From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9603" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 12:24 PM ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 07:49:58 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Notification of Philosophy Books from Routledge Routledge Current Awareness - Philosophy We are pleased to announce the Routledge Current Awareness service for Philosophy. This service consists of a series of mailing lists that provide information on new Routledge titles in philosophy as they are published. Lists are structured in such a way to allow you to receive information on only those areas you are interested in. You can choose from over 20 categories selected from within philosophy to match you interests and to allow you keep your email traffic to a reasonable level. Once you have joined a list the information is emailed direct to you using this mailing list service whenever a title in the area is due to be published To join a list To subscribe send a message to majordomo@list.thomson.com with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe listname your-email-address (e.g subscribe philosophy-newbooks philosophy@routledge.com) You can subscribe to as many lists as you wish but note that by joining philosophy-newbooks you will not need to join any of the other lists. Members of several lists will sometimes receive identical messages, this is due to the overlap between areas and such messages are from each of the different lists that the title falls into - their headers should indicate this. Below are the lists with their listnames and the number of messages you might expect to receive in any given year, of course this is an estimate and it may vary in practice. You can subscribe to more than one in a single email but we suggest if you do you start each subscription on a new line. All Philosophy titles philosophy-newbooks between 70 and 100 messages per year Ethics titles ethics-newbooks between 15 and 20 messages per year Ancient and Medieval Philosophy titles ancphil-newbooks between 10 and 15 messages per year Philosophy of Art and Literature titles philart-newbooks between 3 and 6 messages per year Non-Western Philosophy titles nonwestphil-newbooks between 3 and 6 messages per year Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory titles phillaw-newbooks between 4 and 7 messages per year Philosophy of Language and Linguistics titles phil-and-ling-newbooks between 2 and 4 messages per year Bertrand Russell titles russell-newbooks between 5 and 10 messages per year Karl Popper titles popper-newbooks between 2 and 4 messages per year Ludwig Wittgenstein titles wittgenstein-newbooks between 2 and 4 messages per year Political and Social Philosophy titles polphil-newbooks between 10 and 15 messages per year Feminist and Gender Philosophy titles genderphi-newbooks between 30 and 40 messages per year Introductory Philosophy titles introphil-newbooks between 10 and 15 messages per year Philosophy of Science titles philsci-newbooks between 5 and 10 messages per year History of Philosophy titles histphil-newbooks between 4 and 8 messages per year Continental Philosophy titles contphil-newbooks between 20 and 30 messages per year Logic, Philosophy of Mathematics and Critical Thinking titles logic-newbooks between 2 and 4 messages per ear Philosophy and Psychoanalysis titles phil-and-psychoanal-newbooks between 3 and 6 messages per year Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology and Metaphysics titles mind-and-meta-newbooks between 5 and 10 messages per year Environmental Philosophy titles envphil-newbooks between 4 and 8 messages per year Getting off a list If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send an email to "listname-request@list.thomson.com" (e.g. philosophy-newbooks-request@list.thomson.com"). with the following comand in the body of the message: unsubscribe. Or you can send mail to "majordomo@list.thomson.com" with the following command in the body of your email message unsubscribe listname your-email-address unsubscribe philosophy-newbooks philosophy@routledge.com The lists will begining sending out information later in March. This information will also be available from our Philosophy pages at http:/www.routledge.com/philosophy and in our forthcoming 1996 catalogue. Adrian Driscoll philosophy@routledge.com __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 08:13:07 U Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Phil Bereano Subject: Op Ed - Correction The message sent last week inadvertently left out the title of the Op Ed. Here's a repeat of the message, with correction: An Op Ed of mine entitled "The Mystique of the Phantom 'Gay Gene'" ran in the Seattle Times on Sunday Feb. 25, 1996. Since this list cannot receive messages of more than 300 lines, if you would like to receive a copy of it, please e-mail Dinh Lam at dinh.lam@uwtc.washington.edu and she'll send it to you directly. Phil Bereano Department of Technical Communication University of Washington 14 Loew Hall Box 352195 Seattle, WA 98195-2195 email: phil@uwtc.washington.edu ph: (206) 543-9037 fx: (206) 543-8858 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 20:02:56 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Essays on humanism & human nature plus other information About a year ago, when I first joined the net, there was a (necessarily