's illogical why has the computer metaphor been so pervasive in > cognitive >psychology and learning theories ? Or rather why have so many scientists >been using the metaphor ? How/why does a metaphor get replaced ? Presumably because computers make money, and people who want to get grants from computer companies for their philosophy research find it advantageous to say that the mind is a computer. This brings in grant money, and they tend to believe it. I recall seeing an anthology of phenomenologists (European students of direct intuitive experience) writing about the mind as a computer. The acknowledgements at the end practically said (but more subtly) what I have crudely sketched above. Presumably the bits and digital approach supports the individualistic ideology of competitive capitalism, while the heirarchical von Neumann model of overall functioning of the computer fits well with the burgeoning bureaucracy. Joseph Needham once wrote that he thought the I Ching and classificatory systems based on it became so popular in China because they presented a sort of bureacratic model of the universe. The computer certainly does this (in a very different way -- or maybe not so different given that the so-called Fu Shi arrrangement of the Trigrams corresponds to binary arithmetic, as Leibniz early noted, as well as to the 64 code words of the DNA code). Bits, pixels, etc. fit with the atomism of Western individualism (see McPherson on The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Oxford UP) and Gad Freudenthal on "Atom and Individual in the Age of Newton" (D. Reidel). The computer is an ideal mix of individualistic foundations building a bureacratic or monopolistic system. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 17:02:58 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: SaC: brain/computer metaphor In-Reply-To: <95Nov25.140337hst.11420(7)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Thanks, Val. I couldn't have said it better myself. I am writing a critique of digitalism that is along the lines of your comments. I will post it to the list when it is done. To atomized individualism and hierarchical bureaucracy I would also add paranoid visions of control and the commodification of damn near everything. M Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Val Dusek wrote: > In a message dated 95-11-24 04:24:00 EST, you (Andrew Barfield) write: > > >But if it's illogical why has the computer metaphor been so pervasive in > > cognitive > >psychology and learning theories ? Or rather why have so many scientists > >been using the metaphor ? How/why does a metaphor get replaced ? > > Presumably because computers make money, and people who want to get grants > from computer companies for their philosophy research find it advantageous to > say that the mind is a computer. This brings in grant money, and they tend > to believe it. I recall seeing an anthology of phenomenologists (European > students of direct intuitive experience) writing about the mind as a > computer. The acknowledgements at the end practically said (but more subtly) > what I have crudely sketched above. Presumably the bits and digital approach > supports the individualistic ideology of competitive capitalism, while the > heirarchical von Neumann model of overall functioning of the computer fits > well with the burgeoning bureaucracy. Joseph Needham once wrote that he > thought the I Ching and classificatory systems based on it became so popular > in China because they presented a sort of bureacratic model of the universe. > The computer certainly does this (in a very different way -- or maybe not so > different given that the so-called Fu Shi arrrangement of the Trigrams > corresponds to binary arithmetic, as Leibniz early noted, as well as to the > 64 code words of the DNA code). Bits, pixels, etc. fit with the atomism of > Western individualism (see McPherson on The Political Theory of Possessive > Individualism (Oxford UP) and Gad Freudenthal on "Atom and Individual in the > Age of Newton" (D. Reidel). The computer is an ideal mix of individualistic > foundations building a bureacratic or monopolistic system. Val Dusek > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 18:18:00 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology In-Reply-To: <95Nov24.084457hst.11383(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> > Now if I understand you here, you are claiming that Hall is saying what I > am terming a misclassification is a "logical error." That may be, but > it's not clear to me that your explanation shows that. The reason I say > that is that the attempt to reduce complexity via models and metaphors is > not in itself a logical error. Burch: I agree. The logical error comes in back-projecting the extension onto the source of the extension and comparing them as if they were the same logical type. The brain, since it is more complex than the computer, is of a different logical type. And I mean the brain possesses more dimensions of complexity, not just that it is a more complexly wired computer. The neurobiologist Ted Bullock has said that a more accurate metaphor is to compare the brain to a crowd at a football game. His description is quite hilarious and illuminating. In a model the goal is to capture the > important elements of the system and the important relations into which > those elmements enter. By definition, the rest would be, in principle, > irrelevent or unimportant for the purposes to which the model is being > used. So, the reduction of complexity is a benefit to be sought, on this > argument. Frankly, I'm sympathetic to your argument in general, but I'm > not sure this is the way to get at the problem. > The other elements may be unimportant or irrelevant for you at this time, but may be important at a later time. They could be essential, but their importance is unrecognized. These "irrelevant" aspects tend to come back and haunt you. I feel that scientists often project their ignorance of the importance of certain elements on to the things themselves, as in referrring to non-coding regions of DNA as "junk DNA." An article in Science last spring reported that the non-coding regions of DNA follow Zipf's Law, whereas the coding regions do not. (Zipf's law is an empirical observation which all human languages follow, and correlates rank order of word frequency with the log of frequency.) Nobody knows why the non-coding regions should follow this law, or why human languages follow this law, but it should make us reconsider how much we think we understand about the genetic code and its expression. M Burch ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 18:42:29 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: SaC: DNA/I ching In-Reply-To: <95Nov25.140337hst.11420(7)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Val Dusek wrote: > thought the I Ching and classificatory systems based on it became so popular > in China because they presented a sort of bureacratic model of the universe. > The computer certainly does this (in a very different way -- or maybe not so > different given that the so-called Fu Shi arrrangement of the Trigrams > corresponds to binary arithmetic, as Leibniz early noted, as well as to the > 64 code words of the DNA code). Bits, pixels, etc. fit with the atomism of In Richard Grossinger's book, "The Ecology of Consciousness", there is an article which derives a correlation between the I Ching and the genetic code. There have been others as well. The Yoruba people of Nigeria have a system of divination called Ifa in which 16 palm nuts are thrown and binary outcomes yield 64 different possibilities. I gave a talk once where I presented the I Ching, Ifa, and the genetic code as analogous systems of divination. The genetic code is a system of divination in the West becase of our belief in genetic determinism. Or genetics could be looked at as a refinement of haruspicy, the art of divination where you look at bird entrails. M Burch ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:25:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: brain/computer metaphor In-Reply-To: <9511260306.AA00999@osf1.gmu.edu> On Sat, 25 Nov 1995, Mark Burch wrote: > I am writing a critique of digitalism that is along > the lines of your comments. I will post it to the > list when it is done. It would be great to see this. > To atomized individualism and hierarchical bureaucracy I would also add > paranoid visions of control and the commodification of damn near everything. > M Burch One thing I have been working, but will not be posting, since I havn't worked it up yet, is the change in our culture's ground or root metaphor, particularly with regard to science. Until this century, the prevailing metaphor has been the machine metaphor. The clock was the prototype model here, supplemented by the "billiard ball" idea. It is still a powerful metaphor, as the recent discussion on the mechanical metaphor in biology thread illustrates. But due to advances in modern physics like relativity and quantum theory, the machine is wearing out. A new root metaphor is on the ascendency, I believe, and that metaphor is the information-computer metaphor. It's great benefits have been hinted at by Val and Mark Burch. It preserves the values that supported the machine metaphor: atomism, hierarchy, and control, but it greatly extends those values in ways the machine metaphor could not. And the very iterability of digital mediums is the acme of commodification. Everthing is reproducible, indexible, and marketable. Even the physical world is expressible via the metaphor of information and computation. For instance, the atom is describable in binary terms: right-spin, left-spin; energy levels are yes-no affairs; the six qwarks come in pairs. In other words, the atom is computable for all of its important parameters. I have read this point argued by several physicists and computer scientists (specific names elude me right now though). I think Paul Davies also mentioned the idea that the entire universe can be considered a gigantic computer. So when life (DNA is information) to physics to the brain are all being discussed in terms of this metaphor, I think we may have something going on here. It's not a change that has been completed yet, but I think we're headed that way. It makes me a little nervous. Can't we do better? mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 00:40:25 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hank Bromley Subject: Re: SaC: brain/computer metaphor At 12:25 AM 11/26/95, Mark L Gilbert wrote: >One thing I have been working, but will not be posting, since I havn't >worked it up yet, is the change in our culture's ground or root metaphor, >particularly with regard to science. Until this century, the prevailing >metaphor has been the machine metaphor. The clock was the prototype >model here, supplemented by the "billiard ball" idea. It is still a >powerful metaphor, as the recent discussion on the mechanical metaphor in >biology thread illustrates. But due to advances in modern physics like >relativity and quantum theory, the machine is wearing out. A new root >metaphor is on the ascendency, I believe, and that metaphor is the >information-computer metaphor. If you're not already familiar with it, you may find some of Donna Haraway's work very helpful in that project - she has argued something very similar. Let me know if you want me to dig up specific citations, they just don't happen to be handy from where I'm working just now. -- Hank Bromley hbromley@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 13:36:23 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology At 22:18 23-11-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: ----snip----- >The machine is an extension of the organism. A machine is an imperfect >organism, not the other way around. ----I don't think this is a correct view from a philosophical point of view (see H.Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, see also Rothbart?). A machine is a thing with the physical modality as the highest one in which it functions as a subject. An organism is in the same way a biological subject. Between physical functioning (with it's antecipations on higher modalities, "information processing") and biological functioning there are homomorphisms on which metaphors can be based. The machine functions in the higher modalities (a.o. the biotic) as an object, it is not an "imperfect" biotic subject (organism).------ >It is easier to uderstand machines, >because they are less complex. Once we understand a machine, we apply >that understanding to the organism, and in so doing, we reduce the >complexity of the organism to that of the machine. -----UNLESS we see how the physical modality ("machine") shows homomorphisms (anologies) that point to the biotic modality. I'm thinking of machines that are self-organizing systems, they can't be understood with physics but get their meaning from higher modalities (biotic?). Still they are electro-mechanical devices that may approach the complexity of organisms.----- -----snip---- >Although the brain carries >out computer-like functions such as computation, much of what the brain >does is irreducible to computation. To view such things as feeling and >intuition as varieties of computation is to do violence to humanity. -------In my opinion because we have not yet disclosed (discovered) all the ways "computation" can be realised with machines. I agree when you mean "irreducible to computation *as far as we know "computation" NOW*"----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery >foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives >the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free >to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica >___________________________________________________________________________ ------Who is this "I"? Is it God himself? Give me the reference please. Arie P.S. Do members of this list think this kind of philosophical discussions belong on this list or are they better at place on the list "PHILS-VU@nic.surfnet.nl"? