From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9512" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 1:18 PM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 21:11:50 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jose Morales Subject: the real biochem issue In-Reply-To: <199512010424.UAA23139@itssrv1.ucsf.edu> Hi folks, I origionally raised the issue of transcriptional machinery. Problem is that everybody picked up on the machine metaphor and NOT my real question. My question went back to the fact-->theory-->value--> worldview ideology framework. I wanted to know if you go along with this viewpoint, and you present a fact, what would the corresponding theory, value, worldview ideology be. My line of biz is molecular biology and I want to know how the social studies of science folks would flesh this out. I say this not to doubt the framework (mostly), but rather to develop ways to make arguments to all those other scientists who look at a framework like this as so much bullshit. I think that science and society would be better off having a more objective view of nature than we have. Jose ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:34:48 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? In-Reply-To: <95Nov29.095202hst.11499(5)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> My expectation when I signed on to this list is that the phenomenon of science as a culture would be discussed. That is to say, we would deconstruct the myth that science is an objective search for facts which are out there in the world, and construct the perhaps more accurate myth that science is the social construction of a consensual reality which works for a certain class of people for very precise purposes. My trenchantly held belief is that science was constructed for the purpose of exploitation of natural resources for the class of people who assumed ownership of those resources and own the means of production for turning those resources into commodities for the economic enslavement of earthlings. That's pretty obvious, right? This topic is now open for discussion. Mark Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:55:45 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: the real biochem issue X-To: Jose Morales In-Reply-To: <95Nov30.194059hst.11517(3)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Actually, we did answer your question by unasking your question and discussing the assumptions behind your question. And it seems to me the sequence you indicated should be reversed: worldview ideology-->value-->theory-->fact The point we were making was that once our worldview predetermines our values, which preforms our theories, which preselects out of a myriad of facts those facts which we will value and notice and record in our lab books to support our theories which support our values which support our worldview. It is a cybernetic process of self-affirmation, but it is also a vicious circle which would be good to step out of, especially when your world view is exploitation of non-renewable resources and theft from and murder of indigenous peoples. Hope this was provocative enough. 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 _____________________________________________________________________________ On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, Jose Morales wrote: > Hi folks, > I origionally raised the issue of transcriptional machinery. > > Problem is that everybody picked up on the machine metaphor and NOT my > real question. My question went back to the fact-->theory-->value--> > worldview ideology framework. I wanted to know if you go along with this > viewpoint, and you present a fact, what would the corresponding theory, > value, worldview ideology be. My line of biz is molecular biology and I > want to know how the social studies of science folks would flesh this > out. > > I say this not to doubt the framework (mostly), but rather to develop > ways to make arguments to all those other scientists who look at a > framework like this as so much bullshit. I think that science and society > would be better off having a more objective view of nature than we have. > > Jose > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:34:00 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? At 17:06 29-11-95 -0500, 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 > --------just like religion predates (good) theology! One is experience-based practice and the other theory about this practice and it's environment - isn't God (Greec: theos) the "environment" to which religion is aimed? Theory can enhance good practice, without practice theory is in the void. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 07:29:19 -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 95-11-30 22:51:04 EST,David Rooney wrote: >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. Of course, I didn't mean just the bomb, but the multitude of evils that scientists created without examining the consequences of their behavior. It is my impression, for example, that the creators of the bomb were almost all enthusiastic about building it in order to thwart the Nazis. A fair enough goal, but perhaps indifferent to the overall consequences of letting that particular genii out of the bottle. Another thought is that your comment implies that scientists are somewhat more moral than the rest of humanity, but can be seduced by the devil to do his/her work. I agree with you that scientists are no different from the rest of humanity - like the rest of us they become so entranced by their own desires that they don't think of the rest of the world. As a scientist friend said to me: "It's all mental masturbation." ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:55:57 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? At 20:34 30-11-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >My expectation when I signed on to this list is that the phenomenon of >science as a culture would be discussed. That is to say, we would >deconstruct the myth that science is an objective search for facts which >are out there in the world, and construct the perhaps more accurate myth >that science is the social construction of a consensual reality which >works for a certain class of people for very precise purposes. > >My trenchantly held belief is that science was constructed for the >purpose of exploitation of natural resources for the class of people who >assumed ownership of those resources and own the means of production for >turning those resources into commodities for the economic enslavement of >earthlings. That's pretty obvious, right? > >This topic is now open for discussion. > ------OK, but first please clarify what we are talking about? Is math's science? Is physics? What about biology (before it was discovered by pharmaceutical and genetic industry)? And the "humanities"? At least in my culture theology is considered a "science", as is history, the study of arts and music (history), ethics and philosophy. If so then "exploitation of natural recourses" is too narrow a motivation. ------"Facts" were discussed earlier on this list. I think you should respect the opinion of many of us that facts ARE "out there in the world" (and I would add scientists are "in there, in the same world": it's a myth that the observer or (his) "reason" is outside "the world" - or do you reduce the world to that what is studied by physics (biology? psychology? history? Where do you put the borderline once you accept this -unrealistic- dualism of "outside" and "inside" the world. -------Some facts belong to a socially constructed reality. However when a falling stone hits me on the head (with all the laws of physics that cause this event) it is (they are) not a "socially constructed reality". Any scientist saying so is largely overestimating his constructive power. "consensual reality" is a far too wide concept as "consensus" exists only in the social space (reality) of opinions, and it says something about interindividual agreement, nothing about "reality". History tells us that even with consensus one might be still just WRONG in your opinion on the facts and reality. Popper already observed that theories can be proven wrong, but scientists never can be sure their theory is right. Pretending you can is not realistic. -------IMHO science as "an objective search for facts" is (was?) a very valuable part of human CULTURE, not a myth in the bad sense of that word. -------In OUR culture "economic enslavement" is a quite RECENT (and IMHO desastruous) development. CULTURE has more and more valuable modalities than the economic one, the analytical activity of science being one of them. Arie P.S. Before entering the discussion of your topic some philosophical analysis is needed to see if it (it's formulation) is not a red herring. But belongs discussing this kind of philosophy on this list? May be better discuss it on the list PHILS-VU@SURFnet.nl ("Philosophical Bases of Managing the Information Society"), science being a major part of this information society (culture). I appreciate (short) comments on this P.S. by other list members. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 13:56:02 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: the real biochem issue At 20:55 30-11-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: -----snip----- >The point we were making was that once our worldview predetermines our >values, which preforms our theories, which preselects out of a myriad of >facts those facts which we will value and notice and record in our lab >books to support our theories which support our values which support our >worldview. It is a cybernetic process of self-affirmation, but it is also >a vicious circle which would be good to step out of, especially when your >world view is exploitation of non-renewable resources and theft from and >murder of indigenous peoples. > >Hope this was provocative enough. > ------It was not, we can only (humble or hypocritical) agree and be silent. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:24:19 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: ideology and Nazi science At 12:53 PM 11/30/95 -0500, Ed Morman > >It's a mistake to regard science under Nazism (or, for that matter, any >other totalitarian system) as monolithic or entirely ideology-driven. [snip] 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). I can accept that as a correction, along with Val Duysek's similar point, but then Ed goes on to say t 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. And there I have a problem. He elides from "was accepted as fact" to "was a fact." I go along with Arie in not buying that. Wish I could. As Ed points out, the right appears to be in the ascendency. Their views on race may be distrubing, but if they deconstruct the hole in the ozone layer and the build up of greenhouse gasses they'll certainly throw something on the other side of the balance. And save us a fortune in sun-screen, as well. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:35:22 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Faux Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 28 Nov 1995 to 29 Nov 1995 There is a very good book by Mitchell G. Ash, "Gestalt Psychology in German Culture, 1890-1967." In the book, Ash discusses gestaltism under the Nazi regime and Kohler's resistence. Robert Faux Department of Psychology and Education University of Pittsburgh rbfst1@vms.cis.pitt.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:38:19 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: ideology and Nazi science X-cc: Ed Morman I'm not sure the meaning of part of my last post was clear. I'd like to substitute this for the final paragraph: And there I have a problem. He elides from "was accepted as fact" to "was a fact." I go along with Arie in not buying that. Wish I could. As Ed points out, the right appears to be in the ascendency. Their views on race may be distrubing, but they tend not to believe in the hole in the ozone layer or the build up of greenhouse gasses. If they unfactify those, they'll certainly be throwing something on the other side of the balance. And save us a fortune in sun-screen, as well. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 07:44:52 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Austin Meredith Subject: A belated environmental impact report on the Apollo 13 accident In-Reply-To: <199512010512.VAA28680@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu> I am wondering whether this list would be the proper forum in which to bring forward some materials I have on the Apollo 13 incident in which, in order to save the lives of our three astronauts, we found ourselves forced (with very little opportunity for reflection) to dump a nuclear reactor into the Pacific Ocean -- and have subsequently covered this up with bureaucratic doubletalk, and with a conspiracy of silence, for an entire generation in our public life. I was motivated to prepare these materials after viewing the recent Tom Hanks movie celebrating adrenalin and testosterone, obfuscation now available at your neighborhood video rental store, and the Jim Lovell book LOST MOON celebrating testpilotism upon which that movie had been based, obfuscation now available at your local public library. Such American popularizations, it would seem, must entirely scamp the real issue which was at stake, which was an issue of weighing the three human lives which we had placed at risk against the potential harm to the ecosphere of this planet -- which is sustaining all of the life of which we presently are aware in this universe. Would you please let me know whether it would be appropriate for me to "spam" the collected materials on this incident, to this list? Is this the sort of thing which you consider to fall under the rubric "Science as Culture"? \s\ Austin Meredith, "Stack of the Artist of Kouroo" Project ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 16:23:21 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John P. Rooney" Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? December 1st 1995 TO: Multiple Recipients of List. Science is to technology as Theology is to religion. What do you think? Technology preceded Science. Humans were using fire thousands of years before Science began to consider the Phlogiston theory to explain fire. Science is the accumulation of theories used to explain and understand the technology we employ daily. Religion preceded Theology. The Christian Church was around 12 centuries when St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his, "Summa Theologica". Theology is the accumulation of theories used to explain and understand our relation with God and man's place on earth. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I was hoping to see this group discuss Science as a culture and Science's definitive impact on our culture. E.g.: When the first A-bomb was exploded in New Mexico in 1945, Science presented mankind with a fulfillment of the Old Testament, "I have set before you light and darkness, life and death. Choose Light. Choose Life." Thus, Science made it possible for mankind to consider the absolute destruction of life on earth during the cold war, and what choice we should make. When Oppenheimer saw the first A-bomb explode in New Mexico, he stepped out of his ivory tower of Science into the real world. What did he think they were working on the bomb for?? He realized that he helped to release a weapon which would change war, and, therefore, change our culture. Was the global village ever possible before the nuclear age? Now Science is uncoiling DNA, and we alooking into the very building blocks of life. How will that affect our culture? Sincerely, John Peter Rooney, MS EE, working on an MA in History. **************************************************************************** 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: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 18:34:28 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerald Sussman Organization: Urban and Public Affairs Subject: Re: (Fwd) the machine metaphor Reply to Paul Woodworth's message, below: Paul, I would say that it may be perfectly appropriate to use mechanical metaphors in a poetic and literary context, where readers understand, or should understand, that license of that sort is part of that written and spoken tradition but is not meant to foster a literal reading of expression. It is quite another matter, however, where those who wish to depoliticize the meaning of technology proffer mechanical metaphors as part of a paradigmatic presentation of social reality. They do so not to use a turn of phrase, but to ideologically construct a world where political conflict has no meaning and where citizens' main responsibility is to assume assigned tasks within a machine- driven division of labor. It this sense, mechanical metaphors can have much in common with the totalizing ideology of fascism. Gerry Sussman > 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? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 20:37:10 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Re: the real biochem issue -Reply >>> Mark Burch 11/30/95, 11:55pm >>> It is a cybernetic process of self-affirmation, but it is also a vicious circle which would be good to step out of, especially when your world view is exploitation of non-renewable resources and theft from and murder of indigenous peoples. Lisa: This "world view" looks like what I would have called behavior; exploitation, theft, murder. There might be a few different views that could accompany that behavior, such as the following: Non-renewability is not a problem, because there will always be another new techno-fix (ignoring the costs of both present practices and any possible "fix".) It is not a problem for me (because I can afford plenty for myself.) It is not a problem for "society" (because I don't count the poor, or anyone outside the US, or the, ah, non-white.) It's not theft because it is "legal" (ignoring the question of who made the law to serve whom) It's not a problem I can do anything about, so I don't want to think about it. It's a far away future problem and I've got more immediate issues. [Not that any of those are my own views!] Are these examples of what some people here would call "world views"? Or how should they be categorized? I think the parenthetical bits are usually assumptions that people are not aware of, or have discounted somehow, in order to be able to say the other bits out loud. {A tie to the self-deception/ false consciousness thread.} Lisa Rogers PS Provocative or not, I'd still like to see a direct answer to Jose's question. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 12:18:05 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: New list At 20:37 1-12-95 -0700, Lisa Rogers wrote: ----snip------ >Non-renewability is not a problem, because there will always be >another new techno-fix (ignoring the costs of both present practices >and any possible "fix".) >It is not a problem for me (because I can afford plenty for myself.) >It is not a problem for "society" (because I don't count the poor, or >anyone outside the US, or the, ah, non-white.) >It's not theft because it is "legal" (ignoring the question of who >made the law to serve whom) >It's not a problem I can do anything about, so I don't want to think >about it. >It's a far away future problem and I've got more immediate issues. > >[Not that any of those are my own views!] > >Are these examples of what some people here would call "world views"? > Or how should they be categorized? I think the parenthetical bits >are usually assumptions that people are not aware of, or have >discounted somehow, in order to be able to say the other bits out >loud. {A tie to the self-deception/ false consciousness thread.} --------There ARE (unconscious) assumptions under those "world views". They are important to bring them to the open and discuss them. Let's do that on this list, although - doesn't that leead us off the original track "science as culture" too much? Let me point to a list especially aimed at discussing issues like this, initiated by the Amsterdam Free University Philosophy Departement: "Philosophical Bases of Managing the Information Society". To subcsribe send an E-mail: To: listserv@surfnet.nl subject: subscribe phils-vu Hope to meet you also on that list! Arie Prof.Dr.A.Dirkzwager, Educational Instrumentation Technology, Computers in Education. Huizerweg 62, 1402 AE Bussum, The Netherlands. voice: x31-35-6933258 FAX: x31-35-6930762 E-mail: aried@xs4all.nl {========================================================================} {Imagine a school with children that can read or write, but with teachers} {who cannot, and you have a metaphor of the information age in which we } {live. (Quoted from: Prof. Peter Cochrane) } {========================================================================} {From Steve Carlson's signature: --=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=" The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is it's inefficiency." - Eugene McCarthy --=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+--=--+ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 17:19:55 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: SCIENCE AS CULTURE? >My trenchantly held belief is that science was constructed for the >purpose of exploitation of natural resources for the class of people who >assumed ownership of those resources and own the means of production for >turning those resources into commodities for the economic enslavement of >earthlings. That's pretty obvious, right? > >This topic is now open for discussion. > >Mark Burch But don't forget the mediations. There is a wonderful and under-rated collection of essays by the Soviet Delegastion to the International Congess of the Hisrtory of Science: Buhharin, N. I. et al (1931) _Science at the Cross-Roads_; repprionted London: Cass, 1971. What they show is that the deep impulse to look into astronomy, ballistics, etc. were, indeed, about commerce and power. You can, of course, say the same thing about atomic energy, rubber technology, drugs, the internet. But there are other motives, as well, aesthetic, religious, curiosity, coherence. I say these obvious things, because Mark's bald statement leaves without the space we need to understand the richness of our relationship with nature, even though our motivatgions are undoubtedly pre-structured by the commodity form. If we leave out the mediations, culture becomes a one-to-one reflection of economic forces. It is richer than that. I discuss these issues, using the Darwinian debate as a case study in ch 6 of my _Darwin'sMetaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge, 1985. Robert Maxwell Young robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ, England. tel +44 171 607 8306. fax +44 171 609 4837. home page: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 13:22:20 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: SaC: Facts, lies and sincerity At 22:53 29-11-95 -0500, Howard Schwarts wrote: > 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. ------I whole heartedly agree to that. In my philosophy there are facts we do not (yet) know about, when we get to know them we might not believe, when we believe we might not be certain, when we are certain we might hold a fallacy and not understand the fact at all. We might even imagine things and call them a "fact". Not the facts are weak, but we are weak in understanding facts. Anybody (including oneself) who calls something a fact should be distrusted.------ >When it gets silly to doubt something, we >call it a fact. -------beware - silly in whose eyes? But of course I agree, otherwise any agreement and social life would be impossible.----- >Mark Gilbert says: > > It was a fact in Nazi Germany that Jews were inferior. ------silly mistake: it was NOT a fact, it was considered to be a fact. Most of us now consider it NOT to be a fact, better say: it is very very improbable that it is a fact even up to the point that I consider it impossible (probability of zero). The ideology explains WHY the nazis called it a fact. Ideology is not opposed to facts - from my ideology I can see the real facts and distinguish them from imagined "facts" - I think :-) Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 10:27:01 -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 95-12-01 07:58:31 EST,Arie wrote: >-Some facts belong to a socially constructed reality. However when a >falling stone hits me on the head (with all the laws of physics that cause >this event) it is (they are) not a "socially constructed reality". Any >scientist saying so is largely overestimating his constructive power. >"consensual reality" is a far too wide concept as "consensus" exists only in >the social space (reality) of opinions, and it says something about >interindividual agreement, nothing about "reality". Arie, quite right. Bert. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 10:27:03 -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 95-12-01 16:26:49 EST, Rooney wrote: >When Oppenheimer saw the first A-bomb explode in New Mexico, he > stepped out of his ivory tower of Science into the real world. What > did he think they were working on the bomb for?? Does the culture of science include rigorous training in ethics? Is there a committee to which a scientistcan go to have his/her research examined for ethicality? Is there a committee in which scientific behavior can be challenged? Such things exist in psychology, medicine, the law, etc. But perhaps the culture of science doesn't need such. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 11:50:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: Biochem. vs. Molec. biol. I recall that Lisa a couple of weeks ago made the comment in passing that she calls biochemistry what I called molecular biology. In this trivial terminological difference hangs a long politics-of-science tale. The pessimistic learned biochemist Chargraff (forever angry because he was scooped by the upstart Watson and Crick who didn't even know the forumals for the bases) defined molecular biology as "practicing biochemistry without a licence." Molecular Biology was first used as the name for the "shed" in Cambridge where Crick et al worked. Pnir Abir Am in Osiris, 1992, has an article "Politics of the Macromolecules" in which she discusses the uses of the term, the attempt by biochemists to reject and then coopt mol. biol. Various society addresses which treated molec. biol. either as obviously a subcase of biochem. or as a new field, etc. Original use of molec. biol. by Astbury was restricted to x-ray diffraction and had no conflict with biochem. But then the broader definition including biochem., genetics, biophysics (in modern sense), and other fields, made biochemists challenge its priority. Chargraff wished to define it in a disciplinary was. Crick wished to define it in a social way, as what people who call themselves molec. biologists do. Thus the power of this group defined the provenance of the term. --Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 18:43:41 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology Re: Mark and Arie: Mark said: The ideology explains WHY the nazis called it a fact. Ideology is not opposed to facts - from my ideology I can see the real facts and distinguish them from imagined "facts" - I think :-) Consider the analogy of a tribal belief system. It is part of a cosmology or workld view. It is a fact within it that people believe in evil spirits. It is a fact that people die of curses. An eminent US physiologist, Walter B Cannon, wrote about it in an essay on 'Voodoo Death'. You can say that this is all hooey or that facts become facts within a belief system. That doesn't mean that anything goes or that being hit on the head with a hammer is not an experience which is transcultural, But before we get too complacent about that, think of fire-walking, lying on a bed of nails, etc. In Germany, at that dreadful time, to be a Jew **was**.... Now we need to tell a complex story so we don't find that an unforgivable thing to say. But if you read accounts of various scientific disciplines in the period, you come upon something all-embracing. I am thinking, for exampe, of Geoffrey Cocks account og _Psychotherapy in the Thiird Reich: The Goring Institute (Oxford, 1985). That was it then and there. The next generation of psychoanalysts were analysed by those people and came upon facts which made it all very problemmatic. They mounted an exhibition and a book came from it (which I cannot lay my hands on). Some want to tell a story which stands above the social history and say this was a fact, this was propaganda or ideology. If you lived in Lysenkoist USSR, you would see people getting big grants and prizes, etc., and others getting sent to the Gulag over his doctrines. I think we need to be able to understand both sorts of facts, not just try to show how the voodoo and Nazi and Lysenkoist ones were not facts. They were. Now what is the relationship between them and the transcultural and transhistorical ones, which, in my opinion, are a limiting case, not a paradigm which the others fall short of? I think that the people who are keen to hold a positivist and asocial version of facticity want to blinker themselves so that they do not have to acknowledge how societies constitute their knowledge. __________________________________________ | 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, 3 Dec 1995 22:10:24 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology At 18:43 3-12-95 +0000, Robert Maxwell Young wrote a long message I'll try to respond to shortly: >Re: Mark and Arie: -------skip------ It is sad, but quite some facts are constructed by society and we have to live with them: the fact that the nazis thought jews to be inferior for example. This however does not prevent me to say that they were wrong. Just a short re;ply - I'll scrutinize your message later. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 08:41:43 +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: <199512031528.BAA03077@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au> On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > In a message dated 95-12-01 16:26:49 EST, Rooney wrote: > > >When Oppenheimer saw the first A-bomb explode in New Mexico, he > > stepped out of his ivory tower of Science into the real world. What > > did he think they were working on the bomb for?? > > Does the culture of science include rigorous training in ethics? Is there a > committee to which a scientistcan go to have his/her research examined for > ethicality? Is there a committee in which scientific behavior can be > challenged? Such things exist in psychology, medicine, the law, etc. But > perhaps the culture of science doesn't need such. > Ethics are set out in varying amounts of edtail in most sciences. Anything to do with animal experiments, & human reproduction usually need clearance from ethics committes. In some cases peer review might act in a similar way. Strings attached funding similarly can be a filtering system. There was a high profile case in Australia some years ago when a high profile scientist was convicted of scientific fraud. It was a rather spectacular (if rare) case and effects could be long lived in that it reminded a lot of scientists that someone is looking over their shoulder. What is important is that ethics watch dogs may be formal and institutional or informal. It makes it a difficult process to clearly articulate - until something unethical is brought to attention. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 21:03:56 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology At 06:43 PM 12/3/95 +0000, Bob Young wrote: >I think we need to be able to understand both sorts of facts, not just try >to show how the voodoo and Nazi and Lysenkoist ones were not facts. They >were. Now what is the relationship between them and the transcultural and >transhistorical ones, which, in my opinion, are a limiting case, not a >paradigm which the others fall short of? > One kind of fact, two kinds of fact, three kinds of fact, four. It seems to me that what is important is to preserve the possibility of being wrong. Whatever it is that makes it possible to be mistaken, I would call that a fact. If you don't want to call it a fact, you can call it something else, "objective reality," "the world," whatever. It doesn't matter. Truth is, I don't think we will ever get down to a satisfactory precise statement of it, because we would always be expressing our understanding in terms of whatever it is that makes it possible for us to get things right, not wrong, and therefore we would always miss the point. On this crummy Sunday night, I offer further uplift. I say that all thought is centered around the self, and addresses the difference between the self and the not-self. Ultimately, however, the self is a fantasy, as is the distinction between it is and what it is not. That means that, ultimately, not only do you always get things wrong, but you can't even say why. Under the circumstances, it seems to me we have cause to celebrate any time anything works, and maybe even to be grateful to those who made it possible. He continues: > I think that the people who are >keen to hold a positivist and asocial version of facticity want to blinker >themselves so that they do not have to acknowledge how societies constitute >their knowledge. I think there is some truth in that. I don't think of myself as being "keen to hold a positivist and asocial version of facticity," whether I hold one unkeenly or not, but I offer the possibility that those who do may do so because they do not wish to be told "how societies constitute their knowledge." If the matter were simply one of epistemology, we could simply point out how much they have lost in their insularity. Often, these days, however, it comes in the form of debasement, humiliation, and guilt tripping, as in the following from Mark Burch: >worldview ideology-->value-->theory-->fact > >The point we were making was that once our worldview predetermines our >values, which preforms our theories, which preselects out of a myriad of >facts those facts which we will value and notice and record in our lab >books to support our theories which support our values which support our >worldview. It is a cybernetic process of self-affirmation, but it is also >a vicious circle which would be good to step out of, especially when your >world view is exploitation of non-renewable resources and theft from and >murder of indigenous peoples. > If my social constructionist friends had the grace to acknowledge that their theories of social construction are as liable to the charge of being socially constructed as anybody else's theories of anything else, a more constructive dialog might ensue. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 08:15:20 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology >At 18:43 3-12-95 +0000, Robert Maxwell Young wrote a long message I'll try >to respond to shortly: >>Re: Mark and Arie: >-------skip------ > It is sad, but quite some facts are constructed by society and we >have to live with them: the fact that the nazis thought jews to be inferior >for example. This however does not prevent me to say that they were wrong. >Just a short re;ply - I'll scrutinize your message later. >Arie I agree, but 'wrong' is being used here as a moral judgement which I obviously share. 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: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 07:50:19 -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 95-12-03 17:46:06 EST, you write: >Ethics are set out in varying amounts of edtail in most sciences. >Anything to do with animal experiments, & human reproduction usually need >clearance from ethics committes. In some cases peer review might act in a >similar way. Strings attached funding similarly can be a filtering system. Keep in mind that the ethics noted above were forced on the scientific community by outsiders. Animal labs, and the treatment of animals, were a disgrace. It was not necessary to get informed consent in order to experiment on humans. These are rather recent shifts. But, I implied those. I'm curious about chemistry, physics, etc. Do physicists have an "ethics committee" that determines if the research should go ahead? I think not. Indifference to the consequences of research is the "Ivory Tower." ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:54:05 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: Our themes Bertram Rothschild wrote Nov. 30 to list: Science As Culture re: the Ivory Tower >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. Mere ignorance, Ma'am.... 1. Family (and sex) aside, scientists are materially involved in "human experience" to the extent that they need to earn money to live, thus dealing with non-scientists (accountants, deans, personnel officers). Secondly, science is a uniquely competitive or collaborative career, to which personal relations are intrinsic (whether we emphasize competition or collaboration.) All the scientist has to offer potential employers is his reputation -- as measured less by non-scientists than by scientific peers. Even if the individual sought to annul his personality and behave like a robot (Klaus Fuchs?) he would still be judged as a person by both peers and non-peers, i.e. liked or disliked as a man besides being valued as a colleague and priced in the job market. 2. The alleged indifference of scientists to the consequences of their research is not a "fact" but (like item 1 above) a proposition capable of (dis)confirmation and subject to evaluation. In the one case cited, the atomic bomb, the evidence of how scientists responded, from the 1945 Frank Report onwards, is conveniently available. (The "impression... that the creators of the bomb were almost all enthusiastic about building it in order to thwart the Nazis" is contradicted by most first-hand and second-hand narratives, e.g. Feynman and Rhodes.) The journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded expressly to publicize scientists' concern about the social consequences of specialized research, not for the first or the last time. 3. The dean's suggestion there is "no place for ethics in science" merely invites contempt (of the dean's intelligence.) The structure of scientific dialogue is constrained by stricter protocols about veracity than any other human domain: and science's social structure involves both other ethical principles, such as helpfulness and willingness to be contradicted, besides other values (e.g. simplicity, elegance, logical fertility) to a higher degree than other human domains (e.g. law, history, sociology.) The intricate relationships between science's values (both ethical and aesthetic) and its social structure and the universal demand for conformity to Nature as we experience or can formulate it are probably the reasons science is much more productive of true and useful knowledge than the other domains: and are so fascinating there is already a respectable mini-library on such themes. 