inconclusive) string on two forums - Philosophy of Literature and Psychological Study of the Arts -about the question of how humanism and human nature got bad names, started by me, from which I learned quite a lot. Don't forget, structuralism and its sequellae can be seen as forms of scientism. I went back to my university department and proposed that our research seminar ponder this matter. We had some interesting sessions, a couple of which have produced essays which may be of interest to Psy-Arters (see below*, along with related ones). They have been lodged at the centre's much-updated web site which may itself be of interest, as may the programmes our centre offers by distance learning. Beyond that, there are now web sites with essays for discussion on related forums, which are accessible independently which may interest some members of this forum. Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies web site, including descriptions of programmes **available by distance learning** where philosophical, cultural studies methodology and literary issues are central. That is, we think about human nature and society all the time: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Sean Homer's essays: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/sihomer/papers.html 'A Short History of the Marxist Literary Group' 'Fredric Jameson and the Limits of Postmodern Theory' * 'Mapping the Terrain of Theoretical Anti-Humanism' My essays: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/papers/index.html 'Whatever Happened to Human Nature?' *'Human Nature' 'Reductionism and Overdetermination in the Explanation of Human Nature' (There are a number of others at this site.) Related forums: PSYCHOANALYSIS AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk to subscribe email listproc@sheffield.ac.uk body of message: subscribe psa-public-sphere yourname Web site with essays for discussion: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/fa.html Among the oofferings on the site are the following: Norman Holland, 'Internet Regression' , 66K The author reflects on some of the primitive processes displayed in internet communications and relationships. Robert M. Young. 'Psychoanalysis and/of the Internet', 66K Howard S. Schwartz, 'Psychological Regression in the Politically Correct University', 99K Political correctness represents a regression in university functioning in which paternal influencesare repudiated and and a biparental model of authority is replaced by one revolving around a primordial conception of the mother. Paternal influences are those which represent the engagament with external reality and regression to the promordial mother is therefore a rejection of external reality. Aspects of university functioning that are explained by this model include the inversion of valuation, the assault against the white males, the subordination of rationality in decision making,the balkanization of the university, the drive to the extreme, and the anomaly of female power. This paper develops an idea of social process expressed in rudimentary form in my paper Narcissistic emotion and university administration: An analysis of "political correctness", in _Emotion and Organizations_, edited by Stephen Fineman (London: Sage, 1993, 190-215). This site and the forum are associated with the quarterly journal, _Free Associations: Psychoanalysis, Groups, Politics, Culture_ http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html#free also: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html.#free (free sample available: send request with your address to pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk) Web site with essays for discussion on Science-as-Culture: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/sac.html Among the offerings at this site are: Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, 'The Californian Ideology' 43K There is an emerging global orthodoxy concerning the relation between society, technology and politics. In this paper we are calling this orthodoxy the Californian Ideology in honour of the state where it originated. By naturalising and giving a technological proof to a political philosophy, and therefore foreclosing on alternative futures, the Californian ideologues are able to assert that social and political debates about the future have now become meaningless and - horror of horrors - unfashionable. Thomas H. Thompson,'Metaphilosophy' 93K This is an autobiographical essay by a philosopher in which he reflects on his experiences as a graduate student in a department where a dominant figure, Gustav Bergmann, an adherent of the Vienna Circle, was in mortal combat with another philosopher, Everett Hall. The author explores the intellectual and interpersonal atmospheres and reflects psychoanalytically on the culture of graduate school in Iowa City a generation ago.. This site is associated with the quarterly journal, _Science as Culture_ http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html#science also: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html.#science (free sample available: send request with your street address to pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk) Feedback very welcome - to me, to the authors and especially _to the forum_. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 07:13:03 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GREGORY D WILSON Subject: Poor choice of references >To: gwilson@nmsu.edu >Subject: Poor choice of references. >From: sk@bbjj.mv.com (JJ Kane/NHSkeptics) >Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 22:29:11 EST >Organization: Armchair Research >Status: RO > > >> Latour&Woolgar address scientists's preference of genius stories like, >> "One day Dr X had an idea," over actual explanations of the long >> tedious grunt work it took to construct a scientific fact. > >They do so erroneously. Such stories are rather common in popularizations >aimed at the mass market, and in high school science textbooks (which are >written by technical writers, not scientists). This can hardly be taken >as an indication of scientists' beliefs. I have read a good thirty >career-biographies and autobiographies of scientists, and chronicles of >the affairs of research labs, and none of them limited themselves to the >abbreviated capsule summaries of watershed events which are more common >in sci-literature written for entertainment. This is like the difference >between historical scholarship versus George Washington and the cherry >tree, or the difference between substantive multilateral diplomatic >negotiations and sound bites. > I am certainly being overly broad to make "science is" and "scientists always" statements. But I am also troubled by statements that say what science is not. If we peel those petals way and let them drop--science is not text books, science is not popularization of science, science is not classroom lectures--what we are eventually left with is "science is what scientists say it is." That kind of damns cultural or social studies of science. Latour and Woolgar went into the lab to watch the researchers as if they were a tribe of chimpanzees. They tried not to privelege science as a grand activity, but instead tried to watch and see what sense they could make just by watching. They arrive at a plausible story, but they themselves say it is only one of many possible stories. >> Once a fact is a fact, it behooves the scientist to erase the tracks >> in the sand, deny that the fact was ever tentative. > >Odd, then, that this so seldom happens. Scientists are rather proud of >their methodology and are quite cheerful about telling how they succeeded >in disconfirming some of their favored hunches as false leads. You are >perhaps confusing canned lecture-hall science with research. > Seldom is a matter of perspective. The type of virtual witnessing that Shapin and Shaffer discuss is certainly a staple of daily science and of daily accounts of science. Latour and Woolgar, however, discuss five levels of statements that are deployed to move an idea from concept to fact status. 1 Peter has suggested that X has an inhibitory effect on Y. 2 There is a large body of evidence to support the concept of control of Y by X 3 Recently, Odell has reported that X has an inhibitory effect on Y. 4 The inhibitory effect of X on Y was first described by Jones. Various investigations clearly support this claim. 5 X inhibits Y. At early stages of reserach, claims about a finding are necessarily tentative (level 1). As support for the concept builds, claims get less tentative. The claim is starting to gain popular support. Ultimately, the scientist wants to move the claim to level five, to put the fact into a black box and make the research that established it irrelevant because it has been socially constructed as obviously True. This is what I meant by erasing the footprints. >> Our culture also perpetuates the myth that science is a high level >> innate skill of looking at the world objectively and interpreting it >> for those who were not talented enough to be scientists and had to >> settle for English or Art History. > >Whose culture? Not ours, certainly. It is indeed a myth that science >has anything to do with interpreting the world for nonscientists, and >another myth that science is an innate skill involving objectivity. > Sorry, I have no academic reference to back this one up, just personal epxerience. After my wife and I heard Nan Keohane (sp?), president of Duke University and a brilliant scholar in the humanities, speak, my wife the scientist turned to me and said "She's smart, she could have been an engineer." And I can't remember which S&E friend told me the joke about the red uniformed security officers on the old Star Trek episodes (the ones who always died in the first 5 minutes of the show) being humanities majors at Star Fleet Academy. I think the enlightenment project and logical positivism certainly privelege science as a service to mankind performed by special individuals with special skills, but I've been wrong before. >> QR&F's discourse is largely consistent with how scientists >> see themselves and how they are seen by society. > >Consistent with how they are seen by certain subcultures within popular >culture, but this "oh, of course it sounds strange; it's based on principles >beyond mortal comprehension" bafflegab is not found in the scientific >community. Whatever source of information you're relying on, I suggest >you try looking elsewhere in the hope that you turn up something more >descriptive. > I think that logical positivism's epistemological implication that facts exist prior to us knowing them is what trips up QR&F, and why it seems so odd to us. QR&F reach into the sand and pull