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:23:06 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: SaC: Jesse Helms and Social Forces I accidently sent a message for Al Higgins of Science Fraud List to SaC. I apologize. However, given that I did, I'll explain it. Apparently the respected sociology journal Social Forces ran a very favorable review of the book of Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve asserting genetic inferiority of black intelligence. The posting to which I refer alleges that the reviewer has ties to Jesse Helms the reactionary senator from North Carolina, USA, who is presently blocking all ambassador appointments and foreign aid (perhaps not a bad thing) and led a partially succesful rampage against "homosexual" arts funding by the national Endowment for the Arts.. Supposedly the journal editor himself (the journal comes out of North Carolina) is toadying to Helms and his circle. It might be of interest to note that the Pioneer Fund, which is founded for the furtherance of the white inhabitants of the original thirteen colonies and started by importing "German Nazi eugenics films, and supports Roger Pearson of Nordic Voice (thrown out of the World Anti-Communist Lead for excessive fascism), segregation, anti-bussing, antii-imigrant projects, as well as the research of Shockley, Jensen, Bouchard Twin Studies, and most of the core surveys used in the Bell Curve such as those of Philip Rushton on inverse correlation between head size and genital size in various races (also a Guggenheim Grant winner), has ties with Helms' institue for diplomatic education. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:37:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: SaC: brain/computer metaphor I appreciate Burch's and Gilbert's comments and contributions.In a message dated 95-11-26 00:28:00 EST, you ( Mark Gilbert) write: > I think Paul Davies also mentioned the idea that the entire >universe can be considered a gigantic computer. Fredkin at MIT also asserted this notion and has worked it out in more physical detail. Philip Morrison, also in MIT physics suggested that Fredkin thinks the universe is a computer because he works in a computer room. If he worked in a cheese shop he would think the universe was made out of cheese. (Possibly a reference to the renaissance baker's cosmology that the inquisition investigated in Carlo Ginzberg, "The Cheese and the Worms" (Johns Hopkins, 1976 or so) Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 12:49:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought In a message dated 95-11-24 18:54:08 EST, you ((Bertram Rothschild) write: >Isn't another explanation that it was a political decision based on their >fear of embarrassing Reagan? Yes, supposedly Don Regan (Reagan's money man) called the shuttle headquarters and said "Get that tin can up!" because Chrita McAuliff , the teacher in space from my home state was supposed to talk to Reagan by phone during the state of the union address. My graduate school classmate then Secretary of Education William Bennett (we studied ethics under John Silber, later president of Boston University and now reorganizing the Massachusetts, USA school system) eveidently felf this was a better way to boost education than actually funding the schools. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:28:33 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Rooney Subject: Re: SaC: Org-Cult In-Reply-To: <199511241642.CAA03002@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au> There is an interesting book by British economist Paul Ormerod called "The Death of Economics" published by Faber and Faber. It deals with some of the same issues that recent discussions on organization culture raise. He claims that most current orthodox economic theory is not supported by empirical research. Yet, the more often economics is attacked the more entrenched orthodox economists become in relation to their theory. In short they only seek information and discussions that confirm the beliefs they already hold and reject anything that challenges those beliefs. What is more interesting for this discussion group is that Ormerod shows that over the last century economics as a discipline has actively sort to reshape itself as a science and has been particularly inclined towards the model of theoretical physics. Economists, Ormerod is saying, were suffering from a kind of inferiority complex and saw the "scientisation" (my term) of their work as a saviour. The question is, is this just an empty shell that is only superficially similar in appearance to science, or is there a substantial similarity? Also, on the question of "scientific management", is there any hope for management theorists or will they inevitably go the same way as economists. Ormerod seems to have much more time for management theorists because they are less ideological in approach than economists (and also more successful). David Rooney Faculty of Humanities Griffith Universtiy, Brisbane, Australia ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:44:23 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: Lamarck / Darwin X-To: Lisa Rogers In-Reply-To: <95Nov24.143806hst.11334(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > > I expect that "directed" mutations and such are easily accommodated > within darwinian theory. One need only ask where did these molecular > mechanisms come from? Probably they are a result of darwinian > natural selection, of course. They obviously give an individual a > reproductive advantage over individuals without it, under some > circumstances. Does not the existence and operation of any molecular > mechanism itself require some previous inheritance of that mechanism, > the "instructions" for its use, etc ? > > My understanding of lamarckism is that "acquired characteristics" are > inherited by the next generation [he was talking about giraffes > stre-e-e-etching their necks and such, for which there is still no > evidence or proposed mechanism]. > > But how would one "acquire" a capacity for directed mutation to begin > with? I don't think lamarck helps us with that question. If you do > think so, please explain. > My understanding of Lamarckian theory is that it assumes the same system of inheritance as Darwinian theory does. The difference is that Lamarck proposed that the genome was open to receive somatic messages. In Darwin's view, the genome is "write-protected" and the germ plasm is isolated from the body. This is the so-called Weizmann doctrine, which was proposed in order to justify Darwin's theory, but without any experimental evidence. Now it turns out that there is some evidence for a barrier in animals, the blood-testes barrier (very much like the blood-brain barrier). But there is no such barrier for plants. And in animals, it is known that the blood-brain barrier can become permeable under certain conditions, such as stress-induced serotonin release. There is something else called the Baldwin effect, which are mutations which simulate Lamarckian inheritance. I admit I don't know much about it, but I am sure Lisa could give a better explanation. Lisa's questions are all good ones, and it is easy to see how you could get lost in an infinite recursion of origins. I think the key to understanding evolution is stress. The first event that indicates the lack of fitness of an organism is not extinction, but prolonged physiological stress. Lamarck recognized this and tried to incorporate it into a theory of evolution. The experiments that were designed to test his theory, such as chopping the tails off of rats, were very silly. There are some problems with Darwin's theory. A point mutation does not a species make. That is why McClintock's discoveries with stress-induced transposable elements and more recent observations about stress-induced retroelements are so important. In both cases, the transposons or retrotransposons cause restructuring of the genome. Restructuring of the genome is what is required to create a new species, not a random point mutation which is fatal 99.99% of the time. Darwin's theory is good for explaining genetic variation in a population, but it is not very good for explaining evolution. M Burch ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:46:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Org-Cult: lies/sincerity This is an intro to a long post in response to Howard Schwartz's posting in his introduction to this list. It was on his interest in the Challenger disaster and its implications for organizational theory. I'm a little slow in responding, but I had to think about it first. Howard's argument turns on the status of "facts." I am uncomfortable with the way he argues his position, for I believe it is fatally flawed. Howard may have sensed I have a few reservations about the way he presented the NASA case. I hinted at them in my post, but left those criticisms implicit. So it's time to foreground them, especially since everyone that has posted on the topic have been in unanimous agreement. This post draws from posts spanning three threads, but this seems to be the thread to keep it on. I should establish what I agree with to minimize any talking past one another. * I agree politics do interfere with decision making in an all-too-often detrimental fashion (Nazi Germany being an obvious example). I suspect (better: I fear, if Val Dusek's rumor is true) this may have happened in the Challenger case. I'm not aiming my criticism at this point. * I may have appeared to reject the existence of "facts" in my original response. That facts like the impact of temperature on synthetic rubber are (now) well-established is something I could easily agree to, assuming that if I were to investigate I would turn up those very results. Where I differ is my treatment of facts. * In addition, clearly there are different groups within an organization who are motivated by correspondingly different motivational sets and goals. (I share your intense interest in self-deception. It's really what drove me into philosophy and the social sciences. But this last one I better leave until later.) My disagreement with Howard is primarily this: Appeals to obvious, unproblemmatic facts that are the special purview and united holding of a privileged and special group of clear-sighted experts, are going to get us nowhere in further efforts to avoid things like the Challenger disaster or a deeper understanding of our world. In fact, I am concerned that the kind of analysis done has more in common with the way NASA management went about doing things, than with either the engineers who were right, or with any possible solution to this problem. As an unwitting accomplice, Howard may be extending the kind of reasoning that the management engaged in, not helping to overturn it. In our rush to condemn the stupid and evil NASA management (and who knows, they may be just that), we are missing some important issues. Or to put it another way, in the attempt to avoid one kind of silliness, Howard runs headlong into the arms of another. In the next post I will spell out my argument in detail. best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 23:50:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Org-Cult: lies/sincerity (part II) This is the second part of my response to Howard's arguments regarding the role of fact in the Challenger disaster. To begin: It was a fact in Nazi Germany that Jews were inferior. It was a fact -- and still is in some circles -- that Americans of African descent are mentally inferior to European Americans. It was also a fact that woman were constitutionally unable to attend universities and engage in higher abstract reasoning. You may object these are social practices, whereas O-Rings are physical states or objects. There are a few preliminary things I should say. First, the determination of physical events is itself a social process. Second, all of the above can be translated into physical language (the _Bell Curve_ uses Darwinian theory, one can use genetics, neurological structure, etc., etc., to "prove" these "facts"). And the central point I am making here, _when_facts_are_presented_as_unproblemmatic_ certainties_, it opens the door to the social practices above: facts are those things we are most certain about, and various groups were quite certain about the above notions. Of course, there are innumerable beliefs regarding the physical world I could have cited, but I listed these "social" facts for reasons that I hope will become clear. Part of the incoherence I see in these arguments can be found in Howard's response to me. There are two kinds of "fact" here, what I'll call "strong" and "weak facts": On Thu, 23 Nov 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > What I take to be characteristic of science is not the way it > gets things right, but its recognition of the possibility of > getting things wrong, and the way it incorporates this recognition > into its understanding of itself. I will call this a "weak fact" expression, because what he seems to be implying is acceptance of fallibility (which you accuse NASA of failing to incorporate in its social- conceptual world), as opposed to, say, a Popperian strong fallibilism. (The latter commitment on my view would not help your position, except, perhaps, to make it more consistent). Howard continues, > What goes along with this is a willingness to recognize the > existence