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 Digest - 5 to 6 Dec 1995 Val and Mark, I've been getting ready for a conference today and have not had a chance to respond to your posts. I'll get back to you in about a week, unless hell freezes over -- always a possibility. Howard ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 20:37:04 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: Help! unsubscribing! In-Reply-To: <199512071244.GAA24824@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Ditto On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Susan Hitchcock wrote: > 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 20:38:07 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: Help! unsubscribing! In-Reply-To: <199512071254.GAA28441@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Ditto, ditto On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Ms J C Garritt wrote: > 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 20:40:08 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sheryl S. Gallaher" Subject: Re: darnit In-Reply-To: <199512071611.KAA23931@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> Ditto, dito, ditto; I am yet another user trapped. Anyone with unsubscribe information, please forward. Thanks. Sheryl Szot Gallaher On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Steve McGregor wrote: > 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 22:33:59 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SCI-CULT Digest - 5 to 6 Dec 1995 In-Reply-To: <9512071958.AA12733@osf1.gmu.edu> On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Val Dusek wrote: > 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 Wow -- this is pretty dramatic sounding stuff: care to document any of it? ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:26:22 -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: <95Dec6.151623hst.11477(4)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> I will take up the gauntlet on this one. One of my favorite pastimes is uncovering the outrageous political assumptions glibly ensconced in scientific assertions. My favorite one is entropy. If you look at entropy objectively, you will observe that all it does is spread things around. Things which are concentrated in one place will tend to become diffuse. The interpretations which are given to entropy, that it leads to increasing disorder, decay, etc., are completely anthropocentric (and on an even deeper level, semiocentric) and subjective. To gain insight into why entropy is given a bad rap, it is illuminating to consider what the distribution of wealth in the world were subjected to entropy. It would be distributed equally among all the entities in the economic sphere. Of course, this is very bad in the eyes of capital, who also happens to control the pursestrings of scientists and the ideas which are considered publishable. In other contexts such as statistical mechanics, entropy is said to lead to an increase in degrees of freedom. The equation of freedom with disorder is highly revealing, especially in light of Mayor Daley's slip of the tongue: "The police are not here to create disorder, they are here to maintain disorder." Another subject is the misunderstandings of chaos (ie., its conflation with disorder) and labelling of self-governance as anarchy, etc. I highly recommend Ralph Abraham's book, "Chaos, Gaia, Eros" for a brilliant treatment of theses subjects. Mark Burch, The Institute for Entropic Consciousness _____________________________________________________________________________ On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Howard Schwartz wrote: > 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. > > Howard Schwartz > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:24:01 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: how to unsubscribe (tested) So, i just tested the system. The following are two messages. Copy the "To:" and "unsubscribe" bits of the first (no subject) and send it. The message following that is one that i received minutes after sending... jude (not even a scientist) ************* (fwd) *************** Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:07:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Jude L. Hollins" To: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu unsubscribe SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE *********** (fwd) *************** Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:08:50 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at SJUVM (1.8b)" To: Jude Hollins Subject: Output of your job "jlhollin" > unsubscribe SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE You have been removed from the SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE list. Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 1.681 sec Device I/O: 148 Overhead CPU: 0.266 sec Paging I/O: 5 CPU model: 4381 DASD model: 3380 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 07:12:57 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Douglas Kellner Subject: Re: Looking for Steven Best In-Reply-To: <199512062055.OAA27933@mrzip.cc.utexas.edu> from "janet atkinson-grosjean" at Dec 6, 95 12:51:05 pm Jan Steven Best is at Dept of Philosophy, Univ of Texas. El Paso, Texas. He is revising the postmodern science paper for a book we are writing called THE POSTMODERN ADVENTURE and would probably be happy to send you a copy. Best regards, Douglas Kellner ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:54:45 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Emmanuel Mesthene? Can anyone tell me of the present whereabouts or work of Emmanuel G. Mesthene? He wan Executive Director of Program on Technology and Society at Harvard in the late 1960's. I have drawn a blank on the resources available to me for searching this. He wrote with great insight on cybernetics and the way in which values, the processes of valuing, and technology will shape the future. I would be greatly interested in learning if his ideas about the overriding importance of the _processes of valuing_, as the source of values and human purposes, have been pursued by him or indeed anyone. Thanks for any help. Bruce Buchanan buchanan@hookup.net ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:54:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology Mark Burch writes (7 Dec 1995): >I will take up the gauntlet on this one.[i.e.to defend an "everything is >political" position.] One of my favorite pastimes is uncovering the outrageous >>political assumptions glibly ensconced in scientific assertions. > >My favorite one is entropy. If you look at entropy objectively, you will >observe that all it does is spread things around. Things which are >concentrated in one place will tend to become diffuse. The >interpretations which are given to entropy, that it leads to increasing >disorder, decay, etc., are completely anthropocentric (and on an even >deeper level, semiocentric) and subjective.. . .[etc.] This line of argument is so self-serving that one is tempted to just let it pass. I suspect, however, that the absence of a countering response will only convince Mark that his points are irrefutable. So let me add my two cents worth. Mark is setting up a straw man. He takes the scientific concept of entropy - the second law of thermodynamics which says (roughly) that heat dissipated unless work is done to oppose this tendency. He claims that political assumptions are "ensconced in" this. His evidence for this are the (non-scientific) interpretations which he cites and ascribes. What Mark does is associate the political and anthopocentric misinterpretations with the term entropy. He then criticizes - and properly so - such an interpretation. But this is unscientific commentary, not part of science. Mark has a point when he says "If you look at entropy objectively, you will observe that all it does is spread things around." An inference might be that conceptual work is required to combat inevitable tendencies to confusion. By implication Mark is trying (in Howard Schwartz's words) "to challenge and overthrow the epistemology that legitimates ...science." IMHO, Mark is sawing off the branch that he is sitting on. I have no idea why. Cheers and best wishes. Bruce Buchanan "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:10:12 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Web Pages In-Reply-To: <199512071846.NAA13375@mailbox.syr.edu> Hey, we all gave introductions... Can we tabulate good web notes? My page is http://web.syr.edu/~jlhollin/ I am working on pages for my department- http://web.syr.edu/~vrparent/cfe/cfe.html and for the Syracuse Univ. school of ed-http://128.230.34.92/ and for SU graduate student organization- http://web.syr.edu/~sugso/ i would start babbling about all the cool and useful links i have found, yet, i suggest to check out these pages for links and good search engines... I am constantly searching the web for useful stuffs, and would love to hear from the wide range of people on this list. Particularly, i am looking for research and education links (define the terms how ever you want!) just an idea... jude ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 20:13:59 -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: Bruce Buchanan In-Reply-To: <95Dec8.045558hst.11334(4)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Bruce's reply is excellent, as it illustrates the core belief system of scientism, ie, the belief that there is "science" out there in the world independent of scientists' ability to discover or interpret it. I assert that there is no science independent of scientists' discourse about science. Science is the sumtotal of what people engaged in science say about their experience, whether or not it misrepresents what is "really" scientific. As Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out, science is a form of Platonic Idealism, in which equations and curves are given more reality than the actual observations which are used to support them. I will reiterate my position, which is that the assumptions which form the basis set of scientific thought are very political in nature, and have to do with ideas of order, control, and the threat of freedom. Related ideas on this list have been expressed by Gerry Sussman (?) and relate the machine metaphor to the encroachment of totalizing fascism. If you want a more complete exposition of my ideas, they have been published by the Anarchives as "Plateaus of Consumption: The Biosemiotics of Consumer Fascism." I will forward a copy to anyone who is interested. 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 Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Bruce Buchanan wrote: > Mark Burch writes (7 Dec 1995): > > >I will take up the gauntlet on this one.[i.e.to defend an "everything is > >political" position.] One of my favorite pastimes is uncovering the outrageous > >>political assumptions glibly ensconced in scientific assertions. > > > >My favorite one is entropy. If you look at entropy objectively, you will > >observe that all it does is spread things around. Things which are > >concentrated in one place will tend to become diffuse. The > >interpretations which are given to entropy, that it leads to increasing > >disorder, decay, etc., are completely anthropocentric (and on an even > >deeper level, semiocentric) and subjective.. . .[etc.] > > This line of argument is so self-serving that one is tempted to just let it > pass. I suspect, however, that the absence of a countering response will > only convince Mark that his points are irrefutable. So let me add my two > cents worth. > > Mark is setting up a straw man. He takes the scientific concept of entropy > - the second law of thermodynamics which says (roughly) that heat > dissipated unless work is done to oppose this tendency. He claims that > political assumptions are "ensconced in" this. His evidence for this are > the (non-scientific) interpretations which he cites and ascribes. > > What Mark does is associate the political and anthopocentric > misinterpretations with the term entropy. He then criticizes - and properly > so - such an interpretation. But this is unscientific commentary, not part > of science. > > Mark has a point when he says "If you look at entropy objectively, you will > observe that all it does is spread things around." An inference might be > that conceptual work is required to combat inevitable tendencies to > confusion. > > By implication Mark is trying (in Howard Schwartz's words) "to challenge > and overthrow the epistemology that legitimates ...science." IMHO, Mark is > sawing off the branch that he is sitting on. I have no idea why. > > Cheers and best wishes. > > Bruce Buchanan > "We are all in this together!" > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 07:04:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: SaC: facts, lies... & ideology Mark Burch writes (8 Dec 1995): >Bruce's reply is excellent, as it illustrates the core belief system of >scientism, ie, the belief that there is "science" out there in the world >independent of scientists' ability to discover or interpret it. ... Well, thanks, but this is not what I believe, and I do not really think there is evidence in my previous note that justifies this conclusion! My view of "scientism" (as Mark describes it above) is that it represents a fundamental confusion between the realities "out there" in the external world (which are not directly knowable but which are apprehended via perceptual phenomenology) and the abstract concepts (including "science") by which we try to understand and deal with the world. The external world is indeed independent of our ability to discover it. But the conceptual worlds of "Science" are categorically different, consisting more modestly of our best efforts to describe and interpret experience. >I assert that there is no science independent of scientists' discourse >about science. Science is the sumtotal of what people engaged in science say >about their experience, whether or not it misrepresents what is "really" >scientific. Science is identical to the discourse of scientists. As a continuing enterprise it is always engaged in error-correction and attempts to improve the accuracy of descriptions and the usefulness of explanatory theories. If scientists misrepresent what is "really" scientific they are, by definition, making a mistake or attempting fraud, perhaps, but they are, again by definition, not "engaged in science." > As Rupert Sheldrake has pointed out, science is a form of >Platonic Idealism, in which equations and curves are given more reality >than the actual observations which are used to support them. Scientists make a decisive distinction between perception - i.e. accurate observation and measurements - and abstract concepts. Henry Margenau, Karl Popper and many others have described this in detail. It makes no sense to speak of concepts having more reality than observations. We register perceptions in the context and terms of the conceptual categories with which we think. Science is a form of explanation, and explanatory concepts are structured deliberately and self-critically as sparingly as possible - cf. Occam's razor. It is true to say that the concepts of science are also conditioned in part by the worldviews and all the other cultural assumptions of the human beings that entertain them. It could not be otherwise. However it is quite specifically part of scientific methodology to exclude values which threaten truth and freedom of thought and inquiry. Where this fails, as it does sometimes, it is part of science to recognize the error. >I will reiterate my position, which is that the assumptions which form >the basis set of scientific thought are very political in nature, and >have to do with ideas of order, control, and the threat of freedom. The "assumptions which form the basis set of scientific thought" are, by definition, the assumptions made explicit by scientists. There is an essential distinction between (1) the assumptions accepted by the community of scientists and (2) assumptions ascribed to scientists by various outside observers who bring their own perceptions and concepts to bear upon the interpretations they make. There is also a distinction to be made between "assumptions which form the basis set of scientific thought" and the cultural and political processes through which scientific inquiry and findings are supported and used by society. The latter may include political lobbying, engineering development and financial backing, which have to do with the "ideas of order, control, and the threat of freedom". But without some clear core of scientific evidence and validated theory the latter do not amount to anything more than empty hand-waving. And it is that core meaning which is the point of this discussion. >If you want a more complete exposition of my ideas, they have been >published by the Anarchives as "Plateaus of Consumption: The Biosemiotics >of Consumer Fascism." I will forward a copy to anyone who is interested. Yes, please, I would be interested, particularly in the assumptions which underlie the arguments offered. I would hope the exposition deal with the scientific enterprise per se as it actually operates at its essential core - i.e.. in the minds and methods of its most distinguished exemplars, e.g. Nobel laureates. Cheers and best wishes. Bruce Buchanan "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 08:19:36 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: Finding someone X-cc: Bruce@freenet.carleton.ca, Buchanan@freenet.carleton.ca, buchanan@HOOKUP.NET Bruce Buchanan asked the list how to find Emanuel Mesthene. The obvious place to look is the WIPIS (Who Is Publishing In Science) unit of the Social Science Citation Index. Secondly, since EM was based in Britain, he may appear in British Who's Who. -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 13:43:24 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: 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. If you wish to unsubscribe, do not write to the list but to listserv with the message: unsubscribe sci-cult If you write to the list to unsubscribe, you will annoy the subscribers and will not be unsubscribed. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 13:44:56 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: New forum on politics and/of psychology &psychiatry ******************************************************************* POLI-PSY ******************************************************************* Political Science-Psychology/Psychiatry ******************************************************************* CONTENTS: WELCOME FILE & LIST GUIDELINES [PROPOSED] ******************************************************************* Date: December 1st 1995 List Owner: Robert G. White INTERNET: rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca This LISTSERV forum is dedicated to discussion and debate that centers on the political aspects of Psychiatry and Psychology past, present, and future. Subject matter includes theory and practice as well as education in these fields. This forum will be a bit different than others in that the discourse will not be constrained by any preconceived agenda of any one group of people and as the list coordinator I will endeavour to facilitate debate and resolve minor conflicts if they arise. My hope is that this forum will attract individuals that are interested in the political theories that govern policy sciences such as Psychology and Psychiatry. I will attempt to draw many researchers, theorists, and practicing profess- ionals, but it will be up to all to make this forum a comfortable milieu to house discussion in. Therefore, if people would follow the proposed guidelines listed below I believe that will help facilitate discussion and debate from the outset. A] Please have regard for the gathering present and write with concern for both the ideas discussed and the people that are taking part in the debates. B] Please avoid writing personalized messages to the entire forum and when replying to discussion try to avoid creating wasted bandwidth by providing a brief summary of the previous comments and then append your comments. NOISE pollution is a problem and all of us must do our best to avoid posting what others might consider as more pollution or NOISE. C] Do not post anything unrelated to the central subject matter of Political Science, Psychology, or Psychiatry. If in doubt what constitutes appropriate subject matter please feel free to write to me personally. D] Do not attack people for their ideas in a personal way. Please attack the ideas and not the individuals or their personalities. Remember what we are here for and keep in mind that this forum houses many people from many diverse backgrounds of which Psychology and Psych- iatry make up only a portion. It is assumed that the approach will be multifaceted and that list members will write with an eclectic understanding of the fields discussed. E] When posting to the forum please include the name of the theorist you may be referring to in your posting and place their name in brackets on the subject line of the post. For example, a subject line might look like this... Subject: Repression/ ongoing debate [Freud], Subject: Manufacture of Madness [Szasz] etc. Please refrain from replying to subject lines that mean next to nothing in terms of the actual content of your post. If clarity can be achieved by changing the subject line on a previous posting then by all means change the subject line accordingly. F] Anyone can subscribe to POLI-PSY, but if people are not really taking these proposed guidelines into account when posting, I will ask them to leave the the forum. Furthermore, this forum is for academic and scholarly debate/discussion. It is important that all of us keep this in mind when posting so that the boundaries of social intercourse are clear to all participating or for those merely monitoring the debates. I believe that if all of us stick to these simple guidelines we will all be able to get along and share in information gathering and retrieval without causing excessive conflicts or emotional outbursts otherwise known as 'flames'. My hope is that these guidelines will safeguard against these kinds of disruptions and everyone will feel welcome to contribute. respectfully, Robert G. White INTERNET: rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca ************************************************************************ BASIC OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS FOR _POLI-PSY_ LISTSERV SENDING MESSAGES TO THE FORUM _POLI-PSY_ Post messages to the following