out a "fact" just like logical positivism suggests they should be able to. The cognitive disonance that we experience comes from their lack of adherence to the process of social construction of scientific facts that flies in the face of logical positivism. To the extent that scientists beleive that they are discovering pre-existent Facts instead of negotiating for the acceptability of facts, QR&F are mimmicking the appearance of science. The more I read about QR&F's accounts of their process, the more I'm convinced they are insane. Well, insane or counting on the jury system to privide 12 peers who learned science from textbooks, lectures, and popular science--the realm of science that displays itself as a world of facts and not of dispute and argumentation. Greg Wilson ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 19:04:49 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: MA in Science, & Technology in Europe ****************************************************************** MA SOCIETY, SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY IN EUROPE, 1 year full-time The central aim of this degree is to train a new generation of researchers, policy-makers and managers who will have a better understanding of the relationships between science, technology and society (STS) and the expertise to address the related problems that face Europe and the world. This course has been designed in cooperation with ten other universities, and receives financial support from the European Union. All students follow a common first semester at their home institution, focusing on key concepts and debates in the STS field. In the second semester, each participating university offers specialist training based on its own research strengths. Students can choose to spend the second semester and the summer months at any of the participating universities where they will follow a short taught course and then prepare a dissertation. In total, there are sixteen specialist subjects offered by eleven universities: * Gender, science & technology (UEL) * Europe in an Information Society (UEL) * Science, technology & innovation in an historical perspective (Bari) * Cities, territories & technology (Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne) * Technological culture (Limburg) * Economics of technological change (Limburg) * Risk management (Louvain-la-Neuve) * Biotechnologies (Louvain-la-Neuve) * Management of innovation (Madrid) * Legal & technical aspects of new information and communication technologies (Namur) * Technology assessment (Namur) * The making of science & technology policy (Oslo) * Science, technology & the public (Strasbourg) * Production systems, innovation and development models (Roskilde) * Science, technology & industry-academic relationships (Pais Vasco) Applications for 1996-97 are welcome from people with a good degree in any academic discipline with an interest in the subject matter. Knowledge of English is essential. Knowledge of another European language would be an advantage. For further information and an application form, contact: Dr. F Henwood, Dep't of Innovation Studies, University of East London, Maryland House, Manbey Park Road, London E15 1EY tel: +44 (0)181 849 3676 fax: +44 (0)181 849 3677 email: F.J.HENWOOD@UEL.AC.UK __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 03:28:01 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Straker Subject: SAC: teachers' speech rights X-To: Norman Levitt Dear Theorem-prover (semi-retired), and all: It does seem to me that the issue is pretty clear: an acceptable BIOLOGY classroom, and one which we should all defend, is one in which, whatever else goes on, the teacher teaches what counts as "state of the art" textbook biology. I can't think that anyone would argue a biology teacher has the "right" *not* to teach biology. If there are genuine controversies and disagreements within, or about what is, state-of-the-art biology, then such will certainly be legitimate in such a classroom. As far as I can judge, the "pomo science critics" -- who, since they are scholars, not "critics", are inaccurately described by Levitt -- would readily agree that biology IS what the biologists say it is. A biology, classics, history, mathematics, etc. teacher IS obliged to teach the subject or else the students are done an injustice and a real disservice. It is relevant to note my clear impression that there is NOT ONE practicing biologist who also claims also to be a "Creation Scientist" who publishes papers in biological journals or teaches in the biology classroom any differently than his or her non-"creationist" peers. Such people do understand what is involved in practicising their field and keeping their jobs. What they do "off parade" is surely another matter (as for instance: Linus Pauling, Edward Teller, David Suzuki, Norman Levitt, etc.). The "pomo" scholars are simply elaborating, in all its historical richness, some elementary and ancient truths (fundamentally discussed even in Plato's *Republic*, for pete's sake): -- that there is no such thing as a "method" which when followed produces truth in some unequivocal way and which is thereby readily available to all people; -- that people brought up & living in different intellectual traditions and different socio-cultural *milieu* will be disposed to hold, believe and espouse quite different notions of what