4. "Current struggles are a function of that indifference." The most obvious difference between science and other domains is that rival or conflicting theories are practically always resoluble in science -- and seldom or not at all in other domains. The simplest plausible reason why this happens is that the protocols of science, whether ethical or not, are more efficient at either reconciling differences or stimulating new discoveries that so rearrange the field of knowledge as to dissolve differences. None of these points (citing Derek Price and other authors) is a "scientific fact" but all are propositions for which evidence must be adduced, and subject to debate and challenge, in accordance with rules about both evidence and ethics. But that this can be said gives the lie to Rothschild's ridiculous proposition that scientists are "isolated" from human experience and indifferent to community values. By contrast, Mark Burch wrote Nov. 30 about the purpose of the newsgroup: >My trenchantly held belief is that science was constructed for the >purpose of exploitation of natural resources for the class of people >who assumed ownership of those resources and own the means of >production for turning those resources into commodities for the >economic enslavement of earthlings. That's pretty obvious, right? In other words, Burch indicts science as "constructed for the purpose of exploitation" (whether scientists know it or not) while Rothschild indicts scientists as "isolated" and "indifferent to" the social uses of their knowledge. Obviously (!) these two general ideas contradict each other; and there are two common patterns of dialogue. Big Picture partisans tend to conduct polemics, so as not to lose sight of their general conclusion; and scholars risk losing that sight, while they disentangle material facts, human beliefs, and the connections imputed between them (but, because they function inside a competitive discipline, can be sure someone will remind them if they seem to wander too far from the topic under investigation.) To many, Big Conclusions (Marxist or not) are less interesting than the processes and reasons that lead there, and Burch's "obviousness" satisfies few (because it stops argument rather than directing it in interesting directions.) Another approach is measuring how well this particular view fits particular cases. The familiar inventory of cases runs from Thales' prediction of olive harvests (enabling him to corner the oil market) to the question whether Einstein's and Heisenberg's theories were consciously or unconsciously directed by the class interests to which these thinkers were loyal (consciously or unconsciously.) The prototype of this Marxist analysis is Boris Hessen's 1931 paper arguing Newtonian mechanics arose in responsible to the demands of Britain's trade and navigation. The argument is unconvincing chiefly because it is limited to Newton and England. It does not address the sources of the actual research problems Newton took up (the physics of Galileo, Descartes, and the British neo-Aristotelians), none of which can be connected with 18th century British trade by Hessen's methods. To defend his view, Burch would probably find much better evidence in run-of-the-mill scientists than in the few revolutionary giants in the history of science. When we know enough about Copernicus, Kepler, Lavoisier, Darwin etc., we usually find their "class motives" are weak at best, and their personal genius seems independent of class interests. The way the field of history of science works, it looks as if we cannot have any history without the successful giants, but the bulky base of the pyramid of achievement does not get similar treatment, unless we are writing institutional or public history (where being on the payroll of, say, the national experimental farm, is ipso facto reason for inclusion.) No attempt has been made (so far as I know) to produce a "prosopography" of rank-and-file investigators, to confirm the thesis that "science was constructed for the purpose of exploitation" of natural resources and the proletariat. The nearest approach may be that of Pierre Bourdieu, which assumes a priori that the intellectual and social "fields" in which all professionals operate are worldly battlefields where rank and wealth are obtained. This does not entail assuming that people behave uniformly, or ought to. It is probably also unconfirmable on Popperian lines. I leave to other hands the question whether natural resources, as cited above, may not have been sufficiently "routinized" to become independent of monopoly control. -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 09:52:44 +0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dr. Ovsei Gelman-Muravchik" Subject: Re: Internet: Q&A At 11:29 AM 27/11/95 -0800, Tom Athanasiou wrote: >I know, I know. This is mere junk. But do note the section on >"Netiquette," below. I somehow seemed relevant... > >-- toma > "I have a master's degree....in Internet!" Dear Toma M. in Internet, It was not bad taking into account all the perturbations that the list is suffering. But please do send your creations to the creativity lists or at least on Friday for the Weekend. Virtualy Ovsei ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 17:08:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Facts, lies and sincerity In-Reply-To: <9512031223.AA25096@osf1.gmu.edu> =20 On Wed, 29 Nov 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote:=20 =20 > I have been trying very hard to make sense out of Mark =20 > Gilbert's argument against me, which I do not append here, =20 > but have not had much success. =20 =20 I'm sorry I was unclear; I'll make another go at it. But I will develop=20 my ideas in interaction with what you wrote, so the ideas will come out=20 gradually. To begin with, it seems to me all of this is leading to the question,=20 "What is a fact?" Which leads -- for me -- to ask,=20 "What does or can a fact do?" =20 Or, I suspect you would be more comfortable with,=20 "What can we do with facts?"=20 =20 > He [Gilbert] wants to distinguish between =20 > strong facts and weak facts, =20 =20 Not really: I was claiming these two can be distinguished in *your*=20 posting. Or better: facts function in this fashion in your posting. =20 This is not my position -- I was suggesting that seems to be *your*=20 position, at least in your earlier posting. You talk about facts in a=20 way the implies two contradictory conceptualizations. The way you spoke=20 of facts as certainties conflicts with facts as uncertain (I realize you=20 have a way that you think makes sense of this, which I will get to=20 later).=20 =20 For instance, to go back to earlier posts, you wrote on Wed, 22 Nov 1995:= =20 =20 =09> Synthetic rubber *does* lose its=20 =09> flexibility when it gets cold. =20 =09> I don't mind calling that a fact=20 =20 When you say something *does* do x, I take it you are doing two things: 1) asserting what happened 2) expressing your certainty regarding that event -- hence the italics=20 around "does" (as opposed, saying, "it probably happened"). =20 =20 If facts can be determined to be such that we can be so certain about=20 them that we can say unequivocally "x *does* __", then in cases where=20 facts are important, if anyone fails to use them *when they are so=20 accessible and unproblemmatic*, that person(s) is (are) culpable for that= =20 failure. And this is exactly my problem with your analysis of NASA: you=20 rely on this kind of argument to examine the nature of NASAs failing in=20 the Challenger disaster. I will get to why that is a problem below. But= =20 first... =20 I realize that is not all you said. On 23 Nov you added:=20 =20 =09> it isn't always clear what the facts are or how they =20 =09> are to be interpreted... Actual organized science is=20 =09> subject to the same distortive processes as organized =20 =09> anything else. =20 I wondered, how could what you mean by a "fact" be both the sort of thing= =20 =09- which definitely *does* such-and-such; =09- over which we can condemn NASA; and =09- (which we recognize when it hits us on the head -- if we take=20 =09 Arie and Bertram's understanding of a fact).=20 And yet you allow they may be unclear (so maybe x doesn'=92t do such-and such, at least not then). This implies facts are *problemmatic* (distortable, in need of interpretation, unclarity =3D problemmatic). In which case, how can we condemn NASA on the basis of failing to follow the facts when facts are problemmatic? ("I'm sorry Senator, but the facts were unclear; we had a different interpretation of the facts which indicated we should launch, etc.") And this is another reason I have a problem with your analysis: I think NASA *did* blow it, but your analysis does not give us grounds for criticizing them. Just the opposite: you give them a too-easy way out.=20 =20 In another, more recent post you make clearer how it is that these two=20 states of affairs co-exist; namely that a fact can be a straightforward=20 state of affairs, and yet also be unclear and in need of interpretation:=20 =20 > These are two quite different things. Fallibility is not a =20 > quality of the facts but about ourselves as knowers. And when =20 > we say a certain proposition can be doubted, we are saying that =20 > we do not know whether it is a fact, not that it is a weak =20 > fact. I think it makes perfectly clear sense, and is not =20 > muddled, to believe both in facts and in fallibility. =20 Facts, I take it you are saying, are features of the physical world, and=20 fallibility is a feature of the human world. That may be, but it is=20 irrelevant. Why? Facts do not come to us in a pure state, labeled with=20 use or operating instructions. So any lack of fallibility that facts may= =20 have is *irrelevant* to us. Why? Because anywhere that we go, well,=20 there we are. Hence, in our dealings with facts, guess what's also=20 there? (I'll take fallibility for 100, Bob!).=20 =20 But wait! That's not all!=20 =20 =09> One can doubt anything. Sometimes it=20 =09> gets a little silly, though. When it gets=20 =09> silly to doubt something, we call it a fact.=20 =20 Or as Descartes put it, =20 =20 =09"I will subtract anything capable of being weakened, even =20 =09minimally, by the arguments now introduced, so that what is =20 =09left at the end may be exactly and only what is certain and =20 =09unshakeable."=20 =20 The famous method of doubt. When it cannot be doubted, or when it is=20 silly to doubt something, it must be true. But the reasons that=20 Descartes' argument fails are exactly the reasons your argument fails:=20 certainty and lack of doubt are *not* the criterion of the veracity of a=20 claim (like a claim of facticity).=20 =20 Compare "when it gets silly to doubt something, we call it a fact" with =20 all the comments made on this list that NASA regarded itself as=20 infallible. What's the difference between thinking it silly to doubt my=20 set of beliefs (if I'm an engineer working on the shuttle and O-rings),=20 and thinking it silly to doubt another set of beliefs (if I'm in the NASA= =20 management)? That NASA decided to launch that day is prima facie=20 evidence that they thought it silly to believe the shuttle would not=20 survive the launch.=20 =20 > But what I'd like to know is what he's got against the idea of facts. =20 > He seems to think that if you insist on the existence of facts, even =20 > physical facts, you go the way of naziism and other social evils. He =20 > says:=20 =20 > > It was a fact in Nazi Germany that Jews were inferior [...]=20 =20 Hmmm, what do I have the most against:=20 =20 (hint: you're getting...)=20 {...colder}=20 =20 ||=09a) a fact=20 ||=09b) the idea of a fact=20 ||=09c) the certainty that one has a fact=20 ||=09d) the use to which one puts a fact when one is certain \/=09e) the then unavoidable conflation of facticity and certainty=20 =20 {...warmer}=20 =20 Q: > Does he think that holding the existence of facts is authoritarian, = =20 =20 A: no=20 =20 Q: Does he think certainty on holding that one has truly existing facts, (and perhaps others do not), that they are all the relevant facts, and more important, that one is certain of being able to identify facts=20 unproblemmatically, is authoritarian?=20 =20 A: yes! The dialogue of facticity is almost always authoritarian. The idea of facts -- what a fact means -- are always appropriated for the purposes of= =20 power. And what "fact" means is associated with being certain; they go=20 hand-in-hand. While sort-of denying this (I think), you still rely on=20 the fact-certainty association to make your arguments. The way =20 > ...one group imposes its will on another=20 =20 is often by way of the language of certainty, and "facts" (or, the =20 "idea" of facts) -- as you have demonstrated -- are the exemplar cases =20 of certainty.=20 In summary, facts, such as they are, are always problemmatic. As you said, they need to be interpreted, which means the effect a fact will have in our world, e.g., public policy, launch decisions, or whatever, cannot rely on someone claiming to have the set of facts on which the correct course of action is obvious and where doubt is ruled out. NASA did not doubt itself. Substituting someone else=92s lack of doubt for NASAs will not be a solution, because if facts are problemmatic, doubt is always called for. And after all, isn'=92t this part of the culture of science: just about everything is potentially revisable.