address: POLI-PSY@sjuvm.stjohns.edu If you need to contact the List Owner for any reason: Write to: Robert G. White rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca The address for sending LISTSERV commands is: LISTSERV@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU SUBSCRIBE & UNSUBSCRIBE FORMATS To join the POLI-PSY forum, send the following message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu (leave the subject line blank) subscribe POLI-PSY First-name Last-name To leave the POLI-PSY forum, send the following message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu (leave the subject line blank) unsubscribe POLI-PSY It is possible to subscribe to to the forum in index (table of contents) or in digest (one mailing with all the messages for the day). To do this send the following message to: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu (leave the subject line blank) set POLI-PSY index or set POLI-PSY digest MINI REFCARD This section includes a number of commands which are useful to forum members. Unless otherwise indicated all commands should be sent to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu, leaving the subject heading blank. It is possible to send multiple commands in the same message provided that there is one command per line. TYPE THE COMMAND: IF YOU WANT TO: HELP receive commands information INFO receive a list of files LIST find out what listserv lists exist INDEX POLI-PSY receive a list of files associated to POLI-PSY REVIEW POLI-PSY find out who is on the forum GET name-of-file receive a file The HELP command is particularly helpful for subscribers who are new to listserv forums. There are a lot of documents with useful information on listserver services. For a list of available documents send the command INDex DOC. Some particularly useful documents for forum members are LISTSERV REFCARD and LSVSTART. To receive a copy of the first send the following message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu GET LISTSERV REFCARD To get a copy of the second send the following command to listserv@earncc.bitnet GET LVSTART PS (Postscript) GET LCSTART MEMO (plain text) ************************************************************************** POLI-PSY LIST OWNER/COORDINATOR 1995/96 ----------------------------------------- Carleton University ---------- Robert G. White Dept. of Psychology Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA INTERNET ADDRESS ----- rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca ------------------- E-MAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************************************** __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 13:45:45 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Revised list of commands: please keep I find that some crucial details on previous lists of commands were in error. Please discard previous command lists and retain this one. Sorry, Bob Y To post a message on the list, send mail to: science-as-culture@sjuvm.stjohns.edu It would help if you would begin the 'Subject:' line of each posting with SaC: so that I and others will know your message is from this list. All messages regarding your sci-cult subscription should go to: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu If you wish to unsubscribe, do not write to the list but to listserv with the message unsubscribe science-as-culture. If you write to the list to unsubscribe, you will annoy the subscribers and will not be unsubscribed The list and its monthly archives are public. It is possible to subscribe to the list in index (table of contents) and digest (one mailing with all messages for the day). This can be accomplished by sending mail to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the message: set sci-cult index or set sci-cult digest You may find the digest option useful at times when the volume of messages is high. MINI REFCARD This section includes a number of commands which are useful to forum members. Unless otherwise indicated all commands should be sent to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu, leaving the subject heading blank. It is possible to send multiple commands in the same message provided that there is one command per line. TYPE THE COMMAND: IF YOU WANT TO: HELP - receive commands information INFO - receive a list of files LIST - find out what listserv lists exist INDEX sci-cult - receive a list of files associated to sci-cult REVIEW sci-cult - find out who is on the forum REVIEW sci-cult (country - find out what countries subscribers come from GET name-of-file receive a file (there is a bracket before but not after 'country'). The HELP command is particularly helpful for subscribers who are new to listserv forums. There are a lot of documents with useful information on listserver services. For a list of available documents send the command INDex DOC. Some particularly useful documents for forum members are LISTSERV REFCARD and LSVSTART. To receive a copy of the first send the following message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu GET LISTSERV REFCARD To get a copy of the second send the following command to listserv@earncc.bitnet GET LVSTART PS (Postscript) GET LCSTART MEMO (plain text) If you have any problem or would like more information about the sci-cult list, please contact: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk (Robert Maxwell Young) __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:00:32 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Exasperation and Civility We seem to be having another spate of signoffs. I'm sorry that I have been off-line since Monday. My computer broke down, and they only returned it last night. Perhaps it is worth reminding subscribers that the forum is what we make of it and that people who object to a thread or to its length or to someone posting too often or too loquaciously - that such people have a number of civil remedies available to them. First, express your opinion constructively to the list. Alternatively or secondly, write privately and civilly to the person(s) involved. Third, write to me. Although it is a frequently-observed phenomenon that people feel persecuted by a list, a moment's thought will remind one that lists are not agents: they are a group of addressees, most of whom are typically lurkers. If you are a frequent contributor, ask yourself from time to time if you are always replying or if you are getting into a dialogue. If so, consider keeping your own counsel for a time to see what and if others reply. You might also think of corresponding privately with the person or persons concerned. (You can put several email addresses in the 'To:' line, separated by commas.) On technical matters I can only point out that I am also in the hands of STJOHNS. I am not a technician. If something frustrates you, please reflect that it is not the case that the entire list is responsible, so please do not take it out on all the subscribers. Write to me. If I can help I will. Otherwise, I will pass the matter on to STJOHNS. You an also write to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the message HELP I believe that the matters with which this list is concerned are central to the future - the very existence - of civilisation and that the brief is as wide as science and of culture. I am therefore not minded to restrict debate, nor am I willing to vet each posting, i.e., become a strictly moderated list. I will point out, however, that we went from 350+ to 270 subscribers during the rape thread. We are now 253, in spite of a number of new subscribers. One cannot say how many unsubs of the moment are due to people taking a break for the holidays. Best wishes, Bob Young PS There has been some confusion over writing to listserv. I find that I have contributed to this and apologise. The root of it is that STJOHNS uses abbreviated versions of the list title (sci-cult) for some purposes and not others. If you are writing to the list or unsubscribing, you use the long name (science-as-culture). For some other commands you use the short one. If you wish to unsubscribe, do not write to the list but to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the message unsubscribe science-as-culture. If you write to the entire list to unsubscribe, you will annoy the subscribers and will not be unsubscribed I will post a new message with (I trust) accurate commands. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 6094837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, | University of Sheffield: r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ | _Mental Space_: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/rmy.html | Process Press, _Free Associations_, _Science as Culture_: | http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 10:56:12 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: SaS Digest - 7 Dec 95 to 8 Dec 95 In a message dated 95-12-09 00:15:45 EST, you write: >One of my favorite pastimes is uncovering the outrageous political >assumptions glibly ensconced in scientific assertions. >My favorite one is entropy. If you look at entropy objectively, you will >observe that all it does is spread things around Weininger in Chem at Lowell Tech (now Lowell U, Mass.) has given some interesting papers on entropy at the Sci and Lit Soc confs., most recently in Brentwood, CA. He notes that early 20th C textbooks of P-Chem were quite open in discussion how little we understand entropy, and noting that the different definitions didn't quite fit together. He cites one Chem Soc presidently address that draws out the need to keep down the poor from entropy considerations. Certainly Stephen Brush's "The temperature of history" in Texas Quarterly, late 1960s has a good summary of social implications drawn from thermo in 19thC, better than his later book on the same subject. Is it true that subjective definitions of entropy such as that of Jaynes can be simply dismissed? Jaynes has some problems, but similar definitions have use, such as in the Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes and the temperature of unobservable black holes. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Val Dusek, Philos, UNH, Durham, NH, 03824 USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 17:21:19 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: SaC: close: facts, lies... & ideology At 07:04 9-12-95 -0500, Bruce Buchanan wrote a very clear, considerate and sensible reply to: Mark Burch (8 Dec 1995), disentangling concepts Mark got mixed up. I suggest to stop the discussion at this point - no new views are added and the positions are clear, I feel my mailbox doesn't need any lengthy message on this topic anymore and is waiting for some new interesting stuff. Arie. Still (but that IS another topic): >The "assumptions which form the basis set of scientific thought" are, by >definition, the assumptions made explicit by scientists. There is an >essential distinction between (1) the assumptions accepted by the community >of scientists and (2) assumptions ascribed to scientists by various outside >observers who bring their own perceptions and concepts to bear upon the >interpretations they make. ------Those "various outside observers" can be scientists (philosophers) too, because they are "outside" they may be better able to pinpoint unconscious assumptions not known explicitely to the scientists that adhere to them. "Accepted assumptions" are formulated in a language that reflects the cultural-philosophical assumptions inherent in that language (in Dutch it is quite natural to call philosophy a science - in English that is more difficult, there is no one word to cover all sciences. In German "Geisteswissenschaft" is still "Wissenschaft".---- >I would be interested, particularly in the assumptions which >underlie the arguments offered. -----I would say: Give me the arguments. They may be analyzed to discover the underlying philosophy ("assumptions"). Then give me feedback if you can recognize these "assumptions". Wouldn't that be a good method of scientific intercourse?------ Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 08:27:22 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Howland Subject: Truth?? If I were to try to tabulate the different standards of truth, the result would begin something like this: Mathematics -- A statement is true if it follows logically from axioms held in common. (A common scheme of logic is presumed.) Chemistry, Physics -- A statement is true if it can be verified experimentally. Biology -- Like chemistry & physics, but with the alternate criteria that an observation is true if it can be verified by s suitably trained and equipped observer. Law -- A statement is true if it can be shown consistent with available evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I would like to extend my list, but am having trouble with the following entries. Can anyone help? Philosophy -- Theology -- Literature -- Psychology -- History -- Economics -- Politics -- Please note that I am not asking for a list of what is or is not true, just a short statement of how it is usually determined in each area. Bill Howland -- Houston BHowland@eworld.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:38:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: SaC Re: Digest - 7 to 8 Dec On Thu, 7 Dec 95 Following up on "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. The article by Sarah Diamond in Z Magaine called "Readin', Writin' and Repressin'" a couple of years ago, which was abridged as "The Origin of the NAtional Association of Scholars" in Pat Aufderheide, ed., The Politics of Political Correctness, a year or so later has discussion of the USIA and Madison Foundation connection. She notes that at least one of the US INformation Agency people who helped Madison set up National Assoc of Scholars was very close to the CIA. Further discussion of the network and funding of the NAS and its various satallite organizations is in book by Loeb, In Search of a Lost Generation, footnotes to later chapters. I don't know of any really solid research tracing in detail or documenting the CIA connections as direct and intentional. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Val Dusek, Dept Philsophy, UNH, Durham, NH 03824 USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 11:40:02 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Goldbort Subject: Re: Exasperation and Civility X-To: Robert Maxwell Young > I believe that the matters with which this list is concerned are central to the future - the very existence - of civilisation and that the brief is as wide as science and of culture. I am therefore not minded to restrict debate, nor am I willing to vet each posting, i.e., become a strictly moderated list. > Best wishes, Bob Young Thanks Bob and discussants, I've been one of those "lurkers," I suppose, and, since I agree with your paragraph above, I wanted to thank you and the many contributors for the stimulating discussions and arguments between and amongst certain folks--e.g., on inheritance, on what a "fact" is. For me, this list so far has been fun to read. It does pay to wait sometimes before replying. For instance, I delayed responding to 2 requests to explain (defend?) my claim that `facts are made, not simply found', only to be delighted by a good bit of discussion on this subject in recent postings, which made my own reply unnecessary. As to the "rape thread," though I was annoyed by much of the discussion's irrelevance to this list, I also saw connections: In a strange and morally bankrupt sort of way, and in this particular rape incident, the rapists' presence and power is made possible and supported by a hormonally-driven technological machine that literally rapes a land and a people--a violently aggressive BIOCULTURAL drive to exercise one's controlling and dominating power. Science, technology, power, violence, sexuality, and cultural myths and values do comprise a matrix and locus of irrational, irreverant, and downright evil behavior sometimes. Though ultimately individual humans are responsible for their own actions, we must also scrutinize the "instituted" values to which we permit ourselves to become acculturated as a collective--clearly, some of these values have to do with how we--each of us, scientist or not, and as a culture--use science and technology. I also wanted to make a point about scientific morality and ethics, a point grounded in what I see as an important parallel between how Quintilian defined an ideal orator (or rhetor, or writer in today's context) and how one currently defines "scientist." Quintilian said in his Institutio Oratoria: "I do not merely assert that the ideal orator should be a good man, but I affirm that no man can be an orator unless he is a good man." By analogy, might we say that moral goodness is the first requisite for defining science and scientists? Our culture, like the scientific community itself, stills seems to see (even after, e.g., Snow, Oppenheimer, Bronowski, Medawar, Huxley, Eiseley et al.) a schism between "science" and "human values." [E.g. Josef Mengele may have derived some scientifically useful knowledge, but in doing so he acted as an evildoer rather than as a scientist.] I would claim that there is an inescapable intersection, constituting an organic wholeness, between the senses of empirically-verifiable truth and the value-laden truth of what it means to be a sentient and caring human being. I see any purported schism here as artificial and unhealthy. I could provide many provocative case-examples for discussion from the realm of fiction (short stories, novels, some of which is written by scientists) but I'll refrain for now. In my own work, I find it valuable to look at how imaginative literature--as both a reflection and critique of Western culture--projects science and scientists. Cultures value stories for good reasons. They are more than entertainment, or just literary niceties--they record our feelings, our values, our practices and, importantly in our day and age, they permit us to have second thoughts about where we are and where we're headed--so that we might exercise our moral imagination and courage to alter the script when necessary. Thanks again for maintaining the list and to all for the lively discussions. --Rob (p.s., I'm not sure how to post this for all to read, but perhaps you could forward it?) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 08:11:17 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: SaC: entropy X-To: Val Dusek In-Reply-To: <95Dec9.055727hst.11418(8)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Another excellent examination of entropy is Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process." His main criticism is that current understandings of entropy ignore qualitative aspects of material process. This he thinks stems from Feurbach-type materialism (matter is eternal). Then there are the writings of Thomas Pynchon, including his first short story, "Entropy." Mark ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 13:37:38 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: Truth?? Bill Howland writes (9 Dec 1995): >If I were to try to tabulate the different standards of truth ...{etc.] Depending upon your exact purposes you might be engaged in a dubious enterprise. IMO what you would be doing is trying to generate some fairly obvious, and hence superfluous, rules of thumb which would not add much in the way of discriminating insight and might be seriously misleading in problematical situations. Rules of thumb for deciding upon what is or is not truth, i.e. what is worthy of belief, might be compared to trying to practice medicine out of a book or from a computer program. It may have a certain utility but it does not get to the basics of the question. The key point is that the pursuit of truth is an unending program of inquiry in any area of human endeavour. Each area poses it own special requirements in terms of the concepts which structure inquiry and the nature of the relevant experience and evidence. There is no truth apart from the methods of perception and formulation of experience, and these must be appropriate to the materials of each inquiry. In all areas a key factor is that current concepts and beliefs must be continually reevaluated in the light of new experiences. The question then is: what are the criteria by which logical systems may be accepted as coherent (e.g. mathematical validity) and/or experiences, or perceived phenomena, best understood? I submit that the higher values which shape the answers to these questions are those of freedom of inquiry - often there is a requirement for further information, etc. - and also for creative reformulation of the question or paradigms at issue. Ultimately, it seems to me, it is likely that any particular truth, as the most useful and aesthetically satisfying specific presuppostion or hypothesis, is both a reflection of the world and a human creative achievement. As such it is not possible to categorize truth abstractly in advance of the processes of valuation by which it is accepted. However I suspect that most people are quite uncomfortable with what they see as the uncertainties involved, and would be unable to accept (and a fortiori reluctant to understand) such a view! Best wishes. Bruce Buchanan "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:15:43 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: SaC Re: PC & CIA refs. Here are some more accurate references on the role of the USA CIA in propagating the "political correctness" phrase to attack anything decent. 