of facts, This is a "strong fact." Why do I say that when the rest of the sentence seems to refute this (see below)? I am linking this bit of text to the original post in the "Introduction and thought" thread (Wed, 22 Nov 1995). In that post he writes: > Synthetic rubber *does* lose its flexibility when > it gets cold. I don't mind calling that a fact Howard's argument turns on that "synthetic rubber loses its flexibility" kind of facticity which NASA management overlooks. This is the kind of fact that was absolutely determinative in the Challenger events. A fact in the classic sense: clear, absolute, indubitable (at least with the proper training, e.g. the engineers who working with the O-rings). On the Nov 23 post, Howard continues, > even if it isn't always clear what the facts are or how they are > to be interpreted. This is an ideal, of course. Actual organized > science is subject to the same distortive processes as organized > anything else. Here we have returned to a "weak fact": facts that can be unclear and ambiguous, even subject to distortion. And it is this vacillation between the kinds of facts exemplified by what synthetic rubber does in the cold and the kinds of facts that are problemmatic and given to distortive (subjective? political? deceptive?!) efforts that makes Howard's argument muddled. However, "distortion" also implies something that was in a state prior to the distortion, presumably, undistorted, which leads us back to "strong facts." > But ideals are important in the sense that they enable us > to recognize deviations from them And back to a "strong fact." Deviation implying departure from a fixed value, standard or proper state of affairs. Again, we're back to the fact being an unproblemmatic state of affairs and standards where all we need do to engage in appropriate action is assent to their propriety and follow them unquestioningly. The ideals and their embodiment in facts will surely guide us into the correct routes of action and content of belief. Deviation is a milder version of "distortion," which implies a more willful element; damaging and damning whichever way you look at it. The problem, in part, is this: on the one hand * he condemns NASA management for its failure to assent to the status of the facts at work, which implies * they could and should have applied or assented to and used those facts, i.e., the facts were unproblemmatic; in other words, as Howard put it, it was not the case that "it isn't ... clear what the facts are or how they are to be interpreted" in this particular situation, which implies * they were distorting the facts and therefore, as I suggested (in my earlier post) *Howard* was implying NASA management is guilty of the grossest negligence and stupidity imaginable. And if that's the case, they should be brought up on charges of manslaughter and mismanagement of funds. To summarize: the methods of science (and engineering) are determinate. They produce facts. Facts are clearly labeled for their proper use and their appropriate time and place of application. The methods are determinate in that they work in tandem with this essential nature of the fact both in uncovering and acting upon that fact. Hence, if one does not act upon such a fact in the fashion the fact requires, some other force or motivation must be at work. In _The Advancement of Science_ (1993), Philip Kitcher about the traditional view, which he dubs "Legend." A characteristic of Legend's view of science is: There are no options for the good scientist. On one simple conception of the scientific method, it would be quite impossible for it to be permissible to believe either of two incompatible propositions on the basis of some total evidence (p. 68). A "strong fact," then, is clear, and *should not be doubted*. This is key. Who would doubt today (and who should not have doubted then) that O-rings have a problem with cold? In the presence of a fact the only allowable response is assent, and intersubjective agreement will then be guaranteed. There is the other hand here, the "weak fact." The "weak fact" can be doubted. That doubt should function to keep one from becoming too certain regarding one's commitments and actions. Being matters of interpretation, it is not clear when, where, or how the fact should be used (indeed, is it a fact at all?). If NASA knew these facts (which everyone is saying they did, otherwise they could not have been ruled "out of order"), and we adopt the "strong fact" standpoint, then they are guilty as charged above. However, if we are dealing with "weak facts," now we have something entirely different going on. After all, there was no way to know at the point of launch which way it would go, because it had gone the other way before. The "facts" being argued up until that point were not whether the O-rings would fail that day ("but shucks, let's go ahead and launch anyway, boys!"); rather, were the weather are other conditions that held that day within the acceptable tolerances for that material? What was the fact here? It is not, as Howard argues with perfect hindsight, that anyone could see that those O-rings would behave that day as we now know they did. Howard has identified facts with both clarity and certainty to which the only responses are (self- or otherwise) deception, distortion, and disregard on the one hand; and on the other hand, he has allowed that facts can be unclear, ambiguous, and even things over which we can be mistaken. Distortion is interesting here in that it implies both that we must put forth effort to overcome the facticity of facts in order to carry on with our fact-conflicting ways; and also that facts are such as to be distortable. They have that sort of weakness in them that they can be distorted. James Bryant Conant, in _Science and Common Sense_ (1951), wrote: The stumbling way in which even the ablest of the scientists of every generation have had to fight through thickets of erroneous observations, misleading generalizations, inadequate formulations, and unconscious prejudice is rarely appreciated by those who obtain their scientific knowledge from textbooks. On Fri, 24 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers asks > This is a puzzle I've noticed before: how can people come to > "sincerely believe" things that are obviously unreal to the rest > of us? And how can we tell if one is really sincere or just a > good liar, or does that sometimes amount to the same thing? What's the difference between sincerely believing something as opposed to a fact? A fact is something like the O-rings: we firmly believe what they will do in the cold (now). My problem is this: while everything rides on that distinction in Howard's post, he offers absolutely no way to tell them apart. In fact, he allows future NASAs entirely too much comfort if they believe firmly enough in the factuality of their beliefs. The criterion for a fact in Howard's argument is nothing other than "sincere belief." And his waffling back and forth between strong and weak facts -- when it is also clear he desperately wants a world of strong facts that we can all appeal to -- is evidence for my contention. Thus, Howard's strategy of appealing to "facts" as the fulcrum around which your entire analysis turns * is incoherent in the way it is developed; * does not allow us to distinguish between what the engineers knew and what NASA was doing; * supports extremist positions as much as the facticity for which he wants to make room. The way he argues for a "strong fact" position indicates * everything that was riding on that launch is prima facie evidence NASA was sticking to what they thought to be the facts; * "strong facts" cannot be disentangled from "sincere belief." He fails to gain what it appears he is seeking: a clear line of demarcation between right and wrong action here, and a clear criterion for determining which action is on which side of the line. He implies "fact" is exactly that criterion, but I have tried to show it is no such thing. Where can we go? The one opening that I see as promising is when Howard wrote: > What I take to be characteristic of science is not the way it gets > things right, but its recognition of the possibility of getting > things wrong I don't agree with the direction taken here; but I believe it points to a possibility that I think he has in mind as well, but didn't explore as much. In a word: self-doubt. Synonym: humility; the opposite of that old word, hubris. A corrollary to doubt is being open minded, and being open to criticism and opposition; not demanding conformity. And his version of what I call "strong facts" fails on exactly this count: facts cannot be doubted, facts are not open to criticism or opposition. They only allow one response: conformity, or you're wrong. In which case, you must distort, disregard, and deceive. NASA was acting exactly as someone in possession of "strong facts" would and should act. The muddle thickens by Howard suggesting we should doubt ourselves, but not the facts. But if we know the facts -- strong facts -- there is no longer any question of doubt. Doubt does not enter the issue. I am suggesting, since a fact to be a fact must be part of our beliefs and practices, part of the making and using of a fact must unavoidably also include the place for doubt. Without doubt, facts are always indiscernable from "sincere belief." Hence, while Howard's ideas have a great deal of merit, his use to which he puts "fact" is incoherent. If, as I have suggested, his "weak fact" position is the only viable choice, Howard needs to rework much of his presentation of the Challenger affair (at least as he has presented it here). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:47:54 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: SaC: mechanical metaphors in biology At 18:18 25-11-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: -----snip---- >> The reason I say >> that is that the attempt to reduce complexity via models and metaphors is >> not in itself a logical error. >Burch: I agree. The logical error comes in back-projecting the extension >onto the source of the extension -------Addition needed: "without extending the extension to model the source more completely." I take the relation between the arithmetic modality ("logical type" of numbers) and the geometrical modality (lines, planes, etc. in geometric space) as an example. The length of a line can be modelled with natural numbers. They however can not model the "complexity" of the diagonal of a square. No number representing its length "exists" and that haunted ancient Greec thinking until the square root of two was discovered as a number. As late as 1700 some philosophers believed that negative numbers do not "exist". Still with those extensions of the field of arithmatic analytical geometry became possible and ALL geometric relations can be modelled with numbers and arithmetical relations.------ >The brain, since it is more complex than the computer, >is of a different logical type. And I mean the brain possesses more >dimensions of complexity, --------Our knowledge of the brain's "complexity" should inspire us to extend our computer (program)'s "complexity" such we can model the "brain" with computerprograms - I think by doing so we'll discover some very weird programs. --------What do you call "the brain"? Logical reasoning? Feeling? Containing an ethical value system of love, justice, etc.? I'd rather concentrate on the different modalities in which the brain functions.----- >more accurate >metaphor is to compare the brain to a crowd at a football game. His >description is quite hilarious and illuminating. -------I like that: an analogy between the logical and social modality! >In a model the goal is to capture the >> important elements of the system and the important relations into which >> those elmements enter. By definition, the rest would be, in principle, >> irrelevent or unimportant for the purposes to which the model is being >> used. So, the reduction of complexity is a benefit to be sought, on this >> argument. Frankly, I'm sympathetic to your argument in general, but I'm >> not sure this is the way to get at the problem. >> >The other elements may be unimportant or irrelevant for you at this time, >but may be important at a later time. They could be essential, but their >importance is unrecognized. These "irrelevant" aspects tend to come back >and haunt you. ------Agree! When negative and irrational numbers were not yet discovered the direction of a line (as a model of the direction of a physical force) and the length of the square's diagonal haunted ancient thought. Let's face the challenge of those things that haunt us to day and see how we can model them! Agreed?----- >An article in >Science last spring reported that the non-coding regions of DNA follow >Zipf's Law, whereas the coding regions do not. (Zipf's law is an >empirical observation which all human languages follow, and correlates >rank order of word frequency with the log of frequency.) Nobody knows why >the non-coding regions should follow this law, or why human languages >follow this law, -------If you believe things are created this way you know. This kind of laws are DISCOVERED, not invented.---- >but it should make us reconsider how much we think we >understand about the genetic code and its expression. --------and be open minded to discover other, more complex laws of the universe we inhabit. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:39:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "" Subject: Re: embarrassment of riches?