=20 =20 I realize this is probably an over-detailed analysis, but I think it's an= =20 important issue. I thought it important to go through what was e-said,=20 not just make assertions. Nor, I hope, is this the last word on the=20 topic. =09=09=09=09mark gilbert=09|Need to examine | =09=09=09=09=09=09|Uncritical times | =09=09=09=09=09=09|=09-Stereolab| =20 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:20:30 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Benjamin Bratton <6500benb@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU> Subject: SPEED: An Electronic Journal of Technology, Media and Society We thought that this might be of interest to the members of this list. SPEED: AN ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA AND SOCIETY ----------------------------------- http://www.arts.ucsb.edu/~speed email: _speed_@alishaw.ucsb.edu ----------------------------------- Announcement/ Call for Papers, December 1995 _SPEED_ provides a forum for the critical investigation of technology, media and society. Our intention is to contribute toward a democratic discourse of technology and media, one that is always focused upon the material conditions of life that technologies and media constitute and demand, and yet does not lose sight of the power of ideas to change those conditions. We feel that as media of various kinds become more ubiquitous, what it means to live with and talk about a "medium" changes and expands, and so do the critical vocabularies of interpreting what those transformations indicate. Our primary goal in that effort is to foster a cross- fertilization of ideas between communities of people in the "academy" and "industry" too often separated, not by interest or common concern, but by artificially imposed disciplinary and organizational boundaries. We think that _SPEED_ is a promising step toward making these institutional boundaries more permeable, and a critical politics of "mediated sociality" more powerful. Upcoming issues for which we are currently reviewing abstracts and submissions: SPEED 1.3: AIRPORTS AND MALLS Publicity, it seems, is always a matter of circulation. Likewise, circulation finds itself as a matter of publicity. What then is the circulation of publicity in a "private space," like a mall or airport? Where is the social located, if at all? Is it completely a matter of trajectory, velocity and disappearance; is it or is it not an even more sinister militarization of what used to be called the "civilian sector?" "Malls," whether near a highway off-ramp, or an "information superhighway" off-ramp, are more than architectural generica, they are nodes in the global circulation of commodities, culture and community. Malls as "places," are where some people go to be amongst the fruits of other people's invisible labor. "Airports" as "places," are where some people go to be themselves circulated amongst networks of global circulation, as the content of transportation-as-medium. We are currently reviewing abstracts for inclusion in a special transmission of _SPEED_ (non-fiction, fiction, both; www-specific projects encouraged) that will help answer some of these questions and conundrums. SPEED 1.4: SPECIAL ISSUE: ON PAUL VIRILIO We are currently reviewing abstracts and proposals for articles for a future transmission of _SPEED_ (WWW-specific projects encouraged) on the critical significance of the work of Paul Virilio. In extremely diverse arenas Virilio's cybernetic systems theory of the social has arranged the horizons of wildly unlikely moments of questioning. As his vision of interpretation/accusation crosses the spectrum of disciplinary knowledges (while being at "home" in none), we now hear literary critics speaking of the military origins of the city-state, newscasters phrasing a "Nintendo War," historians of science commenting on the phenomenology of electronic banking, architectural theorists conceiving "the velocity" of airport space, and computer industry professionals discussing the political history of the film projector. Certainly these peculiar arrangements are not to be entirely credited to (blamed on?) Virilio, but they do suggest that his vocabulary is significant beyond the relatively narrow concerns of a "Virilio Studies." We hope, therefore, to both interrogate and expand what it is possible to make "Virilio" say. ----------------------------------- ** TO SUBSCRIBE TO _SPEED_, send e-mail to _SPEED_@alishaw.ucsb.edu with "subscribe" in the subject header. In addition to receiving all future issues, you will be kept up to date on developments regarding the journal. VERSION 1.2 "SCIENCE AND RE-ENCHANTMENT" INCLUDES: BENJAMIN BRATTON "INTRODUCTION: THE POLITICS AND POETICS OF THE FANTASTIC IN AN AGE OF MACHINES "TECHNO-PROSTHETICS AND EXTERIOR PRESENCE" A CONVERSATION WITH ALLUCQUERE ROSANNE STONE AKIRA MIZUTA LIPPIT "THE DEAD EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES: TELEVISION, JAPAN, AND THE SUBJECT OF MULTIPLICITY" SHELI AYERS "VIRILE MAGIC: BATAILLE /BAUDELAIRE / BALLARD" GALEN MEURER "DN2K" "SEX ON A SILVER PLATTER" A CONVERSATION WITH MIKE SAENZ LAURA GRINDSTAFF AND ROBERT NIDEFFER "CUMING SOON ON CD-ROM: ON THE PROMISE AND THE PITFALLS OF 'VIRTUAL' PORNOGRAPHY" ADAM ZARETSKY "ENDOSYMBIOTIC FORMATION OF ORGANELLES: THE SPIROCHETAL CASE" ----------------------------------- HOW TO GET _SPEED_ _SPEED_ can be accessed and/or downloaded several different ways: 1) World-Wide-Web; 2) Anonymous ftp; or 3) Gopher. 1. To Get _SPEED_ via World-Wide-Web just open the following URL from within your favorite Web-browser: http://www.arts.ucsb.edu/~speed 2. To get _SPEED_ via Anonymous ftp just type the following at your local prompt: ftp alishaw.ucsb.edu --when asked for a login name type: anonymous --when asked for a password type the first part of your e-mail address. For example: myname@nowhere.pcp --change directories by typing: cd /pub/_SPEED_ --at the ftp> prompt you can type the normal "get" and "put" commands. For example: get _SPEED_1.2 (or: mget* to get the whole directory) 3. To get _SPEED_ via Gopher just type the following at your local prompt: gopher alishaw.ucsb.edu (you can also type in the IP address directly as follows: gopher 128.111.222.10) Once there, you will see the familiar Gopher menu structure with _SPEED_ being one of your options. At that point you can choose to browse individual items, or mail them to yourself and/or others. (You have to Gopher directly to us because the Social Science Computing Facility at U.C.S.B. where _SPEED_ is archived is not a registered Gopher server. That's why if you happen to be looking for _SPEED_ over your regular Gopher server you won't have much luck finding it. _SPEED_ uses roughly a 65-character line, so your margins should be set accordingly. Set your font type to Courier, 9pt if you want to retain formatting after downloading.) ----------------------------------- HOW TO CONTACT _SPEED_ e-mail: Please send all submissions, criticisms, praise, suggestions, or anything else you have on your mind to _SPEED_@alishaw.ucsb.edu. We want to hear from you! snail-mail: If for whatever reason you need to communicate with us via the U.S. Postal Service, please send your correspondence to: _SPEED_ c/o Robert Nideffer Department of Art Studio University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA. 93106 ----------------------------------- SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Submissions to the journal can be made by electronic mail (preferred), on disk (please indicate the program and operating system used), or by hard-copy (not preferred). No matter what form your submission takes, please: --do not use any special characters --use endnotes instead of footnotes. To indicate an endnote in the body of your text set it off like this: "blah, blah, blah."[1] --use the MLA (Modern Language Association) format for references ----------------------------------- ISSN 1078-196X ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:43:40 -0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Danilo Curci Subject: SaC / Grassroots: ARCO Gallery, Moreno's theatre, Plinius Gardens, House of Restorers and Milan / Art the first X-To: Multiple recipients of list ARCO I'm very happy to see that our list - as art - is ALIVE: are there passions, debates, contrasts of opinions; it's a pity that some subscribers left the list for these reasons. I think, I feel that arts are at the first place in human culture: science is a different thing, for example. Human culture is for me artistic or it's nothing, a non sense. The same is for psychology, as a science: in it's field it has the right to fix it's own rules, but it's ever a specialization, and if psychologists or scientists forget that a part cannot be the all, and that the all is un-delimited in a logical, conscious way, they do a big mistake and a big confusion. This about my opinion on the relationships between S-cience a-nd C-ulture (SaC). Culture is not just a collection of knowledges, of rational instruments to know a thing. It's better, for me, like the ancient , and Platone thougth the as the representation of human mind in terms of (philo) and , at the origin of which is the Sacrates . So passions, life, gods, insights... Dionysus and Apollo. I don't want to use too difficult words to say simple things: the greatness of artists as Shakespeare is the fact that they expressed not just concepts but worlds of words, images, phantasies, and did let us live in these worlds and something we couldn't see in any other way. I think that human communication can be possible only if we to meet other people, and meet them in their own , so risking battles, delusions, but also love and friendship. ------ I remember you that you can visit GrassRoots: the roads are: URL: http://rdz.stjohns.edu from there, click on GrassRoots... or (better) Telnet: rdz.stjohns.edu , (8888) , type and, as a password, ... give your name and create your own password, then type You'll find yourself on : from here you can go to and then to , as well as to GrassRoots' University and then to . There, you'll see the door to come into ARCO Gallery, that include other worlds as the Moreno's Theater, The Plinius Gardens, The House of Restorers and ... Milan (Italy). My alias Ambrosius, The_owl, is waiting for you, also if you'll find him ... sleeping! except on Thursday and Saturdy from 1 AM GMT 0 (Washington time 7 PM), for one hour or two. GrassRoots is not just a place to visit: you can contribute with your ideas and projects, on this list, but the more important thing is that it's a tool to meet people (and if you agree we can fix a date to meet us alltogether there). It's a world made at the measure of kids: aren't children nearer to the Roots of culture and of arts?! So, don't be afraid.... also if you'll find there a dog! Ciao a tutti. Danilo Curci. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 13:23:21 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Paul L. Woodworth" Subject: (Fwd) Re: (Fwd) the machine metaphor >----- Forwarded message (Gerald Sussman ) -----< Gerald, The implication that metaphors are a political instruments over emphasizes the importance of pure idiomatic expressions. It is not the metaphor that creates the pardimic context, but the person speaking. Communication, while uniquely human, is also the source of our inability to break from facist extremes you cite. Consider the use of the same metaphor in two contexts, for different purposes. "The man is a human dynamo" in the context you cite brings the subject into a mechanistic part of energy production. I would choose to read the metaphor that the subject was energetic and a source of inspiration. Metaphors are a method of lanuage based expression, not political instruments. It is our understanding of this duality of use that allows us to spot the manipulative leader compared to a poet. Paul Paul, I would say that it may be perfectly appropriate to use mechanical metaphors in a poetic and literary context, where readers understand, or should understand, that license of that sort is part of that written and spoken tradition but is not meant to foster a literal reading of expression. It is quite another matter, however, where those who wish to depoliticize the meaning of technology proffer mechanical metaphors as part of a paradigmatic presentation of social reality. They do so not to use a turn of phrase, but to ideologically construct a world where political conflict has no meaning and where citizens' main responsibility is to assume assigned tasks within a machine- driven division of labor. It this sense, mechanical metaphors can have much in common with the totalizing ideology of fascism. Gerry Sussman -- Paul L. Woodworth pwoody@pipeline.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:47:37 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: SaC / Grassroots: ARCO Gallery, Moreno's theatre, Plinius Gardens, House of Restorers and Milan / Art the first >I think, I feel that arts are at the first place in human culture: science >is a different thing, for example. Human culture is for me artistic or it's >nothing, a non sense. This is an awfully classical view of culture. I prefer Raymond Williams idea that culture is ordinary. It's from this vantage point that we can understand science *as* culture, not as something apart from human creativity, symbolic labor, doxa, et c. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 19:45:35 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gerald Sussman Organization: Urban and Public Affairs Subject: the machine metaphor In response to Paul Woodworth's comments, below: > Gerald, > > The implication that metaphors are a political instruments over emphasizes > the importance of pure idiomatic expressions. It is not the metaphor that > creates the pardimic context, but the person speaking. Communication, > while uniquely human, is also the source of our inability to break from > facist extremes you cite. Paul, You are overreaching my meaning (see my response, below). When I say that metaphors may be *intended* to depoliticize meanings, I don't say that *all* metaphors are used that way. I would say, however, that it is not merely the person who reinforces paradigmatic understandings, it is indeed the speech itself. When we unwittingly use metaphors such as "she's got balls" (one I heard on NPR this week: Ben Bradlee referring to Washington Post owner Katherine Graham), it is not only an inapt metaphor, but it is gender-centric and indeed hegemonic language (like so much of our male-focussed language). Bradlee could be one of the most enlightened men around on gender issues (not saying he is), but the use of that "idiom" reinforces the tendency to associate courage as a male attribute. Therefore, the speech utterance itself, not merely the speaker, has political consequences. > Consider the use of the same metaphor in two contexts, for different > purposes. "The man is a human dynamo" in the context you cite brings the > subject into a mechanistic part of energy production. I would choose to > read the metaphor that the subject was energetic and a source of > inspiration. I would say in response to your "human dynamo" example that to utter such a phrase in the company of, say, members of a third world rural community would be both inappropriate and have political overtones. Those overtones might be that the industrial model and the person from industrial society is a fitting and generalizable example of high energy. In another culture's context, it might be more apt to refer to energy as, say, a human galewind. Again, the use of the words themselves in such a setting have political content. These examples, however, do not speak to the real concern I have and expressed in my original message, below. When we say things like, "Telecommunications will bring us into a new universe of shared understandings," the assumption is that technology in this sentence can be taken as a mere metaphor or as a real ideological construction of agency. If the metaphor is repeated often enough, it displaces human agency with the implication that contests of power are irrelevant. The unspoken agency, the corporate telecoms community, is assumed to be neutral or even humanitarian. We are, in fact, living at a time when such uses of language are becoming commonplace, and this has profound political implications. > Metaphors are a method of lanuage based expression, not political > instruments. It is our understanding of this duality of use that > allows us to spot the manipulative leader compared to a poet. I would argue (with Foucault and others) that language is a reification of politics. There is no escaping it. Gerry Sussman > Paul, > I would say that it may be perfectly appropriate to use mechanical > metaphors in a poetic and literary context, where readers understand, > or should understand, that license of that sort is part of that > written and spoken tradition but is not meant to foster a literal > reading of expression. > > It is quite another matter, however, where those who wish to > depoliticize the meaning of technology proffer mechanical metaphors > as part of a paradigmatic presentation of social reality. They do > so not to use a turn of phrase, but to ideologically construct a > world where political conflict has no meaning and where citizens' > main responsibility is to assume assigned tasks within a machine- > driven division of labor. It this sense, mechanical metaphors can > have much in common with the totalizing ideology of fascism. > > Gerry Sussman > -- > > Paul L. Woodworth pwoody@pipeline.com > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 05:59:46 -0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Danilo Curci Subject: Re: SaC / Art the first At 09.47 05/12/95 -0600, you wrote: >>I think, I feel that arts are at the first place in human culture: science >>is a different thing, for example. Human culture is for me artistic or= it's >>nothing, a non sense. > >This is an awfully classical view of culture. I prefer Raymond Williams >idea that culture is ordinary. It's from this vantage point that we can >understand science *as* culture, not as something apart from human >creativity, symbolic labor, doxa, et c. > Thank you for your "awfully classical view", also if I don't see why "classical" has to be added to "awful". You see, you sentence make stronger my opinion.... My message wanted to be just a stone lounched in the water. I saw some days ago a film (the title isn't so important, the actor was Gian Maria Volont=E8= ) that suddenly made me rebel, better, made me remember my rebellion, against the equation: science=3Dculture, expecially if for "science" we mean old or neo= positivistic science. Your message make me dare to add an abstract from another message I sent to the psychonalaysis-news mailining list (to complete my thought): -------- I have a question: how much, actually, at the end of Millennium, psychoanalysts and psychoanalitical-oriented psychotherapists still believe in their own intruments? My opinion is that these instruments still are those of Sigmund Freud: the word and its therapeutic power, in the context of the relationship with the patient. The history of the Psychonalytical theories and methods made a long way since Freud's times, many contradictions arised, divisions, new enthusiasms and delusions: but the plague, the in Italian language, that S.F. brought in the States, I think was the same the world still is afraid of. Now: in these last 10 years the Neuro-Sciences re-conquered the minds of many therapist of the psyche, and ... captured most of them to the pre-freudian idea that human beings are just like machines, also if very complex machines, more complex than computers. Their scientific back-ground is not so scientific as it looks: Science, since Eisenberg or Einstein and ever Artificial Intelligence philosophers, is no more conceived as a mechanicistic way to understand the nature of organism more complexes than a stone rolling down from a mountain. But I know that in Italy, as in the States and in many other countries, also psychoanalysis was periodically catched from that worse : I wonder how psychoanalists could and can work with psychiatrists and "neuro-scientists", delegating to these last ones the real holding of their patients: I don't want to say that psychiatrists are wrong, to believe in the effects of drugs they empoly: they - in a a right or wrong way to reason - believe in their own instruments. I also don't forget that psychoanalysis have big costs, and in several practical situation, the short way is to give patients some drugs to avoid bigger damns in their real life. I just wonder if some psychoanalist still exists that believes in its own instruments, and really try to afford with the patient the longer way of translation and of communication with words, and renounces to give relevance to the immediate results of their (psyc/patient) work, keeping in mind that life hasn't a well defined in itself, nor human life, so that the goal of a good integration in the society or other well accepted behaviours, ways to reason, emotions and phantasies cannot (if they believe to freudian instruments) be at the first place, since nobody knows where the common travel and work therapist-patient will bring both, in month and years. I think that freudian and best post-freudian psychoanalysis is an , that has a cultural impact on the all society (THAT - was/is - THE ), and change with its feed-back to the psychoanalitical set-context. Perhaps it isn't a danger if psychonalysis is not considered a (in the old, positivistic or neo-positivistic sense), but it also, as science has a sense if it respects its own rules, has a sense, I think, if respects also the limits of lack of well-defined previsions about the developing of the psychoanalytical process, given by the instrument with which it's "builder" chose to operate ------ I don't consider myself a classical reasoning man, I like to read and read again Sigmund Freud's book, and S.F was ALSO a "romantic" man, as Plato was a "lover" of "sophia". Best regards. Danilo Curci. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 20:42:17 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology X-To: Howard Schwartz In-Reply-To: <95Dec3.160709hst.11466(3)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Cheer up , Howard! You sound so depressed. I am not sure where you got "debasement, humiliation, and guilt tripping." I was merely summarizing the effects of 500 years of colonialism, genocide, and planetary uglification. If anyone has experienced debasement and humiliation, it was the genocidees. And, whereas I think it is unfortunate what has happened to this beautiful planet of ours, I don't feel guilty. Do you? > If the matter were simply one of epistemology, we could simply > point out how much they have lost in their insularity. Often, these days, > however, it comes in the form of debasement, humiliation, and guilt > tripping, as in the following from Mark Burch: > > >worldview ideology-->value-->theory-->fact > > > >The point we were making was that once our worldview predetermines our > >values, which preforms our theories, which preselects out of a myriad of > >facts those facts which we will value and notice and record in our lab > >books to support our theories which support our values which support our > >worldview. It is a cybernetic process of self-affirmation, but it is also > >a vicious circle which would be good to step out of, especially when your > >world view is exploitation of non-renewable resources and theft from and > >murder of indigenous peoples. > > > > If my social constructionist friends had the grace to acknowledge that > their theories of social construction are as liable to the charge of being > socially constructed as anybody else's theories of anything else, a more > constructive dialog might ensue. > > Howard Schwartz > Why do you consider it a charge and a liability to say that something is socially constructed ? What is wrong with acknowledging the social construction of something (just curious)? Just offhand, while I have wild flights of private creativity, most things in my life have been socially created. Are you advocated some form of atomized individualism (an interested redundancy, since both seem to mean "cannot be divided"), solipsism, objectivism, or what? Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:53:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology At 08:42 PM 12/5/95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >Cheer up , Howard! You sound so depressed. Hey, it's the key to reality, remember? >I am not sure where you got "debasement, humiliation, and guilt >tripping." I was merely summarizing the effects of 500 years of >colonialism, genocide, and planetary uglification. If anyone has >experienced debasement and humiliation, it was the genocidees. >And, whereas I think it is unfortunate what has happened to this >beautiful planet of ours, I don't feel guilty. Do you? > I think you're being disingenuous, Mark. Suppose a man says this to his wife: "You're a slut. Your mother was a slut and your sister is a slut. All the women in your family are sluts. Now you're raising your daughgter to be a slut. If I didn't keep an eye on you, you'd screw everybody on the block." Despite its form, its historical claims, its counterfactual, this is not an analysis. It's an assault. And it can't be responded to as if it were an analysis. > >Why do you consider it a charge and a liability to say that something is >socially constructed ? What is wrong >with acknowledging the social construction of something (just curious)? I think the problem here is largely rhetorical. If I accept the charge that my ideas are socially constructed, it cuts the heart out of my spontaneous capacity to respond, putting my attacker one up, so to speak. If he/she then has an interpretation of me that emerges from their own spontaneity, even one that has little merit in its own right, as above, it is difficult for me to defend against it. Frankly, I have not been impressed by the social scientific frameworks that the left has used to interpret others. As social science, they have not seemed to me to amount to much. For me, then, it has been n interesting question how thay have acquired such authority. The analysis in terms of rhetoric helps me to understand that. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 08:37:32 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Elihu M. Gerson" Subject: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology Mark Burch: >> >>Why do you consider it a charge and a liability to say that something is >>socially constructed ? What is wrong >>with acknowledging the social construction of something (just curious)? > Howard Schwartz: > I think the problem here is largely rhetorical. If I accept the charge >that my ideas are socially constructed, it cuts the heart out of my >spontaneous capacity to respond, putting my attacker one up, so to speak. If >he/she then has an interpretation of me that emerges from their own >spontaneity, even one that has little merit in its own right, as above, it >is difficult for me to defend against it. I think several different thing are getting confounded in this discussion. The claim that ideas are socially constructed is not supposed to be a "charge", but rather description. Everyone's ideas are socially constructed, the ideas those who advocate the position no less than the ideas of those who oppose it. This characteristic of ideas does not impair anyone's capacity to respond to arguments; rather to the contrary, it is (or provides) that very capacity-- that's what an idea is, after all. Obviously, the idea that ideas are socially constructed can be used as a bludgeon to attack others, assert special privilege, and so on, just as any other idea can. The tools of rhetorical analysis provide one way of disarming such usages. Similarly, many of the philosophical and literary approaches usually lumped under the rubric of "post-modernism" can be employed the same way, as means of either attack or defense vis-a-vis a given position. It seems to me, that the common project here is to use these tools (in whatever combination) to identify and eliminate the mis-constructions, abuses, etc. So I think Howard is right when he pints out that an assualt can masquerade as an analysis-- but that means that after we've removed the assault, we still have to do an analysis. >Frankly, I have not been impressed >by the social scientific frameworks that the left has used to interpret >others. As social science, they have not seemed to me to amount to much. For >me, then, it has been n interesting question how thay have acquired such >authority. The analysis in terms of rhetoric helps me to understand that. Again, there's a confounding here: "left" does not equal "social science". In fact, most of the social science that's been done (including science studies) has been quite conservative, if the categories of left/right and conservative/liberal have any meaning at all any more. Admittedly, there's been a great deal of bad social science. Some of it has been "left", and some of it has been "right". But there's been some pretty good stuff too. One of the worst problems social science has faced is the tendency to make any project or results serve (or oppose) the most practical short term ends immmediately. We'd be a lot better off if we took the results of social science (as opposed to policy or social problems) research as a starting point for the policy-making process (only one of many such starting points) rather than as prescription for action. Elihu M. Gerson Tremont Research Institute 458 29 Street San Francisco, CA 94131 Phone: 415-285-7837 Fax: 415-648-7660 gerson@hooked.