3 of the sources are obscure to get, especially for people outside the USA. Paul Rogat Loeb, Generation at the Crossroads, Rutgers UP, 1994 is probably the most accessible source to people outside the USA. On pages 430 -432 notes 14 - 37, especially in note 28 are references on this history. Sarah Diamond, "Readin', Ritin' and Repressin'," Z Magazine, Feb. 1991, She also wrote "Notes on Political Correctness" in Z, July/Aug 1993, and has a new book out about the US far right either from South End or Common Courage Press which I haven;t yet seen, but which might have some of this stuff. Diamond's first article is reprinted in Patricia Aufderheide, Beyond PC, Graywolf Press, 1992, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA, as "The Funding of the NAS," pp. 89 - 96. Diamond notes that a major document by Roderic R. Richardson (of the Smith-fRichardson Foundation, which with Olin funds much of the anti-PC books, organizations and think tanks) proposed the "high ground" strategy of appearing to defend "objectivity" and traditional academic freedom against the leftist lit crits. This is ironic in that the NAtional Association of Scholars had to be told to take the 'high ground' in its attacks by a foundation heavily involved in CIA-linked media projects and training programs for CIA and Defence Dept. people. Earlier consortia involved in founding the precursors of the National Association of Scholars (NAS is perhaps a witty acronym from NSA - NAtional Security Agency) include William Doherty of the American Institute for Free Labor Development, the CIA-funded labor organization involved in fostering company unions and breaking progressive unions from Italy to Chile Nicaragua. Doherty appeared at the 1983 conference of the Campus Coalition for Democracy, headquartered with NAS at Princeton. It had Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eliott Abrams, Michael Ledeen (active in defending Nestle Formula fake nurses who helped the poisoning of babies in the thrid world, and, I believe later won an ethics award) etc. My own, admittedly speculative hypothesis, is that CIA and USIA types, fearfull of job loss after the fall of communism, felt they needed something to replace the Communist threat on the academic level. It no longer worked to call professors communist, with no USSR to kick around any more. Some of them went to Antioch, Oberlin, Etc. and other Granola, bohemian colleges, where "politically correct" was used in a joking sense by post-modern non-Marxist leftist students. They borrowed it, probagated it through the Olin, Scaif-Richardson, and Smith-Richardson Foundations, and groups such as The NAtional ORganization of Scholars, and were helped by the USIA press connections (the CIA admitted some 250 journalists working for them in the private US media) They very successfully disseminated the same (some true, many false, most distorted) PC annecdotes to Time, Newsweek, TV Guide, Readers Digest, and via press releases to numerous journalists too lazy, or when sick, to use for columns (the same columns and stories as one has seen years before resurface in 1994 on NBC, TV Guide, Boston Globe, etc. They were very successful. "PC' replace "dirty commie pinko fag" as term of abuse, and has spread as far as Australia Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:21:36 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: logical rape X-To: Rob Goldbort In-Reply-To: <95Dec9.064403hst.11402(1)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Rob Goldbort wrote: > As to the "rape thread," though I was annoyed by much of the > discussion's irrelevance to this list, I also saw connections: In > a strange and morally bankrupt sort of way, and in this particular > rape incident, the rapists' presence and power is made possible and > supported by a hormonally-driven technological machine that > literally rapes a land and a people--a violently aggressive > BIOCULTURAL drive to exercise one's controlling and dominating power. > Science, technology, power, violence, sexuality, and cultural myths > and values do comprise a matrix and locus of irrational, irreverant, > and downright evil behavior sometimes. Though ultimately individual > humans are responsible for their own actions, we must also > scrutinize the "instituted" values to which we permit ourselves to > become acculturated as a collective--clearly, some of these values > have to do with how we--each of us, scientist or not, and as a > culture--use science and technology. > I agree with this wholeheartedly. The point I was trying to make was that scientific assumptions and results justify and promote the whole global military-industrialist machine which is destroying this planet. The history of science is inseparable from militarism, since the Bronze Age. It is hard to find a project to work on in science which does not ultimately have some military application. I went to one of the best science and engineering schools in the country (Harvey Mudd College) and it was painful to watch some of the best minds in the country get sucked into designing missiles for General Dynamics. Even something which seems innocuous like the field of marine ecology was supported by the military. When the Odum brothers went off to the South Pacific to study coral reef ecology, it was funded by the military, who wanted to understand the topography of coral reefs so that they could avoid the disasters of WWII, where the amphibious landing craft were stranded a mile offshore while getting shot up by the Japanese. My point is that scientists are implicated in this, even if they are unaware of what their work is being used for. One of the prominent features of the culture of science is denial-denial of spirit, of intuition and emotion. Objectivity is just subjectivity in a state of denial; it is subjectivity that someone is not owning up to. As Franz Fanon wrote (quoted in Anthony Wilden's "System and Structure"): For the colonized person, objectivity is always directed against him. R.D. Laing wrote a great book called "The Politics of Experience," in which he describes how we drive each other insane by invalidating each other's experience. Scientists are often engaged in denying the experience of others by demanding that it be demonstrable under conditions of their choosing. Another aspect of this is the the strange notion that my beliefs are refutable by someone else's beliefs, as Bruce and Arie have tried to deny, obfuscate, and stifle this thread. Science is engaged in imposing a uniform grid of false objectivity which denies the experience and the culture of others to promote the culture of science, which is incidentally the culture of domination and consumption. Mark Burch ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 04:13:57 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Howland Subject: Re: Truth?? Snip, Snip ----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- Ultimately, it seems to me, it is likely that any particular truth, as the most useful and aesthetically satisfying specific presuppostion or hypothesis, is both a reflection of the world and a human creative achievement. As such it is not possible to categorize truth abstractly in advance of the processes of valuation by which it is accepted. However I suspect that most people are quite uncomfortable with what they see as the uncertainties involved, and would be unable to accept (and a fortiori reluctant to understand) such a view! Best wishes. Bruce Buchanan "We are all in this together!" ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- I think I agree with most of this, but the original question was about the different " processes of valuation" by which truth is discerned in various areas of inquiry. These all seem to involve some sort of consensus among the folks interested in the outcome, but the form and substance of that consensus differ from area to area. Bill Howland -- Houston BHowland@eWorld.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 05:24:29 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Howland Subject: Science:the culture of domination and consumption On December 9, 1995, Mark Burch wrote: ----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- Science is engaged in imposing a uniform grid of false objectivity which denies the experience and the culture of others to promote the culture of science, which is incidentally the culture of domination and consumption. ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- Without the tools and products of science, humans cannot live, not even in caves. Science produces knowledge, some of which is used the way I would like for it to be used, some of it in ways I do not care for, and some in ways I find morally repugnant. But this does not mean that the knowledge itself is evil. A claw hammer is useful for driving and pulling nails. Many of them are used every day for building homes, churches, schools, and treehouses. Occasionally some person uses a claw hammer to bludgeon another person. Is the inventor of the hammer responsible? Does this mean that claw hammers should be banned from the civilised world? Does this mean that any physics, engineering, or metallurgy which might lead to the invention of a claw hammer is immoral and should be banned? Anyone know where I can find a cave with an Internet connection? Bill Howland -- Houston BHowland@eWorld.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 16:45:45 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: logical rape At 14:21 9-12-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: ----snip----- >the strange >notion that my beliefs are refutable by someone else's beliefs, -----If so I suppose you agree that my beliefs are also not refutable by yours. Why are we (are you) then discussing them? Your position, sticking to your belief whatever others believe and argue, is stiffling this tread of discussion, not Bruce and me arguing why we don't share your beliefs and why we think nobody should. I share your concern about (subconscious) cultural and political influences on science and technology and their use. It could be fitted however in a more realistic belief-system and I certaily do not share your way of "discussion" - or do you think only propaganda exists and discussion is nonsense? I don't think this list is meant for propaganda. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 14:11:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rita Zurcher Subject: SaC Re: PC & CIA refs. To SaC list: To date, I have simply deleted Val Dusek's rantings about the National Association of Scholars (NAS). But he persists in making allegations about the NAS--FALSE allegations. For balance, I add my comments to his latest posting on this thread. To wit: At 02:15 PM 12/9/95 -0500, Dusek wrote:: >Diamond notes that a major document by Roderic R. Richardson (of the >Smith-fRichardson Foundation, which with Olin funds much of the anti-PC >books, organizations and think tanks) proposed the "high ground" strategy of >appearing to defend "objectivity" and traditional academic freedom against >the leftist lit crits. This is ironic in that the NAtional Association of >Scholars had to be told to take the 'high ground' in its attacks by a >foundation heavily involved in CIA-linked media projects and training >programs for CIA and Defence Dept. people. The NAS has never been told to take any ground; nor do we "appear" to defend objectivity and academic freedom--we do. We are an organization of college and university faculty, administrators, and graduate students dedicated to the principles of reasoned scholarship in a free society. Our members come from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Any and all CIA connections made by Dusek are ludicrous >Earlier consortia involved in >founding the precursors of the National Association of Scholars (NAS is >perhaps a witty acronym from NSA - NAtional Security Agency) include William >Doherty of the American Institute for Free Labor Development, the CIA-funded >labor organization involved in fostering company unions and breaking >progressive unions from Italy to Chile Nicaragua. Doherty appeared at the >1983 conference of the Campus Coalition for Democracy, headquartered with NAS >at Princeton. No, NAS is not a wiity acronymn for the NSA. It is true that some of the officers in the Campus Colalition for Democracy did go on to form the National Association of Scholars (notably, Barry R. Gross who passed away last summer). The CCD, however, has been defunct for at least eight years. It is not, I assure you, headquartered with the NAS at Princeton. While I cannot speak for the AIFLD, how does the fact that William Doherty appeared at a 1983 conference of the now defunct CCD reflect on the NAS? Last, Dusek cluttered SaC mailboxes with his . . . >. . . own admittedly speculative hypothesis, . . . that CIA and USIA types, >fearfull of job loss after the fall of communism, felt they needed something >to replace the Communist threat on the academic level. It no longer worked to >call professors communist, with no USSR to kick around any more. Some of them >went to Antioch, Oberlin, Etc. and other Granola, bohemian colleges, where >"politically correct" was used in a joking sense by post-modern non-Marxist >leftist students. They borrowed it, probagated it through the Olin, >Scaif-Richardson, and Smith-Richardson Foundations, and groups such as The >NAtional ORganization of Scholars, and were helped by the USIA press >connections (the CIA admitted some 250 journalists working for them in the >private US media) They very successfully disseminated the same (some true, >many false, most distorted) PC annecdotes to Time, Newsweek, TV Guide, >Readers Digest, and via press releases to numerous journalists too lazy, or >when sick, to use for columns (the same columns and stories as one has seen >years before resurface in 1994 on NBC, TV Guide, Boston Globe, etc. They were >very successful. "PC' replace "dirty commie pinko fag" as term of abuse, and >has spread as far as Australia This is nonsense. Rita Zurcher Research Director National Association of Scholars ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 21:38:51 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: logical rape X-To: Arie Dirkzwager In-Reply-To: <95Dec10.054830hst.11343(4)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Gee, I guess I was absent the day you were appointed moderator of the list, Arie. You have arrogantly decided for everyone that my beliefs have been refuted and there is no further discussion necessary. Since when does conversation consist only of refuting each other's beliefs? I thought conversation was about informing and educating others about different ways of looking at the world. Everyone's beliefs are valid and irrefutable. There is no logical overstructure derivable from language or experience which can be used as an ultimate test to decide the truth or falsity of any belief. But thanks for demonstrating my belief that the culture of science is one of domination. Mark Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > At 14:21 9-12-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: > ----snip----- > >the strange > >notion that my beliefs are refutable by someone else's beliefs, > > -----If so I suppose you agree that my beliefs are also not refutable by > yours. Why are we (are you) then discussing them? Your position, sticking to > your belief whatever others believe and argue, is stiffling this tread of > discussion, not Bruce and me arguing why we don't share your beliefs and why > we think nobody should. I share your concern about (subconscious) cultural > and political influences on science and technology and their use. It could > be fitted however in a more realistic belief-system and I certaily do not > share your way of "discussion" - or do you think only propaganda exists and > discussion is nonsense? I don't think this list is meant for propaganda. > Arie > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 00:33:15 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Aditi Gowri Subject: SaC: tools In-Reply-To: <199512110517.VAA28093@chaph.usc.edu> from "Automatic digest processor" at Dec 11, 95 00:16:08 am In response to Bill Howland. I can see that the purpose of a hammer is to build things, that the use of a hammer to bludgeon a person would betray centuries of use of this tool to creative ends. And yet, the strains of a traditional song haunt me: "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail . . ." What I thing the songster is after is that each piece of technology does have its intended use. Or in other words, there is some inherent teleology or purposiveness in these artefacts in their design, and prior to any particular uses of them. Hammers are pretty forgiveable. I use one to put nails into wood posts, upon which I then string tomato vines and eggplant branches (e.g.) in my organic vegetable garden. Let's consider the petroleum refinery instead, as an artefact with its own agenda or teleology or purposiveness built in. Or perhaps the sedan automobile itself. The latter says: I transport one or two people, I do it with a lot of fuel, and on travelways that send many in the same direction. Yet I do not allow them to coordinate their use of fuel and other non-renewable resources. In other words (I am suggesting) the automobile is an irresponsible form of technology. Anyone might find point of dissent with this particular example. My more general point, however, is that a technology carries with it a mode of relating and living -- with respect to the natural resources, other human beings and our notion of the ultimately real reality. Yours, Aditi Gowri Ph. D. Candidate, Social Ethics University of Southern California ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:50:31 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: logical rape At 21:38 10-12-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: -----snip----- >But thanks for demonstrating my belief that the culture of science is one >of domination. ------I could not imagine you were as easily "dominated" as that. I just give my opinions - not "arrogantly" I hope. Anyhow I think you abuse my mail when you publicly claim them as a demonstration of your belief. I would appreciate a better understanding of what I wrote and let everyone decide for himself whatever it was that I "demonstrated". A little feedback of other members of this list is welcome, as I'm afraid of flaming this list. Arie >On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > >> At 14:21 9-12-95 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >> ----snip----- >> >the strange >> >notion that my beliefs are refutable by someone else's beliefs, >> >> -----If so I suppose you agree that my beliefs are also not refutable by >> yours. Why are we (are you) then discussing them? Your position, sticking to >> your belief whatever others believe and argue, is stiffling this tread of >> discussion, not Bruce and me arguing why we don't share your beliefs and why >> we think nobody should. I share your concern about (subconscious) cultural >> and political influences on science and technology and their use. It could >> be fitted however in a more realistic belief-system and I certaily do not >> share your way of "discussion" - or do you think only propaganda exists and >> discussion is nonsense? I don't think this list is meant for propaganda. >> Arie >> > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:10:23 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: How to unsub My notes say to send a message to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with message content unsubscribe sci-cult Note the abbreviation of listname. I have not tried it myself, but that's what I wrote down when I first got info sheet. You may also try, at the same address, the message help for a list of commands, again according to my notes. Hope this helps out. Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 06:31:47 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Straker Subject: Re: How to unsub In-Reply-To: <199512110957.BAA02986@unixg.ubc.ca> On Fri, 8 Dec 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > My notes say to send a message to > > listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu > > with message content > > unsubscribe sci-cult > > Note the abbreviation of listname. I have not tried it myself, but I believe it has been established that the abbreviation won't work. The "listserver" wants to see the whole name written out, thus: unsubscribe science-as-culture is required. Apprently this does work. Stephen Straker straker@unixg.ubc.ca Arts One // History (604) 822-6863 University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:50:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: how to unsubscribe (tested) (fwd) i guess i need to have a degree in science to have this evidence considered as valid? if this listserv is science in any type of action, then, i am a little disturbed by its culture. (ok, i am procrastinating and fell to a general flaming impulse). jude (subcribed TWICE, now) *************** (fwd) *************** So, i just tested the system. The following are two messages. Copy the "To:" and "unsubscribe" bits of the first (no subject) and send it. The message following that is one that i received minutes after sending... jude (not even a scientist) ************* (fwd) *************** Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:07:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Jude L. Hollins" To: listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu unsubscribe SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE *********** (fwd) *************** Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:08:50 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at SJUVM (1.8b)" To: Jude Hollins Subject: Output of your job "jlhollin" > unsubscribe SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE You have been removed from the SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE list. Summary of resource utilization ------------------------------- CPU time: 1.681 sec Device I/O: 148 Overhead CPU: 0.266 sec Paging I/O: 5 CPU model: 4381 DASD model: 3380 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:07:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 9 Dec 1995 to 10 Dec 1995 In a message dated 95-12-11 00:17:59 EST, Rita Zurcher writes: >Association of Scholars (NAS). But he persists in making allegations about >the NAS--FALSE allegations. For balance, I add my comments to his latest >posting on this thread. To wit: >At 02:15 PM 12/9/95 -0500, Dusek wrote:: >>Diamond notes that a major document by Roderic R. Richardson (of the >>Smith-fRichardson Foundation, which with Olin funds much of the anti-PC >>books, organizations and think tanks) proposed the "high ground" strategy of >>appearing to defend "objectivity" and traditional academic freedom against >>the leftist lit crits. This is ironic in that the NAtional Association of >>Scholars had to be told to take the 'high ground' in its attacks by a >>foundation heavily involved in CIA-linked media projects and training >>programs for CIA and Defence Dept. people. >The NAS has never been told to take any ground; nor do we "appear" to defend >objectivity and academic freedom--we do. We are an organization of college >and university faculty, administrators, and graduate students dedicated to >the principles of reasoned scholarship in a free society. Our members come >from both the left and the right of the political spectrum. >Any and all CIA connections made by Dusek are ludicrous I am glad that an NAS representative replied to my posting, although she does so primarily with "non-denial denials." It