/digest In-Reply-To: <199511211701.MAA01543@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> I was just on the edge of resigning from the list when I read your message. On return from a week away at thanksgiving, I found over 230 messages on the list, many more than 100 on rape. That, and several other topics, have nothing to do with science as culture, no matter how interesting otherwise. You, as list moderator, ought somehow to moderate, and get some of these extraneous topics which clog the list off it, or you will lose many more of us who have not the time for all this. There are other more pertinent lists for those who wish to discuss rape, or whatever. On Tue, 21 Nov 1995, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > A number of people (about 40 in the last few days) have signed off the > list, citing as their main reason the volume of postings (about which they > have expressed a variety of opinions ranging from finding them interesting > to > 'Apart from one brief part of a discussion of Bloor's work and a tiny bit > on Lammarckism I couldn't detect any discussion of science as culture.' > Here's another not atypical example: > 'I liked the idea of the list, but quickly got turned off when 90% of the > posts seemed to be either introductory (which I could understand) and on > the okinawa rape case, which hardly seemed the sort of thing in which I > was interested. I was only subscribed for about two weeks. Perhaps I'll > give it another try later, after the list has had more chance to develop > in topics I can see as science as culture.' > > I have been preoccupied with other things for the last few days (including > an article on 'Psychoanalysis and/of the Internet' - any takers?) and have > archived the list, so I don't know yet what I think. I may comment when I > have read through them. > > I _am_, however, concerned about the number of objections/sign-offs on > these grounds (some were people I know and was delighted to have with us) > and suggest that people think twice before posting a riposte and more than > twice about multiple messages on a single day. I have no wish to limit > debate, but bear in mind that some people have limited disc space, some > have to pay by the message received and many are pushed for time. > > I would also appreciate list members' thoughts on this problem. Do we have > an embarrassment of riches or incontinence? > > My software gives name of sender and subject but not forum, so I have to > open the message before I know which forum it's from. > *****I would greatly appreciate it if subscribers would begin the > 'Subject:' line of their postings with SaC: > > If you find that there are too many messages, you may wish to receive a > single digets once a day. > To: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu > Body of message: send sci-cult digest > > Bob Young > Forum Moderator > > __________________________________________ > | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk > | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England > | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 > | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, > | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, > | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk > | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ > | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html > | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: > | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html > 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:54:19 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: DNA/I ching -Reply Why is the magic number 64? lisa >>> Mark Burch 11/25/95, 09:42pm >>> The Yoruba people of Nigeria have a system of divination called Ifa in which 16 palm nuts are thrown and binary outcomes yield 64 different possibilities... The genetic code is a system of divination in the West becase of our belief in genetic determinism. Or genetics could be looked at as a refinement of haruspicy, the art of divination where you look at bird entrails. M Burch ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:51:20 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: group selection, cooperation and other stuff Lisa wrote: >"Group selection" in a darwinian sense is bogus, as far as I can >tell. >>> Val Dusek 11/25/95, 04:26pm >>> This is commonly said but is itself bogus. Williams' ( 1964) arguments, although elegantly stated, are often circular. Lisa: Well, this is a heck of a note. I'll read the Keller. I'm willing to re-read Williams if I see specific references to him. The way I recall, he was looking at the relative strength of selection at different levels, which entails an examination of the factors which determine the strength of natural selection. The conclusion is that selection at the individual level is most likely to be a much greater force that group selection, that group selection is therefore expected to be rare, and only will outweigh individual selection under very limited, specific circumstances. It is not expected to be widespread everywhere. By this account, your Wilson [not EO] is not in opposition, it's a friendly expansion upon Williams. This is a far cry from the loose way that many social scientists throw around the concept whenever they wish to justify the claim that "humans are not competitive like other lifeforms, because group selection caused us to evolve into cooperators." This, IMO, is not a sci/evol supportable claim. Nor does it look like what I see in the world around me. ["Cooperators? _Human_ cooperators?" She shades her eyes and inspects the horizon. "Where?"] By this, I mean to reject the notion that evolution produces _either_ cooperators _or_ competitors, [as was asked in another post here, who's author I don't recall now] because the circumstances which may define the "fitness" of either approach are so rapidly variable and diverse. Many different behaviors [and cultures, ideologies, etc] are equally part of the human repertoire at large. I don't recommend the bending of biology/evol theory to address the old and false dichotomy/dualism of human nature as basically good or bad, selfless or selfish, etc. Reality is more complicated than that, and natural selection doesn't work like that. (A general note: I hope you all realize what an assault this kind of discussion/argument can feel like, along with many other comments I've seen onlist. I don't reply to most of them. "Science" this and "science" that, as if it were a monolithic single mind or person.... I'm much happier dealing with the most specific analyses, rather than hearing general and vague indictments. I'm willing to plumb my own assumptions and such quite deeply, and even to discuss that process and my own feelings onlist, to the extent that anybody's sympathetically interested in such explorations.) Now, please help me with a brief review of the Malthusian part of your argument, Val. I'll present one, you tell me if it's close enough for the purposes of this conversation. I know little of Malthus. Malthus says: populations don't "restrain" themselves, they grow as fast as possible based on their food supply or other limiting factors. Therefore they are always over-running their environmental capacity and many end up starving to death. This is the major/common method of "population regulation" in nature, including for people, at least at Malthus' time. Wynne-Edwards says: pops do regulate themselves, such that widespread and frequent die-offs are actually quite rare, and most species have evolved to be this way by darwinian-group-selection. Wynne-Edwards tried to formalize this into a supportable, technical argument about how natural selection works. It was known that most birds would continue laying eggs when eggs are removed right away, so that a bird with a normal clutch size of 4 eggs could be shown to be capable of laying 20 or more before she finally gives up for that season. This is the type of thing that W-E read as "restraint" of breeding, which an individual was doing in order to "benefit the group" or species. It had allegedly evolved to act as if it had some kind of foresight about future over-population, and all the females were acting together to prevent such possible catastrophe, as a result of the selective force of past catastrophes upon populations which failed to restrain themselves. The next chapter of the story is about all the research which was designed to test this idea, and carried out largely in the 50's, such as David Lack and his slew of students studying birds in the woods. But we may not need to go there... My general point is that I think there is more to the ascendancy of individual-selection theory than George Williams _or_ the unspecified mechanisms of societal ideology _or_ any pro-malthusianism [whatever that entails, I'm not sure]. I reject _both_ Malthus' and W-E's arguments, on empirical, theoretical and logical grounds. The issues at hand in evolutionary biology today do not fit into a pro vs anti- Malthus dichotomous approach. In rejecting W-E, I cannot see where there is necessarily any support for Malthus. If you object to Malthus' prescriptions for public policy and excercise of political power, great, so do I. The leap from allegedly scientific analysis to giving advice to the government is generally a leap into non-science, IMO, and scientists should know it and admit it. Back to cooperation and ideology of analyses: I have noticed in other forums that "group selection" theory is often espoused exactly in the context of an argument about cooperation. Although it arose in the context of "pop. control", the breeding restraint hypothesized by W-E is in fact a form of cooperation for the long-term "good of the group". A W-E mechanism is often invoked to explain "uniquely human" characteristics such as our generally famous "cooperation" in aspects other than pop. control. Because I don't find it scientifically supportable, I suppose that people are doing this because they want to support their own social vision, program, public policy advice, etc. I think it is better, both logically and strategically, to divorce the two projects. For instance, I cannot argue for socialism [liberalism, whatever] on the basis of humans being naturally this or that, or on Malthus being right or wrong, I argue that's got nothing to do with it, or rather, my argument would be based on something else entirely. Looking forward to replies, Lisa ... Wilson in Quarterly Review of Biology in late 1970s showed a number of cases in which group selection could work. ... Certainly group selection is relatively infrequent but not non-existent. ... Williams uses parsimony ... But Williams often identifies parsimony or Ocham's razor with individual selection itself, making many of his arguments circular. They were so convincing to the biological community because of ideological developments in society more than logical refutation of the group selection hypothesis. ... It is individualism and competition in the social realm, not any knock-down arguments by George C. Williams, that appeared to kill of group selection. I might mention that the much misrepresented straw man of group selection Wynne-Edwards, was defending it to argue against Malthusianism that populations naturally regulate their numbers, and we can't have anyone undermining Malthus can we? Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:04:19 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: NASA Of course, these are not _competing_ explanations, but entirely consistent with the previous discussion of NASA's quest for funding, popularity and friends in government, pork, prestige, etc. ((Bertram Rothschild) wrote: >Isn't another explanation that it was a political decision based on their >fear of embarrassing Reagan? >>> 11/26/95, 10:49am >>> Yes, supposedly Don Regan (Reagan's money man) called the shuttle headquarters and said "Get that tin can up!" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 11:29:02 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Tom Athanasiou Subject: Internet: Q&A I know, I know. This is mere junk. But do note the section on "Netiquette," below. I somehow seemed relevant... -- toma ***** 1. How big is the Internet? When did it start? How did it grow? The Internet is actually much smaller than most people think. It is primarily composed of fiber optic cables no thicker than a human hair, which can be conveniently rolled up and stored in a foot locker. Janitors at the National Science Foundation do this on the third Tuesday of every month when they wax the floors. Since fiber optics are the size of human hairs, they also make attractive wigs. The next time you watch a Sprint commercial, you'll see that Candice Bergen's alleged hair is really the T4 backbone. The earliest origins of the Internet can be traced to Ancient Greece, where a loosely connected set of networks was used to discuss exploration in the Black Sea. The Argonets, as they were then called, were entirely subsidized by the government, and won one of William Proxmire's first Golden Fleece awards. The Internet grows hyperbolically, but is usually described elliptically. 2. Who owns the Internet? There is no one person or agency that owns the Internet. Instead, parts of it are owned by the Illuminati and parts are owned by Free Masons. 3. What do the Internet addresses mean? Precise meanings are often hard to determine. The address baker.lib.washington.edu--which is sometimes written baker@lib.washington.edu--seems to refer to a computer either owned by a baker or by someone named Baker. This can be deceiving however; names like this actually refer to where a computer is located. This one is on top of Mt. Baker. In addition to names, computers on the Internet also have numbers. This is part of the whole right brain/left brain thing. 4. Tell me how to get on and off various lists and discussion groups. Getting off on various lists is currently the subject of pending legislation. 