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:11:59 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: facts, lies... & ideology Howard Schwartz writes (6 Dec 1995) >. . . If I accept the charge >that my ideas are socially constructed, it cuts the heart out of my >spontaneous capacity to respond, putting my attacker one up, so to speak. If >he/she then has an interpretation of me that emerges from their own >spontaneity, even one that has little merit in its own right, ... it >is difficult for me to defend against it. Frankly, I have not been impressed >by the social scientific frameworks that the left has used to interpret >others. As social science, they have not seemed to me to amount to much. For >me, then, it has been an interesting question how thay have acquired such >authority. The analysis in terms of rhetoric helps me to understand that. As a newcomer to this List I would like to comment on Howard's remarks, in the hope, perhaps, that someone might let me know if I am retreading familiar ground, or if my views are in error :-( . Any statement e.g. that ideas are socially contructed, has a pragmatic dimension. This might be an attempt at objective description, or a rhetorical attempt to coerce belief regardless of facts - even in denial that there may be facts at all. To me, it seems unexceptionable to say the ideas are AT LEAST IN PART socially constructed. It is, however, nonsense to say that ideas do not also reflect other perceptions and ideas of the world (such as we can know it). So I agree that the statement, used as a charge rhetorically, is an attempt to manipulate the situation that goes beyond the facts. But a stronger case can be made for the contrasting view, i.e. the "spontaneous capacity to respond". This leaves too many questions up in the air. What are the grounds for this spontaneity? If they are not to be perhaps suspect, the basis for the merits claimed should be clear. As I see it, scientific methods are pretty much a free-for-all in which whatever is most useful deserves a hearing in terms of that usefulness. This is how I understand (very broadly speaking) the philosopher of science Karl Popper, for example. And the good news is that, while scientific theorizing is certainly influenced by culture, and in some ways decisively so, it at least tries to stay with facts and not reward attempts to falsify them in aid of some special interest. So Objectivity does mean something very useful. The occasional exceptions prove the rule in this, since they are exceptions to the rule. Cheers and best wishes. Bruce B. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:23:51 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dr. Patrick W. Hamlett, Assistant Head, MDS" Subject: NCSU Program on Science, Technology & Society Home Page X-To: HOPOS-L@UKCC.uky.edu, htech-l@sivm.bitnet, archive@helix.ucsd.edu The NCSU Program on Science, Technology & Society Home Page has been expanded, and now includes 157 links to STS-related information sources. Several of these additions are to international information sites, as well as to science, technology, and culture sites. The PSTS Home Page also has links to 32 university-based STS program Home Pages, including 21 US programs. Additions are welcome. The NCSU PSTS Home Page can be reached at the follo\wing URL: http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/chass/mds/psts.html Cheers, Hamlett ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 12:51:05 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: janet atkinson-grosjean Subject: Re: Looking for Steven Best My apologies for cluttering the list with my thesis needs, but does anyone know how I can quickly (read electronically) get hold of a copy of Steven Best's 1991 article ( in SAC11): Chaos and Entropy: Metaphors in Postmodern Science? Would be pathetically grateful for any assistance. Jan (It's that metaphor woman again!) ========================================================================= Janet Atkinson-Grosjean Graduate Liberal Studies Program Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, Vancouver, BC or 'Harold, like the rest of us, had many impressions which saved him the trouble of distinct ideas' from 'Felix Holt, The Radical,' George Eliot ========================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:10:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology At 08:37 AM 12/6/95 -0800, Elihu Gerson > >I think several different thing are getting confounded in this discussion. [snip] > >It seems to me, that the common project here is to use these tools (in >whatever combination) to identify and eliminate the mis-constructions, >abuses, etc. So I think Howard is right when he pints out that an assualt >can masquerade as an analysis-- but that means that after we've removed the >assault, we still have to do an analysis. > And Bruce Buchanan wrote: >As I see it, scientific methods are pretty much a free-for-all in which >whatever is most useful deserves a hearing in terms of that usefulness. >This is how I understand (very broadly speaking) the philosopher of science >Karl Popper, for example. And the good news is that, while scientific >theorizing is certainly influenced by culture, and in some ways decisively >so, it at least tries to stay with facts and not reward attempts to falsify >them in aid of some special interest. So Objectivity does mean something >very useful. The occasional exceptions prove the rule in this, since they >are exceptions to the rule. > No argument from me on these. But there is an ideological argument going on these days that often overlaps the epistemolgical one. I took Mark's point as representing the ideological aspect of that menage and was trying to get at its rhetoric. Keeping the two separate is, I agree, an important order of business. There are some, though, who would deny the difference. They might say, for example, that everything is political. Anyone want to take up that line of reasoning? Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 14:43:02 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Elihu M. Gerson" Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology Howard Schwartz writes: >But there is an ideological argument going >on these days that often overlaps the epistemolgical one. I took Mark's >point as representing the ideological aspect of that menage and was trying >to get at its rhetoric. Keeping the two separate is, I agree, an important >order of business. There are some, though, who would deny the difference. >They might say, for example, that everything is political. Anyone want to >take up that line of reasoning? How do we tell the difference (and whose criteria do we use to do so) between "ideological" and "epistemological"? The point is not to keep them separate, for this cannot be done; the point is (1) to develop and apply reliable ways of noticing when ideological/epitemological differences are at stake, and (2) taking them into account effectively. As for the claim that everything is political-- everything that people do has a political aspect to it, just as everything that people do has an economic aspect, an ideational aspect, etc. What's the problem? Elihu M. Gerson Tremont Research Institute 458 29 Street San Francisco, CA 94131 Phone: 415-285-7837 Fax: 415-648-7660 gerson@hooked.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:12:06 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Rooney Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology In-Reply-To: <199512062112.HAA27317@ngriffin.itc.gu.edu.au> > > No argument from me on these. But there is an ideological argument going > on these days that often overlaps the epistemolgical one. I took Mark's > point as representing the ideological aspect of that menage and was trying > to get at its rhetoric. Keeping the two separate is, I agree, an important > order of business. There are some, though, who would deny the difference. > They might say, for example, that everything is political. Anyone want to > take up that line of reasoning? > > Howard Schwartz > Howard My response is to ask anothe question. I'm still plodding away as a student so feel a bit insecure at times about such ansewers. The question is, what is the point of polarising debates between social determinism (or in your last tantilizing post political determinism) and technological (scientific) determinism? >From my perspective the world is not that well organised. In fact it is a complete mess. I'm not particularly distrubed by the mass, in fact I rather enjoy it - it makes doing research fun. I am not arguing that no regularities or sense can be made of it all, just that it is complex and full of historical contingencies. You may have guessed that I might use the systems approach - similar to Hughes. Is this not a "reasonable" position to adopt? Anyone want to take a shot at this little Aussie duck. David ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:20:31 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology In-Reply-To: <9512062112.AA10755@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > They might say, for example, that everything is political. Anyone want to > take up that line of reasoning? It depends on what one means by "everything is __" (big surprise). If one wants to say "everything that one does *also* involves or implicates the political," there might be something to talk about here. But to say "everything is just politics," is meaningless. "Politics" is then synonymous with "reality" or "all that is." Statements that take that form are a type of especially useless metaphysics: everything one can say or do is tautological, a re-saying and re-enacting of the same. mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:52:46 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Facts, lies and sincerity In-Reply-To: <9512031223.AA25096@osf1.gmu.edu> On Sun, 3 Dec 1995, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > >Mark Gilbert says: > > > > It was a fact in Nazi Germany that Jews were inferior. > ------silly mistake: it was NOT a fact, it was considered to be a fact. But how are we supposed to tell the difference? For the vast majority, if not all, of the facts there may be, the importance of that fact is that we recognize it as a fact and act on it. The problem is intensified because not only is it not at all straightforward how this can be made into a workable difference -- I don't think it can -- we are expecting this difference between facts and what is "considered to be a fact" to do all kinds of work for us. Case in point: Howard Schwartz' analysis of NASA. Facts are supposed to save us from mistakes (or at least increase the probability of avoiding mistakes). But if we cannot rely on facts to do that in a straightforward fashion -- my position -- we have no easy and convenient way out of these difficult challenges. Or at least, facile appeals to "the facts" are just so much handwaving. A cute gesture that makes us (who of course, are in possession of the facts, right?) feel safer and more comfortable, when that's not such a good idea. Falling back on "facts" only excuses us from a more detailed and difficult analysis that we would just as soon avoid. So, for the most part, a fact is a fact *for us* only in so far as we consider it to be a fact. If I don't consider rocks hitting me on the head a fact, I'm not going to do much about it. It was considered a fact that heavier-than-air bodies could never fly, so not much was done to explore the possibilities of mechanical flight. It is a fact, after all, that there is gravity. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:11:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology As of yet, there are no takers on the appeal to defend an "everything is political" position. I don't mean a position that says that everything has political aspects, which I cannot imagine anyone denying. I mean the idea that there are specific groups, usually identified by such labels as gender, race, and class who have fundamentally different and incommensurable aproaches to the world, including fundamentally different epistemologies. the argument continues that it is only a matter of power that determines which of these approaches to the world predominates -- hence the idea that everything is political. Up until this time, they say, it has been a certain group, the white males, who have had that power and have used it to marginalize and oppress other groups. Now the time has come to challenge and subvert that power and overthrow the epistemology that legitimates it. When that goes, science goes with it. I'm not making this up. It's all over the place (Catherine MacKinnon and Sandra Harding come to mind.) I'm interested in it chiefly from the standpoint of "political correctness," but I tend to be a bit obsessive, some might even say paranoid, about that. If it isn't represented here, or if no one here wants to defend it, that's certainly fine with me. I've got to go to Mexico (Yeah! Yeah!) for a conference anyway. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 23:14:34 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SaC: Facts, lies and sincerity At 07:52 PM 12/6/95 -0500, Mark Gilbert wrote: >But how are we supposed to tell the difference? For the vast majority, if >not all, of the facts there may be, the importance of that fact is that we >recognize it as a fact and act on it. The problem is intensified because >not only is it not at all straightforward how this can be made into a >workable difference -- I don't think it can -- we are expecting this >difference between facts and what is "considered to be a fact" to do all >kinds of work for us. Case in point: Howard Schwartz' analysis of NASA. >Facts are supposed to save us from mistakes (or at least increase the >probability of avoiding mistakes). But if we cannot rely on facts to do >that in a straightforward fashion -- my position -- we have no easy and >convenient way out of these difficult challenges. Or at least, facile >appeals to "the facts" are just so much handwaving. A cute gesture that >makes us (who of course, are in possession of the facts, right?) feel >safer and more comfortable, when that's not such a good idea. Falling >back on "facts" only excuses us from a more detailed and difficult >analysis that we would just as soon avoid. > >So, for the most part, a fact is a fact *for us* only in so far as we >consider it to be a fact. If I don't consider rocks hitting me on the >head a fact, I'm not going to do much about it. > >It was considered a fact that heavier-than-air bodies could never fly, so >not much was done to explore the possibilities of mechanical flight. It is >a fact, after all, that there is gravity. > Mark seems to think it is necesary to plumb through to the essence of being before one can cross the street. Good luck, Mark. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:41:18 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology In-Reply-To: <95Dec6.055606hst.11407(5)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > > Despite its form, its historical claims, its counterfactual, this is not > an analysis. It's an assault. And it can't be responded to as if it were an > analysis. > I disagree. The assault was and is against the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. It is going on right now here in Hawaii, in Ogoniland, in Amazonia. To say this is counterfactual is blatant denial. The analysis, and I prefer the sort of institutional analysis that Noam Chomsky carries out, is to observe what happened, who benefitted and who suffered. It is that simple. > I think the problem here is largely rhetorical. If I accept the charge > that my ideas are socially constructed, it cuts the heart out of my > spontaneous capacity to respond, putting my attacker one up, so to speak. If > he/she then has an interpretation of me that emerges from their own > spontaneity, even one that has little merit in its own right, as above, it > is difficult for me to defend against it. Frankly, I have not been impressed > by the social scientific frameworks that the left has used to interpret > others. As social science, they have not seemed to me to amount to much. For > me, then, it has been n interesting question how thay have acquired such > authority. The analysis in terms of rhetoric helps me to understand that. > > Howard Schwartz > I sense you have a fear of being collectivized. As an anarchist, I of course value the autonomy and spontaneity of individuals. I despise authority whether it coerces me from the left or the right. As an anarcho-syndicalist, I recognize that individuals can form communities that share values and interests. Perhaps it would be better to say that one's ideas are socially mediated rather than socially constructed. The motto of holarchical thinking is "acting autonomously and working interdependently." Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:42:16 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Susan Hitchcock Subject: Help! unsubscribing! Sorry to send this message to everyone, but I have such trouble figuring out who I write to unsubscribe. So, please, someone, explain to me how I unsubscribe for my month away. Thanks, Susan H. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:53:01 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ms J C Garritt Subject: Re: Help! unsubscribing! In-Reply-To: <199512071244.MAA21137@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Susan Hitchcock" at Dec 7, 95 07:42:16 am PLease could you let me know too, by mail reply - I've been trying to unsubscribe for the past two weeks! Thanks Julia Garritt J.Garritt@Lancaster.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:08:26 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Steve McGregor Subject: darnit Fellow sufferers, I have been trying to unsubscribe for almost three weeks with no avail. Not only are the listserv people unresponsive but Robert Maxwell has been unable to assist me in my efforts. This is ridiculous. I must have been sent to the ring of hell in Dante's Inferno where internet junkies go--where your mailbox is flooded by unwanted messages and no matter how much you struggle, you can't stop their flow. ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED. Thanks in advance, Charles N. Yood cny1@psu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:33:50 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Andreas Carter Subject: Re: darnit Why does the "From" line say Steve McGregor? >From: Steve McGregor >Subject: darnit >To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Seems very suspicious to me. You are subscribed under Charles N. Yood. If you try to unsubcribe calling yourself something else it may be no surprise that you are less than successful. Could that be it? In any case, good luck in hell, Andreas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Andreas Carter andreas.carter@pi.se http://public-www.pi.se/~the_tank/ac.htm Is reality optional? ------------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:04:07 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: UNSUBSCRibING Re: darnit In-Reply-To: <199512071614.LAA00534@mailbox.syr.edu> listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu message: unsubscribe science-as-culture **** the listserv name seems to be the trick. other possibilities: - put SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE in capitals - unsubscribe all i donno, give it a shot... jude ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:51:51 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC: Facts, lies and sincerity In-Reply-To: <9512070417.AA30128@osf1.gmu.edu> On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > At 07:52 PM 12/6/95 -0500, Mark Gilbert wrote: > > >But how are we supposed to tell the difference? For the vast majority, if > >not all, of the facts there may be, the importance of that fact is that we > >recognize it as a fact and act on it. The problem is intensified because > >not only is it not at all straightforward how this can be made into a > >workable difference -- I don't think it can -- we are expecting this > >difference between facts and what is "considered to be a fact" to do all > >kinds of work for us. Case in point: Howard Schwartz' analysis of NASA. [snip] > Mark seems to think it is necesary to plumb through to the essence of > being before one can cross the street. Good luck, Mark. > > Howard Schwartz Thanks, I may need it. Then again, launching a shuttle involves a bit more than crossing the street, no? On the other hand, there are the streets of New York... mark gilbert ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 14:56:09 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: SCI-CULT Digest - 5 to 6 Dec 1995 In a message dated 95-12-07 01:24:52 EST, you write: >it is only a matter of power that determines >which of these approaches to the world predominates -- hence the idea that Howard Schwartz asks people to defend that version of the view that "everything is political" as expressed in the form: >everything is political. Up until this time, they say, it has been a >certain group, the white males, who have had that power and have used it to >marginalize and oppress other groups. Now the time has come to challenge and >subvert that power and overthrow the epistemology that legitimates it. When >that goes, science goes with it. I'm not making this up. It's all over the place (Catherine MacKinnon and Sandra Harding come to mind.) I'm interested in it chiefly from the >standpoint of "political correctness," You want people to defend a view in the most extreme (and in your eyes ridiculous) form so that you can refute it. Your granting that everything has a political aspect, is more than many defenders of scientific objectivity and the logic of scientific method would wish to grant. It's just not true that everyone believes this. If one distinquishes science as institutions and credentials from science as logical, empirical facts, plenty of people would deny that the latter is political, even in part. Your use of the term "political correctness" shows that you have fallen prey to propaganda from the U.S. Information Agency officers associated with the CIA, who, in cooperation with the Olin Foundation (of the firearms manufacturer) set up the Madison Foundation and NAtional Assoc. of Scholars that propagated this term in its current negative sense. Thus your questioning that everything is political is itself unbeknownst to you, totally political. Sandra Harding gets a lot of bad press. If you think her unfortunate and much jumped upon by lackies of the Olin Foundation "Newton's rape manual" quote is exaggeration you should meet the U of NH physics dept. whose main concern in life is defending sexual harrassers and harrassing the victims. What's wrong with claiming that all science is socially constructed, just as all scientific ideas are mentally constructed, but they may "work" or not work as Gerson suggests. Indeed, they may be socially constructed and correspond or fail to correspond to the world in a very traditional sense, just as mentally constructed hypothese may. --Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:09:54 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: mangled Pickering A while ago a post was forwarded from Andrew Pickering, probably the most informed on contemporary physics of the major published social constructivist (or former social constructivist) sociologists of science, correcting my reference to his work. O'Dea had mentioned in passing an article which claimed Hamilton's quaternions could be accounted for by conservative politics. I suggested it was Pickering's article. Pickering forwarded a post saying his article was in fact a criticism of David Bloor's article, which does reduce Hamilton's quaternions to conservative idealist political orientations, as opposed to the formalist symbolic algebra people such as Peacock and de Morgan etc. who were more progressivist. Presumably this was indeed the article that O'Dea was citing, because he said it was older that last year. Nevertheless Pickering does, in a backhanded sort of way, grant Bloor his political alighnment claims by saying something like "from what I know there is nothing that conflicts with Bloor's claims as to the social alignments of these figures." Perhaps he is merely being polite, for if he knew nothing about their politics he could in good faith make this claim. But obviously Pickering knows a great deal about Hamilton and the works of Hendry, Hamilton's biographies, etc. Pickering apparently objects primarily to Bloor's reductionism, and claims that the internal logic of discovery and consequences drove Hamilton away from his extreme Kantian account in later years. But my questioning the orientation of Hamilton solely with conservative trends still applies. That is, Hamilton certainly associated himself with idealist opposition to materialism and atomism, using Berkeley, Boscovitch, Kant, Plato and anything he could get his hands on. But the romantic worldview (a word now out of fashion) has also critical and progressive elements (as evidenced, for instance by Coleridge's use by JSMill or the use of Carlyle by Engels in his reivew of "Past and Present" and by Marx with "cash nexus" in the Manifesto. True, this would mean that Hamilton's explicit politics could not reduce quaternions, but also, even as politics, quaternions might express the more radical aspects of the romantic movement. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 21:33:30 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: SCI-CULT Dige