is true that there are members of NAS who are "on the left" by some definitions. After all, President Clinton, and the staff of The New Republic are called "far left" by some commentators. (The other day a letter to the editor of our state newspaper claimed Bob Dole was a socialist, hippy, flower-child) Also, well-meaning liberal and even social democratic scientists do belong to the NAS, upset by New Agist thought, and being led to think that science studies is to equated with rebirthing, flying saucers, etc. (as at New York Academy of Sciences Meeting). But then some befuddled conservatives belonged to Communist front groups in the late 1930s. Most of what I relayed was based on the writings of Sarah Diamond. Perhaps everything she writes is a lie. If so, I'm surprised that NAS hasn't gotten Olin or Richardson to give someone a $200,000 grant to thoroughly refute Diamond's claims. After all they did this for Christina Sommers on feminist statistics about women being raped, dying of anorexia, or not called on in class, thoroughly refuted the existence of these events. (Perhaps I have to say this is meant partially in jest.) Actuallly hiring someone to do such a position paper refuting Diamond's article would be comparatively inexpensive. Perhaps the NAS does not wish to call attention to Diamond's writings by doing so. But here an NAS representative has indirectly done so, but does not actually refute any of Diamond purported factual claims. >>Earlier consortia involved in founding the precursors of the National Association of >>Scholars (NAS is perhaps a witty acronym from NSA - NAtional Security Agency) >>include William Doherty of the American Institute for Free Labor Development,... >>Doherty appeared at >>the 1983 conference of the Campus Coalition for Democracy, >>headquartered with NAS at Princeton. > >No, NAS is not a wiity acronymn for the NSA. Sorry, I was speaking to an audience that has more sense of humor than the aparachniks [please excuse transliteration] of the NAS. > >It is true that some of the officers in the Campus Colalition[sic-RVD] for Democracy >did go on to form the National Association of Scholars (notably, Barry R. >Gross who passed away last summer). The CCD, however, has been defunct for >at least eight years. It is not, I assure you, headquartered with the NAS >at Princeton. This is a diversion. Obviously, I wasn't claiming that CCD is presently headquartered with NAS at Princeton. Yet the defender of the virtue of the NAS does not rebut the more important of Diamond's claims about the origins of the NAS. Clearly NAS has numerous Political Scientist and Historian members who should be able to do this, if Diamond's claims are false. >>"politically correct" was used in a joking sense by post-modern non-Marxist >>leftist students. They borrowed it, probagated it through the Olin, >>Scaif-Richardson, and Smith-Richardson Foundations, and groups such as The >>NAtional ORganization of Scholars, and were helped by the USIA press >>connections (the CIA admitted some 250 journalists working for them in the >>private US media) They very successfully disseminated the same (some true, >>many false, most distorted) PC annecdotes to Time, Newsweek, TV Guide, >>Readers Digest, and via press releases to numerous journalists too lazy, or >>when sick, to use for columns (the same columns and stories as one has seen >>years before resurface in 1994 on NBC, TV Guide, Boston Globe, etc. They >were very successful. "PC' replace "dirty commie pinko fag" as term of abuse, and >>has spread as far as Australia >This is nonsense. >Rita Zurcher >Research Director >National Association of Scholars Once again, there is no detailed refutation. I do know that figures associated with the NAS get uncritical reception on talk shows, and PC annecdotes collected by NAS members and grantees get endlessly recycled in newsmagzines such as Time, USNews, Newsweek, TVGuide, Readers Digest, etc. Perhaps it can be claimed in the best non-denial-denial form that the propagation of these stories and talk-show guests from NAS is not done by the NAS itself, but rather by the press and public relations divisions of Olin and/or Richardson foundations. One interesting innovation of the conservative think-tanks in the US such as Heritage is that they do not simply produce policy wonk white-papers, as did the older liberal think tanks, but have a "marketting" division, which does public relations, and makes sure that their research and claims get picked up by the media. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:20:02 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: Entropy? From: Mark Burch One of my favorite pastimes is uncovering the outrageous political assumptions glibly ensconced in scientific assertions. My favorite one is entropy. If you look at entropy objectively, you will observe that all it does is spread things around. LR: But Mark, I didn't expect you to believe in objectivity... The interpretations which are given to entropy, that it leads to increasing disorder, decay, etc., are completely anthropocentric (and on an even deeper level, semiocentric) and subjective. LR: I know I'm just a computer-illiterate biologist/ anthropologist/ socialist, but I really do want to learn something here. From the way I learned about entropy in physics class, "increase in disorder" is a reasonable description for a situation in which something that used to be all together in one spot becomes "spread around". To me this has no economic, social, normative implications whatsoever. Any that I find, I will be happy to repudiate and fight against. [Spreading disorder always makes me think of housework, as well as diffusion and cooling processes.] And how else would you prefer that we should describe changes in entropy during the literal "decay" of a burned out star or a dead body? Does not entropy, by your definition, "increase" during these events? Sincerely curious, Lisa Rogers ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:40:42 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: SaC: Brain and value-laden Something of interest for those concerned with the value-ladenness of theories. DeMasio's Descartes' Error might also be of interest on this: --Val Dusek New York Times Aug. 8, 1995 Brain May Tag All Perceptions With a Value By DANIEL GOLEMAN The palette of sights and sounds that reach the conscious mind are not neutral perceptions that people then evaluate: they come with a value already tacked onto them by the brain's processing mechanisms. This is the conclusion of psychologists who have developed a test for measuring the likes and dislikes created in the moment of perceiving a word, sound or picture. The tests show that these evaluations are immediate and unconscious, and are applied even to things people have never encountered before, like nonsense words: "juvalamu" is intensely pleasing and "bargulum" moderately so, but "chakaka" is loathed by English-speakers. The findings, if confirmed, have possibly unsettling implications for people's ability to think and behave objectively. While people are easily able to override these initial judgments if they then think about their opinions, the evaluation added in the first microsecond of cognition stands if no further thought is given. "There's nothing that's neutral," said Dr. Jonathan Bargh, a psychologist at New York University who has taken the lead in recent studies of how emotional evaluations tinge perception. "We have yet to find something the mind regards with complete impartiality, without at least a mild judgment of liking or disliking." Bargh will report on his findings at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association this Sunday in New York City. Other scientists disagree with Bargh's claim that virtually every perception carries with it an automatic judgment, though they, too, find that such evaluations are made in many circumstances. "My assessment is that we don't have automatic attitudes for everything, but that people will have lots of these evaluations in areas they care about," said Dr. Russell Fazio, a psychologist at Indiana University in Bloomington. "Someone who is a sports fanatic, for example, will have lots of automatic opinions about teams and players, but that doesn't mean he'll do the same with recipes." But Bargh contends that the impulse to judge occurs even for things people have never encountered before, like abstract shapes as well as nonsense words. "People evaluate everything as they perceive it," he said. More recent technical models of how the mind processes information take into account this automatic weighting of what is perceived, though older ones left out such instantaneous emotional reactions, said Dr. Michael Posner, a psychologist at the University of Oregon in Eugene. "This is all part of preconscious processing, the mind's perception and organization of information that goes on before it reaches awareness," said Bargh. "These judgments are lightning fast in the first moment of contact between the world and the mind." These instantaneous evaluations create an initial predisposition that gets things off on a positive or negative footing, said Bargh. Still, he believes that people can override these preferences with conscious thought. "Even if we have an automatic like or dislike of someone in the first moment, if you're aware of your bias and mull over what you think, that adds information that overrules the unconscious judgment," he said. But if people fail to give the judgment any further thought, he added, "these reactions have the power to largely determine the course of a social interaction by defining the psychological reality of the situation from the start." Because these automatic judgments occur outside a person's awareness, as part of an initial perception, said Bargh, "we trust them in the same way we trust our senses," not realizing that seemingly neutral first perceptions are already biased. "When someone immediately strikes us in a negative or positive way, we don't question that judgment, because we are unaware that any biasing of our perception has gone on," Bargh added. The method used in this line of research, Bargh proposes, can be a "hidden pipeline to people's attitudes," detecting prejudices that a person otherwise might not admit to. Of course, if people had at some point become aware of their prejudices and changed them with further thought, the method would not detect those changes. "The more you think about an opinion, the weaker the influence of these automatic judgments," said Bargh. Copyright 1995 The New York Times ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:51:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 9 Dec 1995 to 10 Dec 1995 I'm not sure how to find this out without asking--if I were better on the net, I'd probably know the way: Is there a procedure for turning a subscription to this list into a subscription for a digest-version-only? G. Camodeca v391w9rn@ubmvs.cc.buffalo.edu" ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:45:20 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: logical rape In-Reply-To: <9512110741.AA17244@osf1.gmu.edu> On Sun, 10 Dec 1995, Mark Burch wrote: > Everyone's beliefs are valid and > irrefutable. No they're not. Mine are right, yours are wrong. That's irrefutable. mark |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:36:27 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michael Stein <71270.3031@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Entropy? Lisa quotes Mark as saying... The interpretations which are given to entropy, that it leads to increasing disorder, decay, etc., are completely anthropocentric (and on an even deeper level, semiocentric) and subjective. Of course the interpretations are semiocentric - that's what an "interpretation" is. And entropy can scarcely be viewed any other way, given the accepted and historical relationship between the concepts of entropy and information. When entropy increases, information decreases. For example, when the body decays, we cannot really point to where all of its components have gone --- we have lost the information -- and this is unsettling -- that's why we are all comforted by cyclical models where the decaying body (where have all the soldiers gone - gone to flowers every one) can be imagined to give rise to another form of life. This way we imagine entropy is concerved, rather than is increasing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and its concern for entropy is of course the only place in classical physics where time has a direction. Most of physics describes a universe that could run backwards as easily as forwards. But we know from our experience that we can almost always distinguish whether a film of a natural process was going backwards or forwards. Because most often things tend to get spread around. Of course, living beings in general and humans in particular tend to -concentrate- things - glucose, iodine, capital, etc. So again, trying to look at entropy in some dreamy (Dare I say idealistic?) objective fashion may be really silly. Michael ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 09:24:48 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: TURVEY P M MS Organization: Manchester Metropolitan University Subject: Re: How to unsub Many thanks for the advice, sorry to leave such an interesting group of people but I just don't have time to read all the messages ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:53:13 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Heather Munro Prescott, Department of History" Subject: question on NAS, et. al. I have read recent postings on the NAS, and am curious as to what this organization actually is all about. Publications from this organization, as well as a similar one called Accuracy in Academia, have been left in the student lounges in my building and elsewhere on campus. I'm not very familiar with either. Can anyone give me some insight? Also, what's the CCD (Campus Coalition for Democracy)? Heather Prescott History Department Central Connecticut State University prescott@csusys.ctstateu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 09:35:31 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: WDJensen Subject: Re: SaC Re: PC & CIA refs. In-Reply-To: <199512091917.LAA03853@mail6> Robert O. Becker, M.D. wrote about the military conspiracy involving non-thermal bioeffects of electromagnetic fields in "Cross Currents". "...nonthermal effects was viewed as a threat to national security. ...(the military has) the policy of denying any nonthermal effects from ANY electromagnetic usage, whether military or civilian. To accomplish this policy objective, several specific actions was taken, as follows. Control over the scientific establishment was maintained by allocating the research funds in such a way as to ensure that only the "approved" projects- that is, projects that would not challenge the thermal-effect standard- would be undertaken. Further, the natural reactionary tendency of science was capitalized upon by enlisting the support of prominent members of the engineering and biological professions. In some instances, scientists were told that nonthermal effects DID occur, but that national security objectives required that they be exceptionally well established before they became public knowledge. Many scientists' goals were subverted by unlimited grant funding from the military and by easy access to the scientific literature. The formal scientific establishments of the United States were mobilized. ...eminent scientific boards, associations, or foundations were provided with lucrative "contracts" to evaluate the state of knowledge of bioeffects of electromagnetic fields. Scientists who persisted in publicly raising the issue of harmful effects from any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum were discredited, and their research grants were taken away. " Dr. Becker also wrote "Body Electric" which mentioned the military projects on EMF experiments on human subjects in one of the chapters. Tara ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:02:09 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC Digest - 10 Dec - 11 Dec, Lisa's mail delays If one notices the date upon my post, one will sometimes see a gap of up to three days or so between the time that I sent a post and the time it was received. This changes the context and thus the meaning/ impact/ interpretation of the post, unless a reader notices that there is a discrepancy in dates, and takes that into account. This problem is recent, intermittent, unpredictable, totally out of my control, and I hope it is temporary. I don't even know about it until afterward, because I'm not signed up for a confirmation message from SaC listserv. And if I were, it wouldn't help, because anything I can say about a delayed post, is likely to be delayed just as much! Also, I am receiving the digest form of SaC. This means that I get everything posted one day, on the day after. I recommend it. It takes one a bit farther from real-time conversation, but that can be a good thing. With no idea of when you all may receive this, I throw this message in a bottle into e-space, on tuesday, the 12th, about noon, US [western] mountain time. Lisa Celebrate the astronomical, material solstice, the pagan traditional cultural birth/ death/ renewal of the solar cycle day, for us northern hemisphere residents, anyway. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 14:00:57 -0600 Reply-To: "Dr. James W. Maertens" Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dr. James W. Maertens" Subject: Mythos Institute Announcements Dear fellow listmembers, The following announcements may be of interest to those of you interested in science and SF as popular culture and mythology. MYTHOS JOURNAL CALL FOR PAPERS MYTHOS JOURNAL, is a semiannual journal published by MYTHOS INSTITUTE, an organization for education and research on myth, popular culture, literature, film, ritual, Eastern and Western philosophy, dreams, and folklore. The editors invite submissions for the Spring/Summer issue devoted to Myths of Science and Technology. Myth may be defined along the lines of any school, from Campbell to Barthes. Work manifesting an awareness of gender and race is particularly welcome. Approaches connecting ancient mythologies to themes and motifs in current popular culture are also encouraged. The journal is interested in articles of 5-15 double-spaced pages, poetry, and book reviews related to the subject matter of the issue. Writers retain the copyright on their work. If a work is accepted, substantial editorial advice and help is provided by the editors. We look for prose that is creative, clear, and provocative, and as free as possible from jargon. All articles are illustrated. Please send your submission in Mac format as a Text-only or Microsoft Word file along with a hard copy. Submissions are not accepted via e-mail, but e-mail queries are encouraged. Contact: James W. Maertens, Ph.D. Associate Editor, Mythos Journal 4509 Drew Avenue So Minneapolis, MN 55410 (612) 924-9266 maert003@maroon.tc.umn.edu COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT: MYTHS FOR OUR TIME STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION MYTHOS INSTITUTE will be offering a course in St. Paul, Minnesota this coming February. "Myths for Our Time: Star Trek TNG" continues our series of seminars on popular culture as modern mythology. Among the topics we will discuss in a casual, congenial setting will be: Picard vs. Kirk as Hero, Data and the Man-Machine, the Enterprise as model social system, and the Myth of Omnipotence. Your away team will be led by Ted E. Tollefson and Dr. James Maertens of Mythos Institute and two lifelong Trekkers. Three sessions (Tuesday eves., 7:30-9:30, March 12,19,26) will be accompanied by video clips and refreshments. Tuition: $40 for Mythos Institute Members; $50 for Non-Members. Class will meet at The Book House on Grand, 1665 Grand Avenue, St. Paul. For more information contact James Maertens at the above addresses. CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS MYTHOS INSTITUTE announces its 1996 conference: THE SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL August 8-12, 1996 at MYTOS CENTER in Frontenac, MN, just outside Minneapolis & St. Paul. Join us for five days of myth, ritual, and the exploration of culture and psyche. Each day's sessions will include lectures, discussions, and workshops, storytelling, music, home cooking, T'ai Chi, an evening salon, and long walks in Frontenac State Park along the limestone bluffs of the Mississippi. Proposals for presentations (in any format) of between 30 min. and two hours should be directed to the address below. Registration is $85 for Mythos Institute Members, $100 for Non-Members. This fee includes readings, computer and library access at Mythos Center, most meals, and a book-buying tour of the Twin Cities. Participants will also receive a copy of MYTHOS JOURNAL #7, which will publish papers from this conference. Camping is available at Frontenac State Park and frugal lodging is also available at Villa Maria Retreat Center and nearby motels. Registration is limited. For more information please contact: Ted E. Tollefson Mythos Center P.O. Box 130 Frontenac, MN 55026-0130 E-mail queries may be directed to: James W. Maertens, Ph.D. maer0003@maroon.tc.umn.edu *************************************************************************** J A M E S W. M A E R T E N S, Ph.D. Writer and Writing Consultant % Associate Editor, MYTHOS JOURNAL Adjunct Professor of Humanities, Lakeland Medical-Dental Academy *************************************************************************** E-mail: maert003@maroon.tc.umn.edu 4509 Drew Avenue South Phone: (612) 924-9266 Minneapolis, MN 55410 USA *************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:55:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: SaC Re: NAS, USIA, CIA et al Heather Prescott writes: >I have read recent postings on the NAS, and am curious as to what this >organization actually is all about. Publications from this >organization, as well as a similar one called Accuracy in >Academia, have been left in the student lounges in my building >and elsewhere on campus. I'm not very familiar with either. >Can anyone give me some insight? Also, what's the CCD (Campus >Coalition for Democracy)? In Alfred Hitchcock's movie "The 39 Steps" a 'Mr. Memory' who performs as a memnonist in music halls and who has been given secret information is interupted during one of his shows with calls "What are the 39 Steps," and is imediately shot by one of their agents in the audience..... But let me try to answer to the best of my knowledge. The National Association of Scholars is an organizations .....