5. What is "Netiquette?" "Netiquette" is one of many cutesy neologisms created by combining two other words. In this case, "network" and "tourniquette" combine to describe a program that shuts down a computer if it starts transmitting information too fast. 6. What is "Flaming?" Along with an improvisational approach to floating point arithmetic, early Pentium chips were noted for generating heat. While some hackers speak fondly of roasting marshmallows over their first P60s, others found themselves badly singed as the chips caught fire. This "flaming" sometimes occurred while the user was composing e-mail, resulting in poorly chosen or excessively vitriolic verbiage. 7. What is "Bandwidth?" As capacity on the Internet has increased, people have begun to transmit material other than simple text. One notable example is audio recordings of rock concerts. These audio files are much larger than even very long books, so they have become a standard unit of network usage. One Rolling Stone song equals one "band" width, and so on. 8. Why can't I FTP to some places? There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the site you want to ftp files from is exercising a certain degree of control over its network resources; in network parlance, this is called "fascism." The second reason is that the remote site may be dabbling with such network fads as gopher or the World Wide Web. This is called "keeping up with the times." 9. What is the World Wide Web, Gopherspace, etc? The World Wide Web, or WWW, is an experiment in generating acronyms that are much more difficult to pronounce than the words they replace. Gopherspace is an older network term. In response to the Soviet space program's early use of dogs in space, NASA mounted a program to orbit a number of different rodents. The programmers involved in this project adopted the motto "Gophers in space!" which has since been shortened. The only actual gopher to go into orbit had been digging up the carrots in Werner Von Braun's garden, and was named Veronica after his daughter. 10. Why can't I get some WWW stuff via FTP? It can be hard to say this, but some users of the Internet are unable to do things because they are stupid. The comparatively trivial task of getting an ftp client to do every single thing a WWW browser can do is beneath this column's attention. Tune in next time for Ask Dr. Internet-- "I have a master's degree....in Internet!" ==================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 17:38:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: SaC: In-Reply-To: <9511271901.AA03971@osf1.gmu.edu> On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > "Science" this and "science" that, > as if it were a monolithic single mind or person.... > I'm much happier dealing with the most specific analyses, > rather than hearing general and vague indictments. Good point; not that I entirely agree, but it sets up an important question that might be worth exploring here. To ask the classic Socratic question, is science one or many? Is there a central ideal, conceptual or motivational structure, symbolic form or kind of practice by which we identify science? Or is it merely a form of nominalism to talk about "science?" Frankly, I'm sympathetic to both views; and both can also be taken too far. Logical Positivism (or more accurately, Logical Empiricism) was an excercise in trying to abstract the rational essence from science that was common to all scientific activity. Cassirer asserted science was one of our culture's (perhaps *the*) highest expressions with a definite cognitive style and goals. On the other hand, these broad analyses are incapable of capturing the day-to-day reality of science practice. Micro-analyses that are better in this regard include work by the SSK and ethnomethodology people, and others including Andy Pickering, Micheal Rouse, Helen Longino, Bruno Latour and Woolgar, etc. While an absolute "criterion of demarcation" to locate science in contradistinction to everything else is not possible, isn't there some value in wrestling with what science-in-general might be about? But that needs to always be balanced with an empirical rootedness in what practitioners are actually doing. In other words, we have a classic hermeneutic circle implied here between the details and the general level. In addition, it may be sloppy and verging on useless to banter "science" about -- what it does, what it "thinks" -- sometimes a little shorthand can go a long way too. best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:30:44 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: looking for info/references I need references for primary works of 19th c. medicine (or studies dealing therewith) and have a very particular request: professionalized and "domestic" treatises dealing w/ reproduction which anthropomorphised genitalia and/or map the reproductive system according to a facial metaphor. For instance, Edward Bliss Foote's primer for children (_Sammy Tubbs the Boy Doctor_ 1874) wherein there is a singing vagina w/ a clitoris for a nose. --any references re: the above query, or general references in this neighborhood, would be greatly appreciated. Most of these sorts of references I just fall over while wading through libraries, but the Sammy TUbbs came off a net group, as well as some other wonderful tidbits--the best resources are other people. I don't want to clutter the list, so if anyone has any leads, please get back to me at my private account. Thanks! Gina Camodeca SUNY @ Buffalo v391w9rn@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 23:19:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Introduction and thought Val Dusek and Mark Gilbert have criticized my account of the Challenger disaster. My response to Mark's extensive comments will have to come later. Here I will respond only to Val, who said: > >Yes, supposedly Don Regan (Reagan's money man) called the shuttle >headquarters and said "Get that tin can up!" because Chrita McAuliff , the >teacher in space from my home state was supposed to talk to Reagan by phone >during the state of the union address. As Lisa Rogers has pointed out, the existence of political pressure to launch does not contradict my argument, a point I also made in response to Bertram Rothschild. Nonetheless, Val adds a specific contention that may be worth addressing. The charge is that NASA was responding to pressure from the Reagan administration, which wanted to have a conversation betwen Reagan and McAuliffe as part of the State of the Union message. This is not a new accusation. In fact, it was making the rounds in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. The Rogers Commission, which investigated the disaster, said this about it: "After the accident, rumors appeared in the press to the effect that persons who made the decision... might have been subject to outside pressure to launch. Such rumors concerning unnamed persons, emanating from anonymous sources about events that may never have happened, are difficult to disprove and dispel. Nonetheless, during the Commission's hearings all persons who played key roles in that decision were questioned... There was a large number of other persons who were involved to a lesser extent ... and they were questioned. All of those persons provided the Commission with sworn statements that they knew of no outside pressure or intervention. "The Commission and its staff also questioned a large number of other witnesses during the course of the investigation. No evidence was reported to the Commission which indicated that any attempt was ever made by anyone to apply pressure on those making the decision to launch the Challenger. " Although there was total lack of evidence that any outside pressure was ever exerted on those who made the decision to launch 51-L, a few speculative reports persisted. "One rumor was that plans had been made to have a live communication hookup wit the 51-L crew during the State of the Union Message. Commission investigators interviewed all of the persons who would have been involved in a hookup if one had been planned, and all stated uniquivocaly that there was no such plan. Furthermore, to give the crew time to become oriented, NASA does not schedule a communication for at least 48 hours after the launch and no such communication was scheduled in the case of Flight 51-L. "The flight activity officer who was responsible for developing the crew activity plan testified that three live telecasts were planned for the Challenger, but they related in no way to the State of the Union Message. (Report of the Presidential Commission, p. 176) Now, of course, despite this there still might have been such a phone call. But two other things should be considered. First, the fact that the shuttle was to be launched on the day before the State of the Union speech was a coincidence. In fact, the flight was first scheduled for December 23, but scrubbed. Then it was rescheduled for January 23, then the 26th, the 27th and, finally, the 28th. This suggests that the supposed telephone conversation between Reagan and McAulffe was unlikely to have been much of a priority, having come along as a possibility only by accident. Moreover, if it had been a priority, it would likely have been scheduled for one of the earlier, postponed launches, which would have been in perfect accordance with NASA's usual procedures. Second, NASA's institutional purposes would have been served if it could have deflected criticism from itself onto the Reagan administration. It would, of course, have had to be very careful in the way it let the information out, but the art of the leak is well practiced in Washington, and I suspect, would not have been beyond the capabilities of NASA's better bureaucrats. Even so, of course, there still might have been a phone call. Here, however, I think it is proper to say that it just won't do to say that there "supposedly" was. And this brings me, finally, to my point. We are engaged here in an argument about the status of facts. Either Donald Regan called NASA or he did not. What he said, if he did, might be subject to some interpretation. But either he did or he didn't. And if he did, it's a fact that he did. If we don't grant the existence of facts, however will we be able to draw a distinction between veridical historical accounts and empty imputations of conspiracy? Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 01:38:22 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Lamarck / Darwin In-Reply-To: <9511270447.AA08132@osf1.gmu.edu> "Lamarkianism" is a loaded phrase, carrying implications of elastic giraffe necks and such sort. Perhaps the more neutral term that Mayr in _One Long Argument_ (1991) uses would be less inciting: "soft inheritance." Now Mayr rejects soft inheritance in any form; he only accepts hard inheritance. Darwin, on the other hand, waffled on this one. Mayr admits "Darwin displayed considerable indecision already in 1859 on the origin of variation and the nature of inheritance" (p. 109). The classic example is is burrowing mammals like moles who lost their eyes, "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse...", according to Darwin (1859). At times he allows for adaptation from use/disuse, physiological activities of the body, and even direct environmental influence on the genome; in other cases he rules it out. While Darwin gradually leaned more towards natural selection as the *sole* mechanism for change later in his career, hard inheritance did not finally take hold until this century. More specifically, not until the Evolutionary Synthesis brought the naturalists (who were the true descendents of Darwin and who allowed for soft inheritance) together with the geneticists, did hard inheritance finally supplant soft inheritance. The notion of acquired characteristics is only one form of soft inheritance, the kind usually associated with Lamark. More generally, however, soft inheritance is the idea that the environment can influence the genome in some fashion. Hard inheritance rejects that claim: inheritance is unaffected by environmental factors. Clearly this is the principle at the heart of the Central Dogma of Watson and Crick. It is a "pure" one-way model of action. The DNA exists in isolation, unaffected by any outside influences: all activity and causal effects go from the DNA through a unidirectional chain of events. There is no feedback, no modification in response to stimuli, no changes whatsoever unless it is a random -- i.e., accidental, unpredictable -- mutation. Any change in the genome due to mutation cannot be a principled, lawful event, nor organized response. The alternative hypothesis would allow that it is possible for the genome to respond to environmental stimuli. The hard inheritance claim is very specific; all it would take is one actual example of the genome responding to outside influences in an ordered fashion to count as evidence against hard inheritance. It is this point that I have suggested and Mark Burch has been arguing for. This can be a very general claim without having to resort to anything like giraffes growing longer necks through sheer effort. Proponents of soft inheritance are arguing for a more flexible and responsive model of DNA than the static and ideally unchanging purity of the standard view. While Lamark was perhaps an early proponent, he doesn't really figure into this issue now. He was writing before the publication of Origin or Mendel, and so has little to do with the current debate. Instead, champions of soft inheritance trace the roots of their convictions to the research program initiated by Barbara McClintock (who, until recently, was ignored by the establishment). For a good introduction to the research program initiated by McClintock, and arguments for soft inheritance, see: Depew, David and Bruce Weber, eds. (1985). _Evolution at a Crossroads: The New Biology and New Philosophy of Science_. MIT. Federoff, Nina and David Botstein, eds. (1992). _The Dynamic Genome: Barbara McClintock's Ideas in the Century of Genetics_. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 08:46:47 U Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Phil Bereano Subject: SaC:embarrassment Being part of a listerve involves accepting a level of RESPONSIBILITY towards other members, making the reasonable assumption that they are busy, and having a level of maturity sufficient to distinguish matters of public importance from those of personal indulgence. There has been an intolerable amount of irrelevance posted to this list, since I joined 2 weeks ago. -- Phil Bereano ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:45:47 -0500 Reply-To: apattana@tikva.chem.utoronto.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arjendu Pattanayak Subject: SaC: biological complementarities/deterministic randomness A short rumination here. A couple of days ago, Mark Burch said, among other things: > I find it rather paradoxical that science, which seems to emphasize > determinism in most things, resorts to randomness for the basis of > genetic change. I am no geneticist, but I am not quite comfortable with the implicit opposition between the terms determinism and randomness here (or in other statements that I am not going to try to pin--point). Physicists in general and especially those who work with `chaotic' systems are quite comfortable with the term `deterministic chaos' (for example). There's nothing very exotic about a system that is inherently deterministic, even though the description of a given event within is random. It just has to be complicated enough; in statistical mechanical terms, one `traces over' certain variables that one cannot, for lack of infinite information, fully specify (usually the `environment'). Voila! A system that now has chance built in. All I need, therefore, to reconcile the determinism of biochemistry and the randomness of a gene mutation is the knowledge that the biochemistry involved is complicated enough, with the `non-mutating' path being a delicate one. Assuming further that the biochemical system interacts with an unspecified and liable-to-do-many-different things environment, random mutation seems, errr, normal. This brings into focus the whole issue of the `delicate balance' that applies to all of life itself, of course. The `normal' and smooth evolution of anything as complicated as biochemistry is the shocking and inexplicable part. But normalcy is inherently a _statistical_ statement -- there is no such thing as pure determinism once you get past simple physical systems. The philosophical musings are fun, nonetheless. Arjendu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 20:44:14 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Signoffs We were 350. We are now 270. Here is a typpical signoff message: I was on the list for two or three weeks; I signed on right after it was announced on the Sci-tech-studies list. I left because there were too many messages that I wasn't interested in (and that I felt had nothing to do with the subject). I was also put off by the style and the overpresence of some of the subscribers; and by the abundance of retorts and other non-substantial postings. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 20:25:34 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: Signoffs X-To: Robert Maxwell Young In-Reply-To: <95Nov28.124823hst.11388(5)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> I found the Okinawa rape discussion to be uninteresting and irrelevant to this list. Except for that brief riot of sex/gender/power retorts, I have found this list to be full of stimulating discussion about the culture of science, which is what it's about, n'est-ce pas? I don't know what the complaining is about. But, heck, you just gotta jump into the fray and swing your ideas around. Sometimes you come out with a bloody prefrontal cortex, but that's life. I got annoyed at all of Lisa's retorts, but now that she has mellowed out, this list is getting boring. In all seriousness, conflict and confrontation is a great arena to develop ideas. I have learned a lot in the discussions so far, and have a number of items to add to my bibliography. Thanks everyone, Lisa, Mark, Bo, Arie, Howard, and anyone else I forgot to mention. Mark Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ On Tue, 28 Nov 1995, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > We were 350. We are now 270. Here is a typpical signoff message: > I was on the list for two or three weeks; I signed on right after it was > announced on the Sci-tech-studies list. I left because there were too many > messages that I wasn't interested in (and that I felt had nothing to do with > the subject). I was also put off by the style and the overpresence of some > of the subscribers; and by the abundance of retorts and other > non-substantial postings. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 22:53:17 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Aditi Gowri Subject: SaC: "soft" inheritance X-cc: Aditi Gowri In-Reply-To: <199511290515.VAA22069@chaph.usc.edu> from "Automatic digest processor" at Nov 29, 95 00:07:29 am My understanding was that we do not need to look far for examples of "soft" inheritance. Its primary form -- or so I have understood -- is human cultural transmission. No genomic change whatsoever is necessary for fundamental human change to occur, since we are, after all, affected by the experiences of our ancestors as they have passed these on. Then, there is the still the question as to whether knowledge transmission or learning should be understood as evolutionary (or even Darwinian) phenomena . . . -- Aditi Gowri Ph.D. Candidate, Social Ethics University of Southern California ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 07:34:57 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: SaC: lies/sincerity In a message dated 95-11-25 13:50:04 EST,Howard Schwartz wrote: > A bit of reflection on the *true consciousness* that I presume stands in >opposition to this *false consciousness* -- "I am not significant, my life >has no meaning, I am not worthy of love." -- may help to give us an idea of >why people create and cling to these little delusions. There is reasonably good evidence that tells us that depressed people see reality more accurately that non-depressed people. I suppose our delusions keep us happy. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 11:45:57 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jeffrey Kramer Subject: evolutionary synthesis?? to all in struggling to renew my acquaintances with important evolutionary tenets,one that is clearly central is the so-called evouionary synthesis. i have vaguely understood this in the past as the coming together of the naturalists and their interests in diversity and notions of gradualism, with the experimentalists and their basically all-or-nothing experimental explanation of genetic inheritance ...in the course of which soft or lamackian inheritance was given the old heave ho. 1- would someone sharpen this up a bit for me in understandable terms? 2-with some experimental results now reopening the issue of soft inheritance...what does that do to the synthesis? many thanks jeffrey kramer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:50:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John P. Rooney" Subject: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? November 29th 1995 TO: Multiple Recipients of List. When I signed on this list, I expected to see discussion concerning the impact Science has had on culture, and agruments about engineering versus science. I was looking for others' insights into the impact that technology has had on our culture, our daily lives, our outlooks on the world. For some time, I have had discussions with my four children (now all college graduates) that Science works in an ivory tower, and when you apply science (called engineering), you create technology, which changes the world. Science is to technology as Theology is to religion. What do you think? Sincerely, John Peter Rooney, MS Electrical Engineering. **************************************************************************** John Peter Rooney, Consulting Engineer * 11 Anchor Drive * Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360-3201 * Work: (508)-549-3623 ** FAX: (508)-549-4458 ** e-mail: jprooney@foxbor.com ** **************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:47:33 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: lies/sincerity In-Reply-To: <9511291236.AA08961@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > There is reasonably good evidence that tells us that depressed people see > reality more accurately that non-depressed people. I suppose our delusions > keep us happy. This research is called the "Sadder but Wiser Effect" or "depressive realism." Most of the research was conducted in Social Psychology (in psychology departments, not the Social Psych in sociology; as far as I know) and Cognitive Psych. I think the researchers who coined the first phrase in this context were L. Alloy and Lyn Abramson. The latter phrase is used by Shelly Taylor in a book that pulls a lot of this research together: _Positive Illusions: Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy Mind_ (Basic Books, nd). Basically, the idea is that *mildly* depressed people tend to be more accurate in their assessments of their own abilities and the state of reality. For instance, whereas normally we are more likely to think of ourselves in a postive fashion, as being central to events in our social environment, capable fo accomplishing and having accomplished a number of things, etc., the depressed are more evenhanded in their self-assessments. They recall both successes and failures, good and bad qualities, and so on. The depressed also lack the hope that turns into unrealistic appraisals, something we all need to have if we are in fact going to accomplish something difficult. mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | (usually) | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:57:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: evolutionary synthesis?? In-Reply-To: <9511291653.AA24700@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Jeffrey Kramer wrote: > 1- would someone sharpen this up a bit for me in understandable terms? > many thanks > jeffrey kramer Hi Jeffrey, regarding your request for a refresher on the evolutionary synthesis, I don't have time right now give that a good treatment, so I'll give a quasi-RTFM answer. One of the best short -- and very readable -- summaries of the synthesis is in Mayr's _One Long Argument_ (Harvard, 1991), ch. 9. It should be at about any bookstore or library. In the same book Mayr also trashes soft inheritance (but allows that selection may operate on a higher level than just the individual, Lisa). mark gilbert ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 15:08:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: from science to engineering? In-Reply-To: <9511291951.AA25156@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, John P. Rooney wrote: > Science works in an ivory tower, and when you apply science > (called engineering), you create technology, which changes > the world. > > Science is to technology as Theology is to religion. > > What do you think? > Sincerely, > John Peter Rooney, MS Electrical Engineering. That is an old, and popular view -- misconception I believe. If it's an ivory tower, it's filled with a lot of technology and products of engineering, without which it could not do what it does. We wouldn't know much about the subatomic realm without bubble chambers and particle accelerators, or microscopes for that matter. In all these cases, the technology came first. A philosopher of science, Philip Kitcher, suggests that much of what has become important in science has been due to certain problems becoming tractable due to the advent of a breakthrough in technology. Andy Pickering makes the same point: much of science is done as a matter of exploiting new technological capabilities. Much of science is inseparably intertwined with technology. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:06:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Eva Krugly-Smolska Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? John Rooney wrote Science is to technology as Theology is to religion I think it's probably the other way around. It seems to me technology predates science ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:23:31 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Rooney Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? In-Reply-To: <199511292238.IAA14557@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au> Why worry about these chicken or the egg arguments. from my point of view it is more useful to forget that there is some form of pure sicence, or pure technology that exists autonomously. Why not think of science and technology as being social. What is the evidence that this ivory tower actually exists. Science and technology is done by people in various social locations such as universities and R&D departments in commercial enterprises. further if you look at current technology management practices it is clear that both applied and basic research are on a continuum and that considerations for marketing, production processes, finance etc are also being placed on that continuum. I am not entirely sure, but it seems to me that even university science departments are orienting their research programs on a similar basis. It may be interesting to read something like Betz _Strategic Technology Management_ 1993. David Rooney Faculty of Humanities Griffith Universtiy, Brisbane, Australia On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Eva Krugly-Smolska wrote: > John Rooney wrote Science is to technology as Theology is to religion > > I think it's probably the other way around. It seems to me technology > predates science > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 18:41:12 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? In-Reply-To: <199511292258.RAA21270@mailbox.syr.edu> hmmm. science, culture, technology, language, genius...chicken, egg. how are these terms (particularly, science and technology, though a definition of genius would be nice, too) being defined/demarcated here? i think of 2001 (the movie), where the humans _discover_ that the nicely whitened bone would make a great tool for smashing in another human's head... In terms of separating technology and science, as processes or some forms of phenomena, how would the bone example be worked out? When is the head smashing applied science or just discovery of a novel tool? When is the bone technology vs nature vs art? *smirk* Likewise, must we _manufacture_ technology, while we _engage_ in science? jude (i have been busy 'skimming' recent mailings and apologize if all these questions have been addressed already) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 22:53:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Org-Cult: lies/sincerity (part II) I have been trying very hard to make sense out of Mark Gilbert's argument against me, which I do not append here, but have not had much success. He wants to distinguish between strong facts and weak facts, and says I confuse the two. But he seems to think that strong facts are facts of a certain kind, while when he talks about weak facts he seems to be referring to the degree of confidence that we can have in them.. These are two quite different things. Fallibility is not a quality of the facts but about ourselves as knowers. And when we say a certain proposition can be doubted, we are saying that we do not know whether it is a fact, not that it is a weak fact. I think it makes perfectly clear sense, and is not muddled, to believe both in facts and in fallibility. One can doubt anything. Sometimes it gets a little silly, though. When it gets silly to doubt something, we call it a fact. He also seems to attribute to me ideas which I never asserted, such as that facts have to be certified by experts who have highly specialized knowledge. Actually, in the case of the brittleness of synthetic rubber, some may recall that the late, great Richard Feynman introduced the issue into the investigation by immersing a piece of rubber gasket material in a glass of ice water, taking it out, and snapping it into pieces. Hardly a bubble chamber proceeding. But what I'd like to know is what he's got against the idea of facts. He seems to think that if you insist on the existence of facts, even physical facts, you go the way of naziism and other social evils. He says: It was a fact in Nazi Germany that Jews were inferior. It was a fact -- and still is in some circles -- that Americans of African descent are mentally inferior to European Americans. It was also a fact that woman were constitutionally unable to attend universities and engage in higher abstract reasoning. Does he think that holding the existence of facts is authoritarian, that it is necessarily part of a social process through which one group imposes its will on another? (Those are not what I'd call "facts" by the way.) He says: And his version of what I call "strong facts" fails on exactly this count: facts cannot be doubted, facts are not open to criticism or opposition. They only allow one response: conformity, or you're wrong...NASA was acting exactly as someone in possession of "strong facts" would and should act. Just for the record, the Nazis did not value empirical science very highly. The roots of Nazi ideology in romanticism have been well documented (e.g. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology). The conformity the Nazis imposed was not to the existence of facts, but to their ideology. I say that social evil is more likely to arise from abolishing the distinction between facts and ideology than from insisting on it. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 21:41:18 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Aditi Gowri Subject: SaC: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? X-cc: Aditi Gowri In response to Rooney: As a philosopher /anthropologist/ social theorist of science AND religion, I would suggest that the relationship science : engineering :: theology : religion is actually a pretty accurate one. But perhaps not as Rooney meant to present it. Theology is (in every tradition with which I am acquainted) most often a conscious or unconscious extraction from the everyday life-world of the faithful. In other words, theologians concentrate, enunciate, formalize, make explicit the practices and lived beliefs of their fellow faith-holders. Sure they seem to be sprouting fresh ideas in glorious isolation from the cares of the world. But are they not also human? Some obvious examples come to mind. Early Protestants declared that salvation could be an individual affair independent of organized church, after the individualization of economic life was well under way in the High Middle Ages. Early Christians eschewed the more revolutionary, militaristic aspects of Jesus's message, after they had seen what happened to militaristic Jews at Masada. Brahmins (my own tribe) declared the cow holy and the meat unfit to eat, after India was in an ecological crisis where lacto-vegetarianism was essentially the wisest way to distribute limited proteins among myriad humans. And so forth . . . An excellent analogy, indeed. Physicists "discover" entropy and relativity after the Industrial system is in place. Biologists now concentrate on the chemical substratum of biological features; but in a society which is more attentive to individual than collective or environmental determinants of any phenomena. Cognitive science "discovers" that the the brain is live a computer (mirabile!) Sure science is like a theology; but neither is particularly white. Yours in discourse, Aditi Gowri Ph.D. Candidate, Social Ethics University of Southern California ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:02:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bertram Rothschild Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? In a message dated 95-11-29 18:25:11 EST, David Rooney wrote: >What is the evidence that this ivory tower actually exists. There are perhaps two ways that the ivory tower can be understood. The first, and not very useful one, is that scientists are isolated from human experience. The other is that scientists are indifferent to the consequences of their research. Did we really need the atomic bomb? is the question asked. Someone mentioned earlier that his (her?) dean said that there is no place for ethics in science. Current struggles are a function of that indifference. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:53:55 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? >>What is the evidence that this ivory tower actually exists. It seems to me that the tower in most research institutes I've worked materially exists, i.e., the sciences are partitioned geographically from the rest of the campus, their library resources are segregated, culturally they are often expected to socialize with each other, et c. Does this mean they are somehow outside the culture? No, but it does mean they form, in Bourdieu's terms, a semi-autonomous field. A really good essay discussing the tower phenomenon, what she calls bubble-boy science, (and comparing it to Italian science where it didn't exist) is Livia Polyani's essay in _Technoscientific Imaginaries_ (ed. George Marcus) Cornucopias of History. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 12:53:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ed Morman Subject: SaC: ideology and Nazi science X-To: Howard Schwartz In-Reply-To: <9511300420.AA14906@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > Just for the record, the Nazis did not value empirical science very > highly. The roots of Nazi ideology in romanticism have been well documented > (e.g. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology). The conformity the Nazis > imposed was not to the existence of facts, but to their ideology. I say that > social evil is more likely to arise from abolishing the distinction between > facts and ideology than from insisting on it. It's a mistake to regard science under Nazism (or, for that matter, any other totalitarian system) as monolithic or entirely ideology-driven. Immediately after the second world war, George Rosen demonstrated how the Nazis gave up various romantic, naturopathic medical ideas when faced with the exigencies of maintaining a healthy population and military under wartime conditions ("Medicine under Hitler," Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 25 (1949): 125-129). Much more recently, Kristie Macrakis's _Surviving the Swastika: Scientific Research in Nazi Germany_ (Oxford, 1993) has more methodically made the same point about the non-biomedical sciences. The best work currently being done on science under high Stalinism in the USSR is probably that of Nikolai Krementsov. Unlike other post-Soviet Russian scholars anxious to prove the point that all good science (or, at least, all good biology) was destroyed by Stalin, Krementsov demonstrates that "proletarian science" was more myth than policy. Despite the destruction of the careers (and lives) of great scientists like Vavilov, and the elevation of Lysenko, Krementsov suggests that the science of genetics was hardly destroyed in the Soviet Union. I regret that I don't have any Krementsov citations at hand. I don't raise these points either in defense of Nazism and Stalinism and science under these systems; not do I wish to say that there was absolutely no merit in naturopathy or Michurinism. My point is simply that it's wrong to look for one-to-one correspondences between political ideology and science. (Which is not to say that there aren't weaker connections -- often connected to choice of metaphors used n science -- between political ideology and science. Each case has to be examined for itself). A further point about facts and empirical science. And let me state in advance that I think of myself philosophically as a materialist and some sort of naive realist. Facts, as expressions of human knowledge of the world, are necessarily historically contingent. What's accepted as fact has something to do with power relationships, and there's no way around that. To take a rather non-political example, it was a fact, until around 1960, that continents did not move around on the surface of the globe. More politically, it was a fact in the late nineteenth century that there is a hierarchy of races. At this moment "we" don't accept this as a fact; and the process by which racist science was discredited has been documented as political (by Barkan and others). But you've got to ask the question why racist nonsense like that spewed by Herrnstein and Murray, or by Philippe Rushton or Dinesh D'Souza (less overtly racist, but equally nonsensical in terms of his understanding of history), has any audience nowadays. And the answer to this question has something to do with the worsening racial climate in the U.S., and the access to power of those who would suggest the truth of "facts" such as that blacks of inferior to whites in intelligence or that slavery in America was never race-based. We wouldn't even have to deal with this crap if it weren't for the reactionary turn in American politics. And we may be confronted with the facts of scientific racism (even hit on the head by them) if American politics moves any further to the right. It's not a question of "abolishing the distinction between facts and ideology." It's a question of recognizing the relationship between them, and being willing to question all "facts," and to recognize the various contingencies that contribute to any "fact." This will help provide the means to understand, and struggle against, social evils such as racist science. Ed Morman Librarian Institute of the History of Medicine The Johns Hopkins University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:04:32 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: TURVEY P M MS Organization: Manchester Metropolitan University Subject: Re: unsubscribe or digest please will you tell me if there is a way all the mail from this list can be automatically put into one folder, because it's either that or I shall have to unsubsribe. At the moment the number of mailings is clogging my new mail folder and I can't see the wood for the trees. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 18:18:35 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: TURVEY P M MS Organization: Manchester Metropolitan University Subject: TURVEY sorry Very sorry to clog up your files I now realise I was sending my message to the wrong address. Again my apologises. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 22:18:01 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: SaC: Determinism and self-determination On :Sun, 26 Nov 1995 18:44 Mark Burch wrote: >[snip]... Darwin's theory is good for explaining genetic variation >in a population, but it is not very good for explaining evolution. Not to mention how bad it is at explaining human creativity. But if the human species has evolved from apes or through random genetic mutations is rather completely uninteresting from the point of view of the individual human being who actually DOES things, whether good or bad, without asking for a theory of this doing first. Institutionalized science on the other hand, as a general cultural phenomenon, gives the impression of trying to stop the world until a suitable explanation of it has been found and accepted - by the scientific establishment. There is a tremendous lack of generosity here, and of faith in potential human achievement. If I have a theory of a past event I can quite possibly "prove" it and repeat it through experimentation and calculation. But how can one experiment with the future, except by participating actively in its current coming-to-be? When one thinks about the future, the part determined, part undetermined nature of the universe becomes obvious. There are definite limitations to what can happen during a given time span. But within the framework of these limitations there is plenty of room for randomness - and self-determination! The problem with self-determination from a scientific establishment point of view is that research in that area realistically only can be performed by an individual on him or her self. And so the results cannot be "objectively" verified. But from the point of view of the individual there can hardly be a more important subject. By excluding the subject in the quest for objectivity, the modern scientific world view also excludes the possibility of constructive and creative forces entering evolution. Luckily, not all people are scientists. And even among scientists, quite a few forget themselves and discover things that, based on their previous theories and speculations, they would have considered impossible. Nonetheless, seen from the point of view of society as a whole, considering the power that the scientific establishment as an abstract entity wields over the way people think, this is a great problem. "The world is not real until we have *explained* its reality" they (the stereotypical scientists) say. But since the concept of creativity is ruled out a priori through the demand of experimental verification, the world can never be explained. And so a great gap between reality and its corresponding description is permanented, leaving plenty of room for action to people who are completely uninterested in science and explanations. These people (and I am here thinking primarily of all the bad guys - drug dealers, rapists, corrupt politicians, greedy businessmen etc etc) are also, unfortunately, equally uninterested in democracy and justice and moral action in general. Now, please don't accuse me of *blaming* all of society's ills on some abstract "scientific establishment". The whole idea of blame is completely irrelevant, and lots of other factors have to be taken into account - the world is a complex system. But the subject of this list is science-as-culture, and the role of science in culture. Culture is, to me, something that is alive, the medium in which we - much as fishes live in water - live as *human beings*. It consists of all of our relations, and the way in which these relations are maintained, notably through language, but also through customs and established procedures. And *lack* of relations, language, customs and established procedures play an equally important part here, because culture abhors vacuum. When one speaks about the "scientific establishment" one is not speaking about the process of knowledge, which is what science as such is about, but about the culture (language, custom, established procedures) that has developed around this organized process and methodology. A process of knowledge that a priori excludes the specifically *human* contribution to this same process on account of fear of "subjectivity" must, if one accepts the above definition of culture as a specifically human medium, produce results that in aggregate... are not conducive to anything specifically human. In the above type of reasoning the major stumbling blocks lie in some of the concepts. The reality corresponding to the concept of the human individual, the human being as such, for example, can only be grasped intuitively by - individual human beings. And *creativity* can only be understood, in its essence, by itself. That is to say, lacking in creativity one can never arrive at a useful perception of what it means to be creative. Why do we have to accept again and again that the stereotypical scientist, often with a quite amazing lack of humility, either directly or by inference completely denies the existence of exactly that which actually makes us human - our *individualized* understanding of the world? Of course we don't have to accept it as individuals, but as members of society we still have to observe and suffer the effects of this attitude. Is it impossible to imagine a culture where the scientists are considered to be active participators in the continuous unfolding of the fabric of life? Having the most important role of artistically, individually, but still quite "objectively", painting the picture of the world - in its infinite and everchanging details - that we need in order to put our actions into perspective, and, to be sure, to develop and improve the tools and methods which are the hallmark of human evolution. Why does such a thought immediately arouse, in some people, such intense headshaking and general nosaying? Because of fear - fear of the unknown, and lack of confidence in themselves and their own ability to use the unknown as a field of creativity. Within the self-realizing concept of the human being lies the potential ability, but not the necessity, to participate actively and creatively in life as a whole. Obviously this creativity also provides the ability to create an image of the world where the human being does not actually participate, but only exists to observe given facts, conceptualize them, and place them in the framework which has been created by this same creative ability. No matter how one twists and turns, human cognitive activities, the collection and organization of knowledge, will always carry the stamp of the creative, or at least *creating* human subject. Because edifices of knowledge do not erect themselves. The question is all about attitude: what does one want to DO with knowledge, what role does one want the conceptual reality-filter to play - in ones own life, and in the life of society? And does one ever look for the concept corresponding to one's own individual human self or does one actively seek to avoid it? Provocatively yours, Andreas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andreas Carter andreas.carter@pi.se http://public-www.pi.se/~the_tank/ac.htm Is reality optional? ------------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 21:07:03 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 28 Nov 1995 to 29 Nov 1995 In a message dated 95-11-30 00:10:04 EST, Howard Schwartz writes: > Just for the record, the Nazis did not value empirical science very >highly. The roots of Nazi ideology in romanticism have been well documented >(e.g. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology). The conformity the Nazis >imposed was not to the existence of facts, but to their ideology. Certainly, qua Nazi ideology this is true, especially in racial biology and anthropology, and all the obscene garbage and horror that went with it, but Nazi physics went on in a fairly standard manner, despite attacks on "white Jews" and "Jewish physics" by ideologues, and Lenard and Stark (opposed by Heisenberg and by Pascual Jordan, who remained a Nazi). Also during the Nazi era certain parts of empirical, experimental psychology actually professionalized and freed themselves from Germanic idealist speculation, rather in the direction of American psychology. See Michael Ash, I believe, on this. On Nazi physics, see Walker, Nazi Science, Plenum Press, 1995, as well as the earlier Alan Beyerchen, Scientists Under Hitler: The Physics Community in the Third Reich, Yale, 1977. The chilling part of the latter is to what extent the physics community managed to pursue business as usual under Hitler and remained "apolitica"l while serving Nazi aims. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 12:58:36 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Rooney Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? In-Reply-To: <199511301304.XAA17946@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au> Bertram When I asked what is the evidence that the ivory tower exists, I so because the term implys (to me anyway) an absolute state of detachment from society. I know many scientist and have to say that none of them are absolutly detached, nor do I infact even think that such a state is possible in science for many reasons. One of these reasons is that organisations that give out grants do so for specific reasons - the objectives of the researchers match those of the funder. The funder will expect some economic return or social return (I live in hope). There are more mundane reasons too. For example, scientists read newspapers, watch TV meet non scientist freinds etc and develop points of view about there role in the world from there, some of which infringes on their work. I agree that people like us mostly do not want nuclear bombs. But some do (mostly the powerful) and in one way or another they have influenced scientists do do their work for them. Science has ethics, but some of them are not shared by us. Some bomb makers probably thought that they were blessed by god. The middle ground in all this is probably that there a different degrees to which scientists can be more or less engaged with society. Some a lot others not much. The kind of work I do is in a far more splendid isolation than most scientist (I'M a historian) and I don't feel as if I'm in an ivory tower. I'm a little bit warped yes, but i'm still influenced by what ever goes on around me and that impacts on my work. Cheers David Rooney Faculty of Humanities Griffith Universtiy, Brisbane, Australia On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > In a message dated 95-11-29 18:25:11 EST, David Rooney wrote: > > >What is the evidence that this ivory tower actually exists. > > There are perhaps two ways that the ivory tower can be understood. The > first, and not very useful one, is that scientists are isolated from human > experience. The other is that scientists are indifferent to the consequences > of their research. Did we really need the atomic bomb? is the question > asked. Someone mentioned earlier that his (her?) dean said that there is no > place for ethics in science. Current struggles are a function of that > indifference. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 23:19:54 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Paul L. Woodworth" Subject: (Fwd) the machine metaphor >----- Forwarded message (Andrew Barfield ) -----< Friends, As I read this post it struck me that there is a cognitive link between some metaphors, however, writing poetry myself, there is also a gift of language that allows an image to be evoked, rather than mere process. I would propose that the various types of metaphor work across a spectrum of individuals because people remember things in different ways. For instance, I am very visual in my memory, others attach memory to words and still others in the form of pure cognitive process. It is curious that we continually try a reductionist approach to such a complex, interrelational problem. I consistently utilize metaphors in the context of the person I am communicating with. Is this not a more valid approach? Paul Hamburg posted: >i think this is a place where the relationship between poetic speech and the >power of language becomes relevant. are there metaphors that barely make it as >metaphor: they merely serve as sterile analogies, perhaps in the service of >simplifying complex scientific concepts or for illustration. are there other >metaphors that serve to open up thinking in a previously barred direction? >what makes them different? what happens when metaphors are reified to the >point wherethey mostly limit the imagination----perhaps this is the case with >mechanistic models today. Metaphors can be seen as a means of 'imaginative rationality' (in Lakoff and Johnson's sense) acting as a bridge between what we believe we know or accept as true, and what we imagine is possible. Where what we imagine is possible maps largely onto what we accept as true, the metaphor can quickly become 'sterile' and, in a sense, opaque, because it will fit so closely with what we know of the world, and not point the way to discovering something new. It leaves little to be revealed, in short. (I think this is what Mark Gilbert meant too.) So, in a sense, the question 'are there other metaphors that serve to open up thinking in a previously barred direction?' can only be answered 'yes', but what they are is a question of both power and imagination. 'What makes them different?' They reach parts of our imagination that other metaphors can't reach ? Or is it that the metaphors we choose are impoversihed from the beginning because they are often taken from the world created by humans (machines, computers, for example, and therefore subject to technological innovation and displacement) ? Mark Burch posted on the same topic: >It is illogical to study the brain as if it were a computer, because the brain is >of a different logical type, having engendered the computer. But if it's illogical why has the computer metaphor been so pervasive in cognitive psychology and learning theories ? Or rather why have so many scientists been using the metaphor ? How/why does a metaphor get replaced ? Andy -- Paul L. Woodworth pwoody@pipeline.com