[whew, so far so good] .. of scholars objecting to political correctness so-called, speech codes, anti-sexual harrassment codes (on my campus), Black or African American Studies, Women's Studies, multiculturalism, anti-date rape codes, etc. They see these either as abridging academic freedom (speech codes, anti-sexual-harrassment legistations, etc.) or as lowering academic standards by teaching inferior material by inferior people (Afro-Americans or women). NAS (NASties) sometimes supports and has as members sociobiologists (SOBs). For instance in the Texas chapter, the president was a Psychologist sociobiologist doing studies of the intellectual hereditary inferiority of chicanos as part of the Texas adoption studies projects. When a chicano student newspaper had an article about the research of this fellow and the fact that he had a role in the dean's office counselling students, the chicano undergraduates understandably raised the issue of this dean person, given his "scientifically based" views of Chicano inferiority might track Mexican-Americans away from intellectually demanding science courses. The response of the administration was to defund the newspaper and in effect ban its distribution on campus. This was de facto censorship apparently done in the name of Free Speech and Academic Freedom. Other leading sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson are supportative of NAS. At my campus, U of NH the NAS was active in the famous Silva case, in which a professor was accused of sexual harrassment. NAS brought in their head, Balch, to speak, and also brought in the New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein, who wrote 'Dictatorship of Virtue' which has a chapter on the Silva case. This chapter appeared in the New York Review of Books, and was very persuasive to people not involved with the case. The sexual harrassment officer named in the article received hate mail and harrassing phone calls from as far away as Sweden. Bernstein (not to be confused with the philosopher of the same name) depended in large part both for title and information on Christian Balling, a physicist who took up the banner for Silva, by claiming that Silva's victims "were not virgins, who knows how many men they've slept with". He shouted this right outside my office door to a colleague. Balling later claimed that he could "hear multiculturalism" in police sirens in New York, in abusing some undergraduates who in thanking the faculty at a senate meeting, said they supported more multiculturalism. (Balling himself is not to my knowledge a member of the NAS but was active in assisting Bernstein et al in the propaganda against the victims). Christina Sommers gave a long talk on C-Span aired last winter in which she castigated Patricia Ireland of the National Association for Women for speaking about the Silva case at UNH. Sommers then went on at great length about what Ireland had said about Silva. The only thing odd, my spouse and I were at Ireland's speech, and she said nothing about the Silva case except that she was not going to speak about it. Sommers' 'Who Stole Feminism' was funded by Olin and contains much more equally accurate material (such as reporting statments by a student of the Sadkers on their research on not calling on girls in the classroom -- who never spoke to her). The clout of the NAS (which is, itself, indeed, merely an organization of scholars) was shown in the pressures put on the National Endowment for the Humanities to put one Iannone on their board. Iannone's only qualifications were that she had worked in the NAS office. She had no academic publications in scholarly journals. However everyone from Lynn Cheney to George Will and various politicians put pressure on the NEH to name Iannone to the board. She had published articles denouncing feminism, etc. in middle brow magazines such as Commentary. Cheney claimed refusing Ianonne the post was "elitism" although Cheney herself has opposed leftists in the NEH on the basis of alleged lack of scholarly conventions. NAS does not support the grossest racism, however, as it is bad PR. When philosophy Prof Levin of NY proposed in print that Afro-American kids be transported to and from class in sealed trains so as not to threaten white commuters, he was expelled. However early pronouncements by Levin on Black IQ infereriority or ridiculing the placing of handicapped access in museums by saying that they might as well put braile captions in art museums for the blind had not prompted any action by the NAS. As I understand it, Herb London, earlier head of NAS is now lieutenant governor with George Pataki advising the purging of public higher education in New York state. NAS receives funds from Olin foundation (Olin is firearms manufactorer and Olin Foundation is massive funder of the right) of about $500,000 per year. References on the foundations and funds in detail are to be found in the Sarah Diamond and Paul Rogat Loeb references contained in my earlier posting. I recommend also the references to NAS funding and support of Christina Sommers in The Radical Teacher, the organ of Teachers for Democracy, a small and poorly funded group that attempts to counter NAS. I hope that the NAS researcher who early complained that my posts on NAS were cluttering her mailbox (she did not so complain about the scores of rants in the rape debate earlier, interestingly) will respond with corrections and rebuttles to anything I have said here. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:57:00 PST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jose Morales Subject: Re: SaC Re: NAS, USIA, CIA et al Val, GO brother man! Right on! Jose ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:15:53 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rita Zurcher Subject: Re: SaC Re: NAS, USIA, CIA et al Anyone interested in learning more about the National Association of Scholars or our journal _Academic Questions_ is welcome to visit our web site at URL: http://www.nas.org I shall reply to Dusak's misconceptions about the NAS, its officers, and its members in due course. Rita Zurcher ***************************************************************** Rita Zurcher Research Director rcz@nas.org--e-mail National Association of Scholars 609-683-7878--telephone 575 Ewing Street 609-683-0316--fax Princeton, NJ 08540 http://www.nas.org ***************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:57:05 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val Dusek Subject: Re: NAS relevance & refs. Just in case this information about NAS (National Assoc. of Scholars) may seem irrelevant to Sci Cult, I'll mention 3 areas of relevance. 1.) NAS has as members and defends the statements of eminent and not-so-eminent sociobiologists. 2.) Paul Gross, coauthor with Norm Levitt of 'The Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrel with Science,' a well-written and informed but biased book, writes for the NAS journal Academic Questions. Gross and Levitt identify science studies with the outcome of 1960s radicals and claim it is totally uninformed about science. They suggest at the end that natural scientists have control over promotion and tenuring of science studies people ostensibly by checking their knowlege of science (presumably to get rid of people too critical of established scientific institutions). They see feminist and ecological critiques of science as largely ignorant, occultist and irrationalist. Gross calls Evelyn Fox Keller "the Oliver Stone of science. She sees fraud and conspiracy everywhere" -- a travesty of her views. According to the Boston Globe, the NASs latest target, besides Womens' Studies and Black Studies or ethnic studies and Gay Studies departments, are Science Studies programs. 3.) Christina Hoff Sommers, an ethicist, in her NAS supported book, Who Stole Feminism, claims that the statistics in feminist social science research are all faulty and phoney, on rape, anorexia, classroom teacher calling on women, etc. She makes some valid points, but distorts the facts in the opposite direction(especially on anorexia death rates and classroom attention to females), and ocassionally seems to just make things up(as in her speech on Patricia Ireland and the Silva case, which I saw both of Ireland's speech (in person) and Sommers' account (on TV), while accusing feminists of being liars. Some interesting references on the Iannone (who was VP of the NAS but had not scholarly publications or permanent academic appt) case occur in the magazine Lingua Franca, In "The Accused" by Vivecka Novak, in vol. 2, no. 1, Oct '91 pp. 16 -21 is an account of the political pressure and threats put on the NEH people over Iannone's nomination. [I might mention that George Will wrote that, then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney in battling the Iragi army was dealing with a less dangerous enemy than his spouse, then head of National Endowment for the Humanities, Lynn Cheney was in putting down humanities teachers in the USA.] In vol. 1, no. 5 of Lingua Franca, June '91, pp. 4 - 5 is a photographic reprint of Ianonne's Curriculum Vitae. I mispelled her name Ianonne in part of the earlier post. I apologize. I also wish to correct my last reference to Radical Teacher. The journal of Teachers for a Democratic Culture is called Democratic Culture. Their issue of vol. 3, no. 2, Fall 1994, has a dozen critiques of Sommers' book, and a reivew by Steve Fuller of Gross and Levitt's the Higher Superstition. If yiou are interested in subscribing or joining this tiny attempt at a left response to the NAS email jkw3@midway.uchicago.edu or Gerald Graff at graff@casbs.stanford.edu The organization's address is Teachers for a Democratic Culture, PO Box 6405, Evanston Il, 60204. I have some extra copies of the Sommers issue with Gross and Levitt review, which I will send by snail mail on a 1st come 1st serve basis to anyone who wants one. Val Dusek, 27 Villager Rd., Chester, NH 03036, USA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:46:09 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Elihu M. Gerson" Subject: Re: NAS relevance & refs. > >I have some extra copies of the Sommers issue with Gross and Levitt review, >which I will send by snail mail on a 1st come 1st serve basis to anyone who >wants one. > Please send me one... Thanks much. 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, 14 Dec 1995 18:59:02 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC bio-evolution, of sociality and "culture capacity" Mark G, your comment on one of my posts makes me wonder if I was misunderstood. I expect evolution to _not_ design any lifeform to "engage reality" perfectly, on the grounds of evolutionary theory itself. I am not claiming that we can or should "fully translate all human activity into the language of evolutionary science." I am not seeking what I see as over-polarization in thought or debate. I hold that some perspective regarding the bio evolution of sociality is _not_ inimical to the consideration of culture. Neither do I think it helpful to emphasize culture as free-standing construction sprung like Athena from our heads. OK, you didn't go that far, I must try to be fair, you said "Cultural evolution and social life are as, and I believe, more important [than biological evolution]." To me, it seems that to argue one or the other, or which one is "more important" is either the end of a conversation or an incomplete view of culture itself or both. Perhaps there is some confusion because of lack of shared language. The word "culture" can be used in many different ways. Maybe it is more clear and less controversial to say that surely the "capacity for culture" is a product of biological evolution. Obviously, no lifeform without human DNA _and_ human environment can develop anything like a human culture. I'm interested in building bridges here. Lisa >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/17/95, 10:56pm >>> On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > >>> Mark L Gilbert 11/16/95, 12:34pm >>> > On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Bertram Rothschild wrote: > > I simply mean that evolution has designed us > > to engage reality > > LR: I like it! Of course, not to engage perfectly, only as well as > or in ways that have paid off through evolutionary time. > Mark G: While I'm entirely sympathetic with using Darwinian theory to *illuminate*, it is not going to effect a complete translation. We cannot fully translate all human activity into the language of evolutionary science. [snip] The "imperfection" you allow for is the little thing that makes all the difference. [snip] To put it more informally, biology will never replace the social science if we hope to have an adequate understanding of human behavior. > I suggest that a key aspect of human adaptation is our sociality. > Which is all about talking, knowing people, making friends and > contacts, professions, social status, etc. etc.... Definitely... > This is a result > of evolution, that we are social, and that we are specialists in > being social. ...not. We have a sociality that is fundamental to who we are; but *biological* evolution is not the sole reason why. Cultural evolution and social life are as, and I believe, more important. [snip] I would hold that the "something more" that gets short shrift in our natural science-dominated culture is, well, culture. sociably yours, mark ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:15:28 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: a scientist wonders Some scientists I know are frankly baffled by some of the critique of science we hear from sources such as some of those on this list. They feel that they are indeed part of society, as social, as feeling, as embedded in this culture as anyone. Also, many of us want to be socially responsible, we don't want to cause harm. But it seems that we are speaking separate languages, the same words but not the same meanings, and some words we never heard of. It is difficult to hear/understand that science is _only_ socially constructed, that facts are absolutely anything, that there is no reference to reality at all. That scientists are different, not human, it seems. I guess partly I hope for critique/study of science [as culture or as anything else] to make science better, or to better understand some aspects of science, but some of what I hear, as on this list for instance, seems to deny any role of reality in the processes or products of science. I was happy to see at least one person here say that science is not mired in logical positivism; I do agree with that. No scientist I know holds to some caricature of faith in the reality of absolute objectivity or pure empiricism, or anything silly like that. So when we _do_ hear that kind of critique, it is rather unimpressive. Logical positivism is dead, we could all stop beating up on it any time now, and just leave the thing in its grave. I guess I don't know how to speak "SaC", but I still hope that I might learn and/or contribute something useful or interesting. I'm sure that I cannot present an analysis of science that meets some definitions of "SaC" analysis, but I hope it's not necessary to do that all in one post, or all alone, if at all, in order to enter the conversation. One of the reasons that I am still here is that several people have expressed some interest in having scientists on the list. In this post I am trying to address some things that I see as blocking communication between scientists and some others. I've been following the topic of "why I am here" or "what I want/dis/like about the list" with a lot of interest. This post is also my contribution to that thread. I did not come here to "deconstruct the myth of science as impartial search for truth" as one person put it. I take it as "obvious", a fundamental assumption [based on much observation and such] that there is a lot more going on! Perhaps it is a "fact" by the standards of science itself that there is more to it than that. Every scientist knows that, we're not quite as naive as some would seem to think. I assume that nobody would subscribe to SaC if they simply believed that "myth of science" in the first place. So critiques of "stereotypical" scientists and such just fly right past me, not applicable to real people. The more extreme the view, the less it makes sense, and I think that a lot of scientists don't begin to know how or even want to try to understand and talk with such extreme dismissal. And if science cannot know anything ever, then who can? and by what method? The extreme, nihilistic answer returns: nobody, no way, forget the whole thing. Baffling. End of conversation. It is not that anyone claims that science is ideal, but is there not some role for the ideals of science? Is there not a difference between good science and bad science? Or do these just not fit into the accepted views of science as culture? Is science _only_ culture? I think that all aspects of culture and behavior do take social/material reality into account in some way. Even science. Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:14:51 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SaC: "directed mutations" I know of at least two people on this list that said they were interested in this thread specifically. I found it interesting and challenging, so I went to the library and read some stuff. I report on two articles. Foster and Cairns, 1992 "Mechanisms of Directed Mutation", Genetics 131:783-789. F+C state that "Spontaneous mutants arise among nondividing populations of E. coli in apparent response to selective conditions." This is their definition of directed mutation, they have both published previously on their research which provided some evidence for that statement. It is the starting point of the further research reported in this paper. This is one of the more recent works investigating and summarizing the evidence and lack thereof for specific proposed molecular mechanisms by which directed mutations might occur. F+C hold that most hypotheses about the molecular method of occurence have been falsified by experimental results. The paper ends with their new hypothesis, which appeared to be consistent with available data, but still remained to be tested. Lenski and Mittler 1993 "The Directed Mutation Controversy and Neo-Darwinism", Science 259:188-194 I reproduce most of their abstract here: "According to neo-Darwinian theory, random mutation produces genetic differences among organisms whereas natural selection tends to increase the frequency of advantageous alleles. However, several recent papers claim that certain mutations in bacteria and yeast occur at much higher rates specifically when the mutant phenotypes are advantageous... Ciritics contend that studies purporting to demonstrate directed mutation lack certain controls and fail to account adequately for population dynamics. Further experiments that address these criticisms do not support the existence of directed mutations." L+M present this as a review article, which it is, but let me also note that they are part of the opposition in a sense, their own work and previous publications have been challenging the existence of directed mutations, by designing experiments and data analysis methods intended to avoid what they see as flaws in the work of Cairns, Hall, Foster, etc. Now, I realize that I am not analyzing science as culture, per se, in this post. I propose that it is related to list-topic/s anyway. 1. I want to call into question the view that "directed mutation" is a "FACT", scientific or otherwise, 2. which relates to the facticity thread as well as the DM thread. 3. This is an example of science which could be further analyzed here, 4. where some interest has been shown in the topic. Come to think of it, after the facticity discussion, it's a little ironic that some members of SaC previously seemed to accept the "fact" of directed mutation. I wonder what might be the cultural explanation for that. Hoping this offering is found relevant, Lisa ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:08:20 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC bio-evolution, of sociality and "culture capacity" In-Reply-To: <9512150203.AA00389@osf1.gmu.edu> On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > I hold > that some perspective regarding the bio evolution of sociality is > _not_ inimical to the consideration of culture. Neither do I think > it helpful to emphasize culture as free-standing construction sprung > like Athena from our heads. OK, you didn't go that far, I must try > to be fair, you said "Cultural evolution and social life are as, and > I believe, more important [than biological evolution]." > > To me, it seems that to argue one or the other, or which one is "more > important" is either the end of a conversation or an incomplete view > of culture itself or both. You may have something there. I have reasons for saying "more important," but those reasons at this point are quite speculative and specific to certain issues I don't want to go into now. But in general you're quite right. Attempts at any absolute stand in favor of one or the other are usually pretty silly. Moreover, I do take seriously some of the implications of our genetic heritage in that culture has to be continuous with biology. You say "capacity for culture," which is a nice, conservative way to state the issue. I might be willing to consider a stronger wording on the topic, but again, I haven't yet sorted out the details. But it's worth pursuing here, I think. > I'm interested in building bridges here. Actually, I thought they were there all along. ;-) best, mark gilbert ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 00:19:10 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: janet atkinson-grosjean Subject: What are Values? Dear List, Last week, I watched a fairly gruesome event, viz. a Philosophy professor verbally beating up the candidate at a Liberal Studies thesis defence. I was there because the topic *Science, Values, and the Human Mind* is related to my own *Consciousness and Chaos: Metaphors and Values in Postmodern Science.* The phil. prof. was the external examiner and it wasn't a pretty sight, believe me. The candidate passed but only conditionally, subject to substantial revisions. I'm now questioning my own use of the word *values* as it relates to science. Seems to me the prof. was seeking to impose a specific, technical meaning, whereas I use the word in a semi-vernacular sense, as follows: *By values I mean those qualities generally deemed ethical, desirable, or of worth in a specific social or cultural context. In this sense values are social constructions rather than moral absolutes, and are subject to change both across and within cultures.* Earlier today I received the following from my supervisor--also the supervisor ( bloodstained) of the previously mentioned hapless individual, who had obviously reviewed my definition and now found it lacking: Snip.... I think you need to work on what you mean by 'values'. To say they are 'qualities' invites the questions: 'Qualities of what?', 'What kind of qualities' and 'How do whatever it is values are qualities of come to possess these qualities.' (These are obviously not independent questions.) I think you heard the grilling JBD got on the issue of what values are and you are going to have to address this issue. Snip.... We speak about science as value-free, value-neutral, or value-laden, according to our perspective. Are we all singing from the same song sheet? Do we all use the word in the same sense? This is a call to philosophers of science, and others who value values--what the heck ARE the little critters anyway? Something to chew on. Jan ========================================================================= 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: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 10:06:31 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lillian Porten Subject: Re: SaC bio-evolution, of sociality and "culture capacity" In-Reply-To: <199512150204.VAA20080@husc.harvard.edu> Dear Lisa Rogers, Mark Gilbert, & interested lurkers: On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote: > Neither do I think > it helpful to emphasize culture as free-standing construction sprung > like Athena from our heads. I wonder if there isn't a kind of matriphobic impulse at work in extreme versions of constructionism. Does the dream of a "free-standing construction sprung like Athena from our heads" bespeak a will to bypass the implications of being "of woman born" (eg. implications re materiality, mortality, and self-invention)? Lili Porten ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:46:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: SaC & deconstructionism Mark Burch writes (Dec. 9): >Objectivity is just subjectivity ina state of denial; >it is subjectivity that someone is not owning up to. ... [and, inter alia] > . . . we drive each other insane by invalidating each >other's experience. Scientists are often engaged in denying the >experience of others by demanding that it be demonstrable under >conditions of their choosing. Another aspect of this is the the strange >notion that my beliefs are refutable by someone else's beliefs, as Bruce >and Arie have tried to deny, obfuscate, and stifle this thread. > >Science is engaged in imposing a uniform grid of false objectivity which denies >the experience and the culture of others to promote the culture of >science, which is incidentally the culture of domination and consumption. What I try to do, and I expect Arie has the same aim, is to preserve and enhance the grounds for reliable communications and shared social life. To deny the possibility of these is a self-fulfilling prophecy which is mischievous in its consequences, not least for the proponent. I will restrict my argument to general terms and a critique of the assumptions of deconstructionism. (To try to be more specific with Mark B.'s points would, I think, involve endless argumentation without useful conclusion.) It is a very worthwhile endeavour to examine reigning fallacies, but the approach chosen should involve methods which are not self-defeating. The approaches of deconstructionism, as I understand this, seek to demonstrate that all language is tied to special interest. In order to get at the falsehoods and evils of rhetoric and propaganda, the deconstructionists have argued against language itself as the tool of communication. However, if language is always just self-interest, then there is no possibility of identifying any higher ground of common interest or of any larger public good. The consequence of this has been simply to reinforce the entrenched positions of the presumed enemies, now unassailable by reasoned argument. Whether one sees the enemy as big science or as the domination of society by large corporations the effect is to strengthen their domination. To put this another way, the deconstructionists attack the tendencies within society to accept answers dictated by those in power. However the form of this attack undermines the validity of the language in which any of our reasonable questions can be asked. Without being able to ask any of the right questions we would have to live with what we are given as answers. That would not be my choice. I do not understand why it is Mark B.'s choice, if indeed it is a choice. Cheers and best wishes. Bruce B. "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:45:46 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: What are Values? Janet Atkinson-Grosjean writes (Fri, 15 Dec 1995): > . . .I'm now questioning my own use of the word *values* as it relates to >science. . . . what [do] you mean by 'values'. To say they are 'qualities' >>invites the questions: 'Qualities of what?', 'What kind of qualities' and >'How >do whatever it is values are qualities of come to possess these >qualities.' A short answer is that Values are criteria and concepts that help us to decide and construct the future. They are not given definitively by past experience, or by scientific knowledge, and involve uncertainty, choice, consequences and responsibility. In the scientific literature there is not much consensus on general answers to the question of What are Values. Among possible references (I am not pushing this!) you might find of interest The Origin of Values (Eds. Michael Hechter, Lynn Nadel and Richard Michod) which describes cutting edge perspectives on Values research in the social and behavioral sciences, including moral philosophy, anthropology, economics, sociology, psychology and biology. Among the best answers I know is still that of Emmanuel Mesthene, (then Director of the Program on Technology and Society at Harvard University) whose paper on How Technology Will Shape the Future was published in Purposive Systems, the proceedings of the First Annual Symposium of the American Society for Cybernetics (Spartan Books, 1968). Mesthene wrote (p.74): "Although particular values may vary with particular times and particular societies, the _activity of valuing_ and the social functions of values do not change. This is the source of the stability so necessary to human moral experience. It is not to be found, nor should it be sought, exclusively in the familiar values of the past. ..Value analysis will have to concentrate on its own proper processes... The emphasis will have to shift from values to _valuing_. For it is not particular familiar values as such that are valuable, but the human ability to extract values from experience and to use and cherish them. That value is not threatened by technology; it is challenged by it." In cybernetics, error is measured in relation to the aim intended, and the feedback of information about this error, i.e. in comparison to the value intended, is used to readjust the aim and settings. (A measurement is a comparison; it is not necessarily a number. In the context of cybernetic principles, a value is an assessment criterion against which action or performance is measured or otherwise judged as to adequacy. At a higher level in the hierarchy of means and ends, values may refer to goals themselves - as judged in comparison to what may be needed. In religious terms, sin is missing the mark (ethical values) and repentance involves correcting the aim and renewal of life. And so on, in processes as complex as life itself. At the highest levels, freedom of inquiry and creative achievment merge values of process into ultimate ends. Values involve existential commitments with consequences. The ethical aspects are will described by Heinz von Foerster in terms of Socioybernetics - see - http://shr.stanford.edu/shreview/4-2/text/foerster.html This note just scratches the surface of a much neglected question. I would be glad to try to respond to any specific questions. Cheers and best wishes. Bruce B. "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 19:08:14 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Social Theory & Political Practice [FAY] (fwd) I am forwarding this to the list because it expresses what I was trying to say about the political agenda within the scientific program. I think the need to control and manipulate the physical world also gives rise to misunderstandings about order, disorder, entropy, etc. I am trying to formulate a comprehensive summary of my beliefs in this area for your trenchant analysis. I have been offlist for awhile to spend more time with my 6 week old daughter, who has increased my direct fitness immensely. BTW, I have noticed that my views have been categorized as Marxist or deconstructionist. I find this highly amusing, as I have no idea what this means. I don't know Karl Marx from Groucho Marx. All my training has been in chemistry, and my analysis is simply the result of following scientific thought to its logical conclusion, without stopping at the mediocre level of analysis which allows one to function within its culture, to write the next paper or grant proposal, or to serve as an apologist. My postion is unique in that I may be the only scientist on this list offering a radical critique of my own discipline. Sawing off the branch I am sitting on? I think not. I just like to get to the roots of things. Sincerely, Mark Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:40:47 -1000 From: Robert White To: Multiple recipients of list POLI-PSY Subject: Social Theory & Political Practice [FAY] Fay, B., (1975) _Social Theory and Political Practice_ Controversies in Sociology:1 edited by T. B. Bottomore and M. J. Mulkay. George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd, LONDON, UK excerpt from chapter 2 pg40-47 _Positivist Social Science and Technological Politics_ "Moreover, and much deeper, is the fact that the connection between the form which scientific knowledge takes and an instrumentalist conception of theory and practice lies at the very heart of what the nature of the scientific enterprise is; for, I would argue, the possibility of tech- nical control, far from having a contingent relationship to science, is indeed part of the framework which constitutes the very possibility of scientific activity. I now want to show why this is so.27 A good place to begin is with the question, why is it the case that in science to explain something is to potentially predict it? Asking this question forces one immediately to see that the conception of explanation which I elucidated earlier in this chapter rests on a theory of what is to count as understanding an event or state of affairs, namely, that to understand an event or state of affairs is to know another event which will invariably produce or prevent it. 28 But this is to say that we understand a state of affairs scientifically only to the extent that we have the knowledge of what to do in order to control it, and it is thus that the ability to control phenomena provides the framework in terms of which scientific explanation proceeds. Of course this theory of understanding is itself rooted in a whole series of metaphysical assumptions as to the nature of truth and reality, but this is a topic far beyond the scope of this book. But even at a superficial level it ought to be apparent that for the scientist reality is comprised of observable objects and events which are related nomologically, i.e. they are related according to a series of general laws of the type, if X then Y under situation C, and that therefore, in line with this scientific assumption about reality, only statements which reveal the concrete forms which those general relationships take can be true statements. Science must view the world in this way in order for it to provide the kind of explanations it prizes, which is to say, in order for it to provide the control over the phenomena which is a sign of its having understood a phenomenon. Because science marks out the 'world' as a world of observable phenomena subject to general laws it thereby is constituting this 'world' from the viewpoint of how one can gain control over it. It is for this reason that possible technical control provides the framework within which the definition of reality and truth in science occurs. Underlying and informing the theory of explanation which I have presented are deeper assumptions as to the nature of truth and reality, and these deeper assumptions are rooted in the notion of manipulative control. So the conclusion is not merely that scientific knowledge provides the basis for manipulative control, but also, and more importantly, that what can count as scientific knowledge is that which gives us the means by which one can in principle control phenomena. The possibility of controlling variables is a factor in terms of which one distinguishes a cognitive enterprise as scientific, and thus technical control is a defining elem- ent in the scientific enterprise itself. This might be somewhat clearer if it is contrasted with another conceptual scheme which employs a different notion of truth and therefore of explan- ation. For there is a long tradition in Western thought which holds that to explain something is to show its final cause, i.e. to demonstrate its purpose in the scheme of things; now this theory of explanation can be found in any number of different conceptual schemes, and the Christian world-view is one of them. For a strictly Christian understanding of even natural events, as well as of human history, is one which views phenomena as episodes in the story of God's relationship with his creation, so that to understand these phenomena is to grasp their meaning in terms of this story, is to see how they fit into the pattern of revelation, consolation, guidance and judgement which are chapters in God's overall plan for mankind. Thus, from this viewpoint the Bible is a document which explains phenomena, though from the scientific world-view it obviously is not explanatory. The point here is that there are alternative notions of what can count as an explanation, and that, in so far as some choice is required, the choice involves some metaphysical conceptions as to the nature of truth and, beyond that, the nature of the world and the place of man in it. What underlies the scientific conception of explanation is the assumption that to understand an event is to know the events which produced it--and not just any events either, but those natural events which preceded it in time and which invariably produce the event in question. The scientist says that he knows what happened when he knows the causes of the event, and he means by this when he knows the mechanism in terms of which he himself can in theory produce the event in an experimental situation. All of this means that the notion of understanding in science is intimately bound up with the notion of control, for it is our ability to control events, at least in principle, which constitutes one of the criteria in virtue of which one can be said to have given a valid scientific explanation. It is in this way that the possibility of control is a constitutive element of the scientific enterprise, and this means to say that it is its (instrumental) conception of the relation of theory to practice that gives the scientific conception of truth its meaning and therefore sets the conditions for the validity of a scientific explanation. It is just this conclusion which supports my claim that a positivist conception of the knowledge of social life contains within itself an instrumentalist-engineering conception of the relation of this knowledge to social action; for one is committed to this engineering view of theory and practice in the very act of adopting the positivist view of theory--indeed, it is this engineering view which supports and gives meaning to this view of social theory. Thus it is no accident or contingent sociological fact that the notion of a policy science is one that is deeply ingrained in the development of a positivistic social science itself; rather, the articulation of this notion and its ramifications is simply a drawing out of the consequences of adopting a certain conception of social theory, consequences which were inherent in this conception all along.".... ------------- -- ----------------------------------------- Carleton University ---------- Robert G. White Dept. of Psychology Ottawa, Ontario. CANADA INTERNET ADDRESS ----- rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca ------------------- E-MAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 01:36:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC & deconstructionism In-Reply-To: <9512151647.AA23534@osf1.gmu.edu> On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Bruce Buchanan wrote: > I will restrict my argument to general terms and a critique of the > assumptions of deconstructionism. How did you come to want to critique decon here? > The approaches of deconstructionism, as I understand this, seek to > demonstrate that all language is tied to special interest. In order to get > at the falsehoods and evils of rhetoric and propaganda, the Uhm, you must be thinking of the Critical School: neo-Marxists who are associated with the Frankfurt school. Generally, decon has a more analytic interest primarily, rather than moral-political. Of course, the latter is there to a great degree, but decon is not done strictly for that reason. > deconstructionists have argued against language itself as the tool of > communication. Whoops, got that one exactly backwards. Quite the opposite. Well, okay, Derrida did say language is not an instrument, but that's because language is not the sort of thing one can pick up and put down at a whim. The operation of language is much more profound than that. Meaning and language so thoroughly structure all of human existence that communication is always with us. > However, if language is always just self-interest, then there is no > possibility of identifying any higher ground of common interest or of any > larger public good. Again, a partly right premise, and wrong conclusion. The "just" here is ambiguous. As for common interest, decon is interested in showing how language cannot not be absolutely neutral, but is structured by and in turn structures the values and metaphysics of society. Given this shared medium, it is just such interest that is shared because of language. [snip] > To put this another way, the deconstructionists attack the tendencies > within society to accept answers dictated by those in power. True, decon does show how the unquestionable operation of power can be brought into question. > However the form of this > attack undermines the validity of the language in which any of our > reasonable questions can be asked. Without being able to ask any of the > right questions we would have to live with what we are given as answers. Unfortunately, some people who practice decon could give this impression. But if you read Derrida (or, if you learn to read Derrida -- he can be a little offputting at first) you'll see he countenances no such action. Language cannot be invalidated; there is nothing more valid than language (okay, that's not completely accurate; perhaps, language allows for and presumes the possibility of validity by tracing the outline of validity, or, well, nevermind...). A famous statement of Derrida's is "there is no outside the text," or, everything is always a matter of context. We cannot get "outside" of language in any of our activities; out actions are always part of the context of language's structuring activity. I'm stating this all rather loosely; it's my paraphrase so any inaccuracies are mine. But I hope it clears a few things up, nevertheless. > Bruce B. > "We are all in this together!" exactly. ...................................... : : : My own words take me by surprise : : and teach me what I think : : : :..................Merleau-Ponty.....:........... mark gilbert :................. mgilbert@gmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 07:45:41 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Howland Subject: Re: What are Values? JA-G wrote: ----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- We speak about science as value-free, value-neutral, or value-laden, according to our perspective. Are we all singing from the same song sheet? Do we all use the word in the same sense? This is a call to philosophers of science, and others who value values--what the heck ARE the little critters anyway? ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- My definition of values would be "visions of the ideal _____", with _____ filled in by the topic under consideration. Not necessarily what is regarding _____ but what should be. BTW, it is troubling but not surprising to see philosophy professors continuing to be the muggers of academia. Bill Howland -- Houston BHowland@eWorld.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 10:25:12 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Straker Subject: Re: What are Values? X-To: Bill Howland In-Reply-To: <199512161548.HAA05897@unixg.ubc.ca> I share a part of of what I suggested to JA-G off-line. There must be only about 2,000 books and articles bearing titles like "Science and Human Values" and at least one academic program. But it certainly is in general use and hardly in need of rigorous specification. I've never liked the term very much since like "lifestyle" it sounds to me too much like one of many consumer preferences. If we wanted to get to the bottom of it, we might have to go back at least to early social scientific discussions of "wertfrei" science; this is at least in Weber; and thus I think the term was brought in under the pretence of a social scientific analysis of moral conduct. On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Bill Howland wrote: > BTW, it is troubling but not surprising to see philosophy professors > continuing to be the muggers of academia. It is a shame, but a good deal of what goes on in professional philosophy circles seems to bear about as much relation to the actual world as does the study of heraldry. Stephen Straker straker@unixg.ubc.ca Arts One // History (604) 822-6863 University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 14:48:01 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Chris Amirault Subject: Re: SaC & "deconstructionism" Bruce Buchanan writes, >The approaches of deconstructionism, as I understand this, seek to >demonstrate that all language is tied to special interest. In order to get >at the falsehoods and evils of rhetoric and propaganda, the >deconstructionists have argued against language itself as the tool of >communication. ... >To put this another way, the deconstructionists attack the tendencies >within society to accept answers dictated by those in power. However the >form of this attack undermines the validity of the language in which any of >our reasonable questions can be asked. Without being able to ask any of the >right questions we would have to live with what we are given as answers. I'm sure I don't recognize what Bruce is referring to here as "deconstructionism." Or, rather, what I read here has little to do with what I understand deconstruction to be. Maybe "deconstructionism" and deconstruction are different, but I think both terms refer to more or less the same thing, if understood quite differently. At times, Bruce suggests that "deconstructionism" refers to a kind of ham-handed, vulgar marxist ideology critique of the "answers dictated by those in power," an agit-prop program of sorts. At other times, the term seems to resemble the parody of "deconstructionism" often found in popular magazines and newspapers, namely, that it is a nihilistic exercise devoted to zero-sum linguistic games and various forms of meaningless dadaist attack. In short, "deconstructionism" seems like a pretty empty and dumb practice, and I would agree with Bruce that, as explained by him, it ain't worth much attention. However, because I don't find _deconstruction_ to be necessarily empty or dumb, and because I see a lot of attacks on deconstruction (or "deconstructionism") that don't resemble my understanding, I'd like to try to explain what I mean by the term. I understand deconstruction as a practice of reading and writing that was influenced by post-structuralist theories in the 1950s and 1960s and that serves as a way to explore how language works in, for, against, and through us. For example, deconstruction helps us to think about the very terms with which Bruce makes his case against it. Writers like Jacques Derrida have sought to understand the binary concepts that pepper this post (false/true, evil/good, questions/answers, valid/invalid) not to prove the impossibility of thinking, writing, or reading through such terms (and thus to throw up our hands and go fishing) but rather to understand how such concepts and the logic that structures them are produced, disseminated, elided, and so on. To be sure, such terms may well be inescapable, but that doesn't mean we should stop thinking about what they mean and how they work, as Bruce implies those "deconstructionists" are all too ready to do. Of course, the move to question the terms on and with which a critic makes his or her case is a classic move in deconstruction. In this way, deconstruction takes textuality or language as its subject, object, context, content, prison house, and so on. To state, therefore, that "the deconstructionists have argued against language itself as the tool of communication" is to reduce a complex engagement with the limits, frames, repetitions, and differences of language to a simplistic argument "against language," whatever that could possibly be. I mean, I think even the lamest "deconstructionist" would find such an argument rather goofy. It's like an oncologist arguing against cancer. Perhaps Bruce intends something else by "deconstructionism" here than the theoretical practice I know as deconstruction, and I'd like to know what it is and where it could be found. Who are these "deconstructionists," what books do they write, and who takes them seriously? Meanwhile, I think that this kind of dismissive interpretation of deconstruction is itself rather empty and ultimately leads to the familiar split of "humanists" on one side and "scientists" on the other, neither able to talk with the other and both foolish, blind, and wrong. Better, I think, to try to understand what deconstruction is trying to do than to burn a straw-man version of it. Now, if people want to critique scholars who pursue the deconstruction of science, I'd really be interested to read about that. For example, I think that Bruno Latour's work (I'm thinking of _Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts_) could be understood in this way, and that other writers (Donna Haraway also leaps to mind) are clearly influenced by deconstruction. If Bruce or anyone else wants to talk about those kinds of analyses of science and their problems, I'm listening curiously. Chris Amirault.........................Dept. of American Civilization Chris_Amirault@brown.edu...................Brown University Box 1892 .................................................Providence RI 02912 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 17:19:47 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: SaC & deconstructionism Mark L Gilbert wrote (Sat, 16 Dec 1995): >How did you come to want to critique decon here? I was not trying to provide a critique of deconstructionism but rather to respond to what I perceived, perhaps incorrectly, as the fundamental problems involved in Mark Burch's _mode of struggle against_ the presumed oppression of thought by the scientific establishment. >Uhm, you must be thinking of the Critical School: neo-Marxists who are associated with the Frankfurt school.. . No, I was more interested in the strategic effectiveness of Mark's approach (although I do not think Mark may have understood my purpose that way). (I had written:) >> deconstructionists have argued against language itself as the tool of >> communication. > >Whoops, got that one exactly backwards. Quite the opposite. Well, okay, >Derrida did say language is not an instrument, but that's because language >is not the sort of thing one can pick up and put down at a whim. The >operation of language is much more profound than that. Well, I thought that was an implication of Mark's mode of argumentation, which it was suggested by Howard Schwarz (Dec 6) may be shared by more than a few others, and is worth clarifying. Certainly language is profound in its operation and effects. However, among other things it is also a crucial instrument of communication. >. . . Meaning and language so thoroughly structure all of human existence >that communication is always with us. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that language does not structure _all of existence_ (which I take to include the external world), but does contribute decisively to _the way we understand_ our experience. "All of existence" goes beyond language, encompassing as it does both man and his world, and all the relationships these involve, difficult as it may be to understand these fully. We attempt to describe and interpret through language, but are limited by the perceptual and selective (i.e. abstract) capacities available to us. >> However, if language is always just self-interest, then there is no >> possibility of identifying any higher ground of common interest or of any >> larger public good. > >Again, a partly right premise, and wrong conclusion. The "just" here is >ambiguous... No, the word "just" is exactly what I intended as the conditional hypothesis, to reflect my understanding of Mark B.'s position. If the premise is accepted I still think the conclusion follows. If this was not what Mark meant, then I will have learned something about his views. > . . .As for common interest, decon is interested in showing how >language cannot not be absolutely neutral, but is structured by and in >turn structures the values and metaphysics of society. Given this shared >medium, it is just such interest that is shared because of language. Yes, I agree with this, but it was not the point of discussion. >> To put this another way, the deconstructionists attack the tendencies >> within society to accept answers dictated by those in power. > >True, decon does show how the unquestionable operation of power can be >brought into question. This is the problem - whether methods which attack language can then be used and accepted in support of reason and dialogue. As I see it, the problem is quite clear: to introduce major ambiguity about the validity or trustworthiness of _language in general_ is likely to undermine possibilities of useful linguistic communication in any particular circumstances. This makes a resort to violence a logical alternative, obviously a serious implication. >Unfortunately, some people who practice decon could give this >impression.... Yes. >A famous statement of Derrida's is "there is no outside the text," or, >everything is always a matter of context. We cannot get "outside" of >language in any of our activities; out actions are always part of the >context of language's structuring activity. > >I'm stating this all rather loosely; it's my paraphrase so any >inaccuracies are mine. But I hope it clears a few things up, >nevertheless. Well, I do not think it does clear things up. In particular it does not take into account the evidence that "Actions speak louder than words", that not everything is a matter of intellectual or linguistic context, that there is a real world out there with which our human actions must deal, difficult as it may be to describe our relationship to it. If the realization of these aspects of the human situation is not clear to anyone then I suspect verbal arguments will not be convincing. Cheers and best wishes! Bruce Buchanan "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 17:19:57 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: Social Theory & Political Practice X-cc: burch@HAWAII.EDU, rwhite@ccs.carleton.ca Mark Burch writes: (Fri, 15 Dec 1995) >I am forwarding this to the list because it expresses what I was >trying to say about the political agenda within the scientific program. >I think the need to control and manipulate the physical world also gives >rise to misunderstandings about order, disorder, entropy, etc.... I take it as an essential premise of this discussion that science per se is to be distinguished from applied technologies. In this regard I am not trying to control the use of language, but simply trying to be sure that we are talking about the same things. (My notion about deconstructionists was that many of them do not seem to believe it is even possible to talk about the same things. I hope that Mark does not, indeed, fit into that group - whether he knows it by that label or not.) But problems of language do leap out! Mark seems to me very close to saying that the methods of science give rise to misconceptions about what the writer (Mark) knows to be the superior truth about science. On the following excerpts from: Fay, B., (1975) _Social Theory and Political Practice_ Controversies in Sociology. (Fay's discussion is well characterized under the heading of Controversies in Sociology, for it has only a remote relationship to science as such.) Faye writes: > ...I would argue, the possibility of tech- >nical control, far from having a contingent relationship to science, is >indeed part of the framework which constitutes the very possibility of >scientific activity. I think that this reflects a very incomplete view of scientific activity. The basic method of science is to be found in presuppostions i.e. in the framing of hypotheses which can be provisionally accepted or rejected on the evidence. >we understand a state of affairs scientifically only to the extent that we >have the knowledge of what to do in order to control it, and it is thus >that the ability to control phenomena provides the framework in terms of >which scientific explanation proceeds. This is not the case. In astronomy there is no possibility of control. Sciences pass through stages of observation, description and taxomony before they get to the stage of hupotheses, and the experimentation designed to confirm or refute hypotheses. Hypotheses are intended to elucidate the relationships among identified variables, which are then subject to observation. Controlling some of the variables to see what others do may be part of this. Social control has nothing to do with it. In fact, many of the greatest scientists had to fight for their own values of truth and freedom, and against attempts at social and ecclesiastical control. >. . . this theory of understanding is itself rooted in a whole series >of metaphysical assumptions as to the nature of truth and reality ... This is certainly true. It is the specifics of these assumptions that require some discussion. > ...it ought to be apparent that for the scientist reality is comprised >of observable objects and events which are related nomologically, i.e. >they are related according to a series of general laws of the type, if >X then Y under situation C, and that therefore, in line with this scientific >assumption about reality, only statements which reveal the concrete forms >which those general relationships take can be true statements. For the scientist, physical reality is experience interpreted according to the presuppostions and theories of physical science e.g. F=ma, etc. The propositions of science are true exactly to the extent that they can be validated according to the correspondence between the terms of the proposition and their operational referents in external world. Scientific terms are defined operationally, i.e. in accordance with the actual operations required to demonstrate them to any observer. While a variety of assumptions may be involved, the methods of science are designed to render covert or unanalyzed aims of null effect. >Science must view the world in this way in order for it to provide the kind >of explanations it prizes, which is to say, in order for it to provide the >control over the phenomena which is a sign of its having understood a >phenomenon. Because science marks out the 'world' as a world of observable >phenomena subject to general laws it thereby is constituting this 'world' >from the viewpoint of how one can gain control over it. The first purpose is to understand the world. Top rank scientists, who are most aware of the nature of the scientific enterprise, emphasize the importance of what they call pure science, as opposed to targetted research. >Underlying and informing the theory of explanation which I have presented >are deeper assumptions as to the nature of truth and reality, and these >deeper assumptions are rooted in the notion of manipulative control. The word "manipulative" is judgemental in this sociological context. Control in science involves an experimental design which allows the control of relevant variables. In many sciences - e.g. astronomy, geology, meteorology - it is hardly possible to do more than try to isolate and examine presumed variables in their interrelationships. In his essay "On the Notion of Cause", Bertrand Russell pointed out that the ordinary notion of cause is really a human conceptual construct. Nature is multidimensional and incessantly changing. When the human observer notices a relationship in time between events or variables of interest he may speak of a cause and effect. But this is to isolate such figures from the larger background, most of which remains unperceived. These notions of truth and reality are part of a scientific worldview which have nothing to do with "manipulative control". If anyone thinks science as such is engaged in manipulative control I might suggest a reading of The History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology, by Andrew White (if I recall the author aright). At almost every step of the way in the development of almost every science, the social forces bent on retaining the past have opposed new knowledge by almost all available means, including denial, ostracism and death. >This might be somewhat clearer if it is contrasted with another conceptual >scheme which employs a different notion of truth and therefore of explan- >ation. .."of truth and therefore of explanation"? The notion of explanation is not equivalent to truth in science. e.g. explanations include Aristotle's teachings about four types of causes - material, efficient, formal and final. Moreover explanation may also involve (1) a description of a cause-effect relationship, as typical of science, or (2) clarification in terms of symbolic meanings and motivations which may be individual or part of culture, myth and shared beliefs. > ... For there is a long tradition in Western thought which holds that >to explain something is to show its final cause, i.e. to demonstrate its >purpose in the scheme of things; now this theory of explanation can be >found in any number of different conceptual schemes, and the Christian >world-view is one of them. For a strictly Christian understanding of even >natural events, as well as of human history, is one which views phenomena >as episodes in the story of God's relationship with his creation, so that >to understand these phenomena is to grasp their meaning in terms of this >story, is to see how they fit into the pattern of revelation, consolation, >guidance and judgement which are chapters in God's overall plan for mankind. >Thus, from this viewpoint the Bible is a document which explains phenomena, >though from the scientific world-view it obviously is not explanatory. This point of view reigned supreme for centuries but was found to be less than fully satisfactory in describing the complexities of the universe. Moreover it made assumptions which proved to be more contentious than those of science, with its methods of provisional hypotheses, subject to processes of reevaluation. >The point here is that there are alternative notions of what can count as >an explanation, and that, in so far as some choice is required, the choice >involves some metaphysical conceptions as to the nature of truth and, >beyond that, the nature of the world and the place of man in it. This is certainly the case. However it does point to the need for a clear grasp of the issues actually involved if any conclusions are to be drawn. Arguments that are vague and no more than suggestive of emotionally held positions may be used to raise questions but may not be useful in providing substantial answers. > ... a positivist conception of the knowledge of social >life contains within itself an instrumentalist-engineering conception of >the relation of this knowledge to social action; for one is committed to >this engineering view of theory and practice in the very act of adopting >the positivist view of theory -- indeed, it is this engineering view which >supports and gives meaning to this view of social theory. This may be problem for social science; I do not know. Certainly philosophers of science have mostly long since rejected the presumed claims of Positivism, and very clearly distinguish between basic science and engineering. Karl Popper, perhaps the greatest modern philosopher of science, and advocate of The Open Society, was from Vienna, knew and understood the founders of modern positivist views of science but never did accept them. Sorry to be perhaps long-winded, but I would feel remiss to let such confused claims stand uncontested. However, I expect that I have now made my pitch! Cheers and best wishes. Bruce B. "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 21:59:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: SaC & "deconstructionism" X-cc: Chris_Amirault@brown.edu Chris Amirault writes (Sat, 16 Dec 1995): >I'm sure I don't recognize what Bruce is referring to here as >"deconstructionism." Or, rather, what I read here has little to do with >what I understand deconstruction to be. > >At times, Bruce suggests that "deconstructionism" refers to a kind of >ham-handed, vulgar marxist ideology critique of the "answers dictated by >those in power," ... "deconstructionism" seems like a pretty empty and dumb >practice, and I would agree with Bruce that, as explained by him, it ain't >worth much attention... Well, that is the point of view that I thought was being argued, and on which some comments had been sought. Let me review some contributions to this thread: Howard Schwartz wrote (Wed, 6 Dec 1995): >.... there is an ideological argument going >on these days that often overlaps the epistemolgical one. [Some] say, for >>example, that everything is political. >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 ...who have had that power and have used it to marginalize and >>oppress other groups. ...[The advocates of such views say:] Now the time has >>come to challenge and subvert that power and overthrow the epistemology that >>legitimates it. .. >[But] When that goes, science goes with it. ... > >I'm not making this up. It's all over the place ... Mark Burch wrote (7 Dec 1995): >I will take up the gauntlet on this one.... Mark again (Fri, 8 Dec 1995): >I assert that there is no science independent of scientists' discourse >about science. . . .I will reiterate my position, which is that the >>assumptions which form the basis set of scientific thought are very political >>in nature, and have to do with ideas of order, control, and the threat of >>freedom. Mark again (9 Dec 1995): >scientific assumptions and results justify and promote the whole global >military-industrialist machine which is destroying this planet. The >history of science is inseparable from militarism, since the Bronze Age. > >One of the prominent features of the culture of science is denial - denial >of spirit, of intuition and emotion. Objectivity is just subjectivity in >a state of denial; it is subjectivity that someone is not owning up to. >... Scientists are often engaged in denying the >experience of others by demanding that it be demonstrable under >conditions of their choosing. Another aspect of this is the the strange >notion that my beliefs are refutable by someone else's beliefs, as Bruce >and Arie have tried to [do]... Arie Dirkzwager wrote (Sun, 10 Dec 1995): > ... I share your concern about (subconscious) cultural > and political influences on science and technology and their use. It could > be fitted however in a more realistic belief-system ... I certainly do not > share your way of "discussion" - or do you think only propaganda exists and > discussion is nonsense? Arie Dirkzwager wrote again (Mon, 11 Dec 1995): > ...I think you abuse my mail when you publicly claim them as a demonstration >>of your belief.... A little feedback of other members of this list is >welcome, >as I'm afraid of flaming this list. Lisa Rogers wrote (Thu, 14 Dec 1995): >Some scientists I know are frankly baffled by some of the critique of >science we hear from sources such as some of those on this list. > >...it seems that we are speaking separate languages, the same words >but not the same meanings, and some words we never heard of. It is >difficult to hear/understand that science is _only_ socially >constructed, that facts are absolutely anything, that there is no >reference to reality at all. . . . No scientist I know holds >to some caricature of faith in the reality of absolute >objectivity or pure empiricism, or anything silly like that. >...that kind of critique...is rather unimpressive. > >I did not come here to "deconstruct the myth of science as impartial >search for truth" as one person put it. ... > > . . . if science cannot know anything ever, >then who can? and by what method? The extreme, nihilistic answer >returns: nobody, no way, forget the whole thing. Baffling. End of >conversation. My comments within this thread have been my own attempts to clarify what I see as very real problems for many individuals and for society, and to keep avenues of discourse as open as possible. I may have been mistaken in identifying Mark's views with "deconstructionism". I have probably been wasting my time. But the factors which provide the grounds for such beliefs are clearly very real and perhaps important. Chris Amirault writes (Sat, 16 Dec 1995): > . . .I understand deconstruction as a >practice of reading and writing that was influenced by post-structuralist >theories in the 1950s and 1960s and that serves as a way to explore how >language works in, for, against, and through us. >Perhaps Bruce intends something else by "deconstructionism" here than the >theoretical practice I know as deconstruction, and I'd like to know what it >is and where it could be found. Who are these "deconstructionists," what >books do they write, and who takes them seriously? My tentative supposition has been that Mark and those whom he may represent are concerned not with language drawn from texts but rather with language that holds our present civilization together, and in this attack science as "myth." My argument was drawn partly from my reading of John Ralston Saul's new book, The Unconscious Civilization, which records the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Massey Lecture Series given late in November (1995). (This series was founded over 30 years ago for the purpose of enabling distinguished authorities to communicate the results of original study on subjects of contemporary interest.) The subject of Saul's lectures and book (from the cover description) is that: "Our society is only superficially based on the individual and democracy. Increasingly it is conformist and corporatist, a society in which legitimacy lies with specialist or interest groups and decisions are made through constant negotiations between these groups. "The paradox of our situation is that knowledge has not made us conscious. Instead we have sought refuge in a world of illusion where language is cut off from reality. "Reconnecting language to reality, clarifying what we mean by individualism and democracy, making these realities central to the citizens's life, identifying ideologies in order to control them, there are among the first elements of equilibrium [which we require]..." With respect to deconstructionism, Saul says (page 172 ff.): "The difficulty with many of the arguments used today to examine reigning fallacies is that they have fallen into the general assumptions of deconstructionism. They do not seek meaning or knowledge or truth. They seek to demonstrate that all language is tied to interest...." He goes on to point out that the subversion of language makes it impossible to discuss the public good and has the effect of reinforcing the powers now politically ascendant. This description seemed to me to resemble the approaches described by Howard Schwarz, championed by Mark Burch. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.... perhaps it is a duck. Moreover, whatever it is, it seems to be both important and a problem. And it is the understanding of the problem that interests me, not the accuracy of labels unless that contributes to a clearer understanding. All that I intended to do was to point out clearly the self-defeating features of such an approach. However, as someone has said "The person who is going nowhere cannot be stopped". I have now exhausted any contribution I have to make to this thread! Bruce Buchanan "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:22:10 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC & deconstructionism In-Reply-To: <9512162241.AA27662@osf1.gmu.edu> First off, I would like to thank Bruce for going to all the work of pulling out the relevant passages from all those posts. As for Chris and my criticism of your use of "deconstructionism," I can see where you went wrong. You mentioned the John Saul book, On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Bruce Buchanan wrote: > "The difficulty with many of the arguments used today to examine > reigning fallacies is that they have fallen into the general assumptions > of deconstructionism. They do not seek meaning or knowledge or truth. > They seek to demonstrate that all language is tied to interest...." He > goes on to point out that the subversion of language makes it impossible > to discuss the public good and has the effect of reinforcing the powers now > politically ascendant. He does here to deconstruction what you worry critics of science like Mark Burch, are doing to science: getting it all wrong. I haven't read his book, so I can't say anything about the rest of it, but from what you quote here, it doesn't look promising. > I was not trying to provide a critique of deconstructionism but rather to > respond to what I perceived, perhaps incorrectly, as the fundamental > problems involved in Mark Burch's _mode of struggle against_ the presumed > oppression of thought by the scientific establishment. > > >Uhm, you must be thinking of the Critical School: neo-Marxists who are > associated with the Frankfurt school.. . > > No, I was more interested in the strategic effectiveness of Mark's approach > (although I do not think Mark may have understood my purpose that way). In light of the rest of your post, it becomes clearer what you are getting at, but deconstruction was a straw man that has little to do with any problems you may see with Mark Burch's efforts. On Dec 16 you added in another post: > My comments within this thread have been my own attempts to > clarify what I see as very real problems for many individuals > and for society, and to keep avenues of discourse as open as > possible. I may have been mistaken in identifying Mark's views > with "deconstructionism". I have probably been wasting my time. > But the factors which provide the grounds for such beliefs are > clearly very real and perhaps important. and also: > My tentative supposition has been that Mark and those whom he > may represent are concerned not with language drawn from texts > but rather with language that holds our present civilization > together, and in this attack science as "myth." Do you have any specific texts in mind? How do you see Mark using language in the latter sense leading to science-as-myth? The collection of passages you cull from the list are emblematic of a general ambivalence towards science found in many parts of modern thought. >From the New Age movement, to Neo-Luddites, _some_ post- modernist and feminist criticism, there is quite a drumbeat of rejection of science. This is an important problem and question. I take it that Bruce has been concerned to defend what he sees as a misrepresentation of science. I would like to see some more on this topic, but let's not let our brushes get so wide we commit the same mistakes as the sloppier critics of science. best, mark gilbert |Need to examine | |Uncritical times | | -Stereolab| ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:50:09 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark L Gilbert Subject: Re: SaC & deconstructionism In-Reply-To: <9512162241.AA27662@osf1.gmu.edu> On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Bruce Buchanan wrote: [earlier, I had written on Dec 16:] > >. . . Meaning and language so thoroughly structure all of human existence > >that communication is always with us. > > Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that language does not structure > _all of existence_ (which I take to include the external world), but does Notice the extra word you left out: _human_ > contribute decisively to _the way we understand_ our experience. "All of > existence" goes beyond language, encompassing as it does both man and his > world, and all the relationships these involve, difficult as it may be to > understand these fully. We attempt to describe and interpret through > language, but are limited by the perceptual and selective (i.e. abstract) > capacities available to us. Wherever we go, well, there we are. So while existence certainly is more than us, have you ever been to this beyond-the-human part? I haven't. Scientists don't get to go there either. Anywhere humans are, certain aspects of what it is to be human must necessarily be there as well, like language. Without language, what are scientists going to do, grunt? Seriously though, science is a linguistically involved enterprise as much as any human activity. [jumping down a little ways] > Well, I do not think it does clear things up. In particular it does not > take into account the evidence that "Actions speak louder than words", that "Actions speak"? Well said! You're going to be pan-linguist in no time! Just keep trying. (hee hee) > not everything is a matter of intellectual or linguistic context, that If it's not, you're not going to have much to say about it, now are you? > there is a real world out there with which our human actions must deal, > difficult as it may be to describe our relationship to it. ...or difficult as it may be know how to act in relationship to it, no? Additionally, just to head off the direction everyone goes in a conversation like this: just because I claim everything we do is linguistically contextualized _does_not_mean_nothing_else_is_involved_. That notion is silly beyond belief, but has unfortunately been pushed by people who ought to know better. BTW, those who are most guilty of that move are certain schools of analytic philosophy more than people like Derrida. A common idea in that camp has been that science is in the business of producing explanations that amount to sets of propositions about the world, and that praxis has little to do with what science is really all about. > This is the problem - whether methods which attack language can then be > used and accepted in support of reason and dialogue. As I see it, the > problem is quite clear: to introduce major ambiguity about the validity or > trustworthiness of _language in general_ is likely to undermine > possibilities of useful linguistic communication in any particular > circumstances. This makes a resort to violence a logical alternative, > obviously a serious implication. This is like accusing a mechanic of attacking cars, or blaming all scientists for jeapardizing the environment and threatening the fabric of society. Analysis does not equal attack. If language has ambiguity regarding how we are to take it, I don't think language theorists like Derrida somehow managed to introduce it: they're not THAT powerful (whew!). Again, let's try to be fair in both directions, shall we? ...................................... : : : My own words take me by surprise : : and teach me what I think : : : :..................Merleau-Ponty.....:........... mark gilbert :................. mgilbert@gmu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 12:47:03 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dr. Patrick W. Hamlett, Assistant Head, MDS" Subject: (Fwd) Latin and Central American STS.... X-To: HOPOS-L@UKCC.uky.edu, htech-l@sivm.bitnet Can anyone help? Cheers, Hamlett ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 19:25:42 -0500 To: PHAMLETT@ncsu.edu From: lparra@uniandes.edu.co (Ligia Parra) Subject: Latin and Central American STS.... Dear Dr. Hamlett: I read the NCSU Program on Science, Technology & Society Home Page. It was an interesting and useful experience for me. Thanks very much. I have some questions for you. Do you know of any STS Programs in Latin and Central America? Do you know Latin and Central American networks or mail lists? Best regards, Ligia Parra-Esteban --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ligia Parra-Esteban Directora Fundacion VOC de Investigacion de la Comunicacion Entre Cientificos Ciudad Universitaria. Unidad Camilo Torres. Apartado Aereo 86745 Bogota. Colombia Telefono (+) 571-2530489 Fax (+) 571-6134678 E-mail lparra@uniandes.edu.co --------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:06:32 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bruce Buchanan Subject: Re: SaC & deconstructionism In a very clear note, very useful for homing in on the key points, Mark Gilbert writes (Sun, 17 Dec 1995): >Wherever we go, well, there we are. So while existence certainly is more >than us, have you ever been to this beyond-the-human part? I haven't. What do you actually mean by saying that "existence certainly is more than us"? Do you not mean that there is something that frames human existence that lies beyond language? You live in the real world, breathing and moving about in interaction with a world larger than you can know. When you think about this, and try to articulate aspects of your existence, do you not thereby narrow the field within which you live? When you say "have you ever been to this beyond-the-human part?" do you mean anything other than that this "beyond-the-human part" is not conceptual or linguistic? If this is what you mean in effect, there is no disagreement on this from me.. >Scientists don't get to go there either. Anywhere humans are, certain >aspects of what it is to be human must necessarily be there as well, like >language. ... science is a linguistically involved enterprise as much >as any human activity. I understand this. However it is a special role of science to give the most careful consideration to the nature of human experience and referents to which evidence may point, and what this involves for conceptual thought. What is the relationship between language and the external world to which it points? We cannot know the external world directly, but by describing very accurately in operational terms the relation of immediate experience to conceptual constructs, we can create models useful for our guidance. These ideas and models are no more like the real world than the ship's rader screen is like the ships and headlands it portrays, but both present unseful information. To say that "science is a linguistically involved enterprise" is certainly true, but it does not clarify anything. The question is that of understanding the precise nature of the relationship between language and the experience it describes.The language of science is a carefully constructed and tested _denotative_ apparatus of thought. To do its task science must be structured this way, differently from the more subjectively _connotative_ and looser allusive structure of literary and artistic endeavors. Each should be valued in terms of the irreplaceable contributions they make possible. >"Actions speak"? Well said! You're going to be pan-linguist in no time! >Just keep trying. (hee hee) Forms of response and emotional content also provide para-linguistic clues. If you overlook the obvious meaning and try to derogate what I am trying to say you allow me to infer that you are not willing to understand my argument! (I will not yet conclude, however, that is actually what you intend, since I also live in hope!) My point, to unpack it, is this. It is a commonplace of folk wisdom and religious thought, as well as psychiatry, that a person's total behavior is a more reliable indication of what they understand and intend than their words alone. This is true whether or not there is any attempt at conscious deception. None of us knows himself completely. It is not really possible, nor do any of us try, to understand language apart from some assumptions about the context of the spoken word, usually evident within the larger frame. Ordinarily we use the circumstances, manner and evidence of feelings of other people as aids as we try to interpret what they say and what it may mean. In interpreting the written word, we may want to know the writer's experience and the grounds for the assertions made, to add to the judgements we make on the basis of the coherence and consistency of the ideas presented. It is a common experience to have someone dismiss or belittle some statement, and the implied devaluation usually blocks further communication. Aside from its effects as a social gambit, that it all it does. It does not advance any argument, and it demonstrates the point that language occurs in a context that goes beyond it and is of at least equal importance. Language can be coercive and authoritarian behavior as well as informative, and can be all these things at the same time. For example, I would probably hesitate to take this line of argument if I were a student talking with a professor in a position of power over me. > just because I claim everything we do is >linguistically contextualized _does_not_mean_nothing_else_is_involved_. Well, this statement does not advance anything, and you do not elaborate upon it. What else is involved? How does this relate to language? Why so reticent? These are the questions which require answers if we are to understand many important things, not least our own thoughts and limitations. I had written (about what I thought were deconstructionist arguments): >> This is the problem - whether methods which attack language can then be >> used and accepted in support of reason and dialogue. ... > > Analysis does not equal attack. Responding to this type of twist in meaning can be tiresome, you know! I was talking, quite specifically, about methods which do "attack" language. I was not talking about analysis; in fact I was myself being analytic. (This kind of throw-away reply gives the same impression of warm comfort as a clock striking 13!) >Again, let's try to be fair in both directions, shall we? No, let's try to get at descriptions and explanations which deal with all the facts. Let's try to clearly understand the nature of the relationships between the external world within which we seek to survive, the phenomena of perceptual experience (cf.your reference Merleau-Ponty), and the conceptualizations/ theories involves in language and science. Whether you go to a doctor for diagnosis and treatment, or are asked to present evidence in a court of law, this is what you need to do. The notion that truth resides somewhat between polarities or extremes is common enough in politics and other situations where the problem is social conflict, but is vague and inadequate for most other purposes. It mistakes opinion for knowledge. If you deny there is any difference between these, I do not want you as a doctor or a judge in my case, professions which require skill in the use of language among other things. In the days when some people advocated the burning of witches, and others were opposed, fairness to both sides probably led to burning fewer witches. This might have seemed reasonable, but could also be seen as deranged. The point, lost sight of by the Inquisitors, is that language is not a self-contained universe and we must always be aware of what it is that we are speaking about. If we do not know whereof we speak we perhaps should be silent (according to Wittgenstein and the Bible!), or perhaps, as I think, advance ideas provisionally, with the hope of competent corrective feedback! Cheers and best wishes! Bruce B. "We are all in this together!" ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:04:11 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Aditi Gowri Subject: SaC: STS in Latin America X-cc: Aditi Gowri In-Reply-To: <199512190532.VAA16702@chaph.usc.edu> from "Automatic digest processor" at Dec 19, 95 00:25:33 am The person with whom you would want to get in touch is Ubiratan D'Ambrosio; his Email is ubi@usp.br He is one of the originators of the ethnomathematics movement, which is a combination of STS and education for political consciousness in the mode of Paolo Freire. I was on an Email list for mathematics educators for a while, but my Spanish soon proved inadequate. D'Ambrosio would, I imagine, also know about that. Yours, Aditi Gowri Ph.D. Candidate, Social Ethics University of Southern California ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 21:14:00 -0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Danilo Curci Subject: BUON NATALE, BUON ANNO, BUONE FESTE A TUTTI! !!!!!! BUON NATALE, BUON ANNO, BUONA EPIFANIA, BUONE FESTE !!!!!!! A A A A H H A H H H H AAA H H A HHH H H A H / H H H H H H \ H A A HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH A A H H / H HHH HHHHH H H\ H H H H HHHHHHHH HHHHHHH H H H H HHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH H H H HH HHHHHHHH HHH H H H H HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H H HHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH H H HH HHH HH HHH HH H H HH HHH HH HHH HH -------------------------------------------------- ------ AMBROSIUS, the_owl, Dan.C. ... & ... TAKE AN HOLIDAY IN MILANO ! REAL, VIRTUAL, PHANTASTIC http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/Milano.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: quadrant@iol.it ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" mailing-list, ARCO Home Page: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/ARCO.html ARCO KIDS GALLERY http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/kids.html Biblioteca / Library: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/biblio.html Art: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/art.html Psychology: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/psy.html Communication: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/com.html Milano (GrassRoots): http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/Milano.html ARCO University http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/arcouniv.html Alzheimer Disease: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/alzheim.html Paraplegia: http://www.geopages.com/TimesSquare/2459/parapl.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- 'Ambrosius, the_owl' on Grassroots MOO at rdz.stjohns.edu:8888 (telnet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------