sorts of things are true and natural; -- and, that those who have, or claim to have, the truth will NOT be able to make it widely available *in its own terms* and on its own grounds, with the consequence that sharing or promulgating the truth involves TRUST and the social production of good reasons for trusting. That is, even Plato, an absolutist in matters of truth if there ever was one, also claims to know some truths in the sociology of knowledge and the politics of trust. Nor is it clear that all -- or even any -- of the "pomo critics" are or even have to be epistemic or moral relativists. It may be that, like Plato, they take their scholarship to be grounds for criticizing and arguing against propagandistic (simplistic) ideas about knowledge and the grounds for justified belief. Stephen Straker straker@unixg.ubc.ca Arts One // History (604) 822-6863 University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Norman Levitt wrote [edited by SS]: > Now,now, all you science-as-culture guys. Having promoted epistemic > relativism in all things, science especially, you can hardly object > when the Great State of Tennesse takes you at your word. Just a > different Commmunity of Knowers, that's all. ... [cut to next message] > Moreover, assuming these guys (creationists) have good lawyers (and > they do) you'll be hearing a lot of your very favorite pomo > science-critics being quoted in favor of the bible-thumpers if this > stuff ever goes to court. I mean, that is, Bloor, Barnes, Pickering, > Woolgar, Fuller, Harding, Haraway, Latour, Collins, Shapin, Pinch, > Forman, Callon, > and, of course, that newcomer from the wonderful wacky world of > lit-crit, Barbara Herrnstein-Smith. Of course, there's Sheila > Jasanoff. If memory serves--and it does, since it was only a week > ago--she mentioned, during her AAAS talk in Baltimore that Creationism > in the schools is nothing to get in an uproar about--after all, the > truth of truth claims has nothing to do with the social mechanisms > whereby claims are adjudicated--right?? > > But--oh, my--if truth claims--putative IS-es--are infra dig, what are > we to make of value-claims--OUGHTs? Not much, I'd think. .... > Imagine that!! Epistemic relativism alongside moral absolutism. > Surprise, Surprise!! (Not really). > > As ever, > > N. Levitt > Theorem-prover (semi-retired) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 19:18:54 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: JJ Kane/NHSkeptics Organization: Armchair Research Subject: the object of our desire In-Reply-To: <199603051528.KAA24148@bort.mv.net> GW> the myth that.. those who were not talented enough to be scientists GW> ..had to settle for English or Art History. JK> indeed a myth that science is an innate skill involving objectivity. GW> Sorry, I have no academic reference to back this one up, just personal > experience. After my wife and I heard Nan Keohane(sp?)... speak, my > wife the scientist turned to me and said "She's smart, she could have > been an engineer." Verbal shorthand. Nearly all scientists recognize the existence of many flavors of intelligence including those which are expressed in intuitive and gestalt forms. You know, fashion sense, the ability to sit at a typewriter and make words flow onto the page, the ability to glance at a painting and tell an Old Master from a good copy. No one disputes the fact that there are certifiable geniuses out there whose minds are not governed by clockwork, calipers and metronomes. However, I refer you to the situation a few years back when there was a minor crisis in the hightech patent industry. Progress in certain fields got so rapid that patent attorneys and patent examiners gradually became less and less able to properly evaluate conflicts with prior art. They tried retraining people, and having law school graduates get second degrees in engineering, etc, with mixed results. Then somebody got a devious idea and tried it out. They have found that it's significantly easier to turn a good scientist into a good lawyer than to get a lawyer to think like a competent scientist. Why this should be, I know not. They say it's something like the way most people learn languages poorly if they don't start in early childhood. It can be difficult to make an analogizer over into an analyser. In this case there seems to be an imperfect relationship between mastering a pure socially-constructed field such as law and mastering a scientific/engineering discipline where reliance on suasive rhetoric can leave you barking up the wrong tree or chasing "sounds like" fallacies. There must just be something about a field where a single atom in the wrong position can transform an enzyme into a potent neurotoxin that leads people to dismiss claims that objective reality is a social construct. -- Jay Kane "The intuitive thinker adroitly sidesteps the pitfalls of rigid logic as he sweeps boldly on toward the Grand Fallacy." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:22:05 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Oh, really? From: Norman Levitt Straker writes > It does seem to me that the issue is pretty clear: an acceptable BIOLOGY > classroom, and one which we should all defend, is one in which, whatever > else goes on, the teacher teaches what counts as "state of the art" > textbook biology. I can't think that anyone would argue a biology teacher > has the "right" *not* to teach biology. The Tennessee legislature is about to MANDATE that biology teachers may not teach biology. That is, they are to be prohibited from teaching evolution as a "fact", which is about equivalent to excluding the periodic table of the elements as a fact. > If there are genuine controversies > and disagreements within, or about what is, state-of-the-art biology, > then such will certainly be legitimate in such a classroom. Sure. You might get to them in a graduate class, or maybe an honors program for gifted undergraduates. But this hasn't much to do with the topic at issue > As far as I can judge, the "pomo science critics" -- who, since they are > scholars, not "critics", are inaccurately described by Levitt -- Beg to differ, since "science critique" is a popular locution. Even more to the point, however, much of this purported scholarship is appalling in its tendentiousness and intellectual irresponsibility. > would > readily agree that biology IS what the biologists say it is. A biology, > classics, history, mathematics, etc. teacher IS obliged to teach the > subject or else the students are done an injustice and a real disservice. > > It is relevant to note my clear impression that there is NOT ONE > practicing biologist who also claims also to be a "Creation Scientist" who > publishes papers in biological journals or teaches in the biology > classroom any differently than his or her non-"creationist" peers. Oh yeah? Look at the SF State case, where that's precisely what happened, with the support of a pack of ninnies in the "humanities" whose ideas of academic freedom are rather overreaching, to say the least. > Such > people do understand what is involved in practicising their field and > keeping their jobs. What they do "off parade" is surely another matter Like hell! > (as for instance: Linus Pauling, Edward Teller, David Suzuki, Norman > Levitt, etc.). > > The "pomo" scholars are simply elaborating, in all its historical richness, The pomos are, inter alia, rather lousy historians, reading evidence very narrowly and selectively, with an eye to special pleading. A good deal of this poverty flows from the fact that they have little grasp of the ideas involved. (See, in this regard, Perutz's review of the Gieson "Pasteur" book in the NY Rev. of Books.) But this discussion is for another time. > some elementary and ancient truths (fundamentally discussed even in > Plato's *Republic*, for pete's sake): > > -- that there is no such thing as a "method" which when followed produces > truth in some unequivocal way and which is thereby readily available to > all people; Certainly true, because most people don't even make it to a calculus class, and most who do, exit without having the least idea of what really went on there. Makes it rather difficult to weigh the merits of standard quantum field theory vs. superstrings, yes? > > -- that people brought up & living in different intellectual > traditions and different socio-cultural *milieu* will be disposed to > hold, believe and espouse quite different notions of what sorts of things > are true and natural; That historical and social circumstances (among other things) relegate various groups of people to function within varying epistemologies is a truism. It's quite something else to imply, a la Feyerabend, or, when the fit is upon him, Rorty, that all have equal rights within some kind of noetic democracy. Whether there is an algorithmic "scientific method" is an interesting question, but it is not much to the point when the question is whether there exists a hierarchy of methodologies. There sure as hell does. > > -- and, that those who have, or claim to have, the truth will NOT be able > to make it widely available *in its own terms* and on its own grounds, with > the consequence that sharing or promulgating the truth involves TRUST and > the social production of good reasons for trusting. > > That is, even Plato, an absolutist in matters of truth if there ever was > one, also claims to know some truths in the sociology of knowledge and the > politics of trust. Oh really? Then what was the parable of the slave and the theory of true knowledge as awakened memory all about? > > Nor is it clear that all -- or even any -- of the "pomo critics" are or > even have to be epistemic or moral relativists. Is that so? Try reading a few, at least when they're off their guard. > It may be that, like > Plato, they take their scholarship to be grounds for criticizing and > arguing against propagandistic (simplistic) ideas about knowledge and the > grounds for justified belief. My chief point is that the would-be sophistications of the post-whatevers conceal an amazingly simplistic frame of mind--that right and justice are self evident, and that these provide whatever authority is neceasary for philosophical, as well as political, ukases of all sorts. > > Stephen Straker straker@unixg.ubc.ca > N. Levitt Differential Topologist (on those rare occasions when I'm not quibbling with STS and similar symptoms of our distempered times.)) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:36:37 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Levittown: tract housing for the mind X-To: Norman Levitt In-Reply-To: <96Mar6.091628hst.11772(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Norman Levitt wrote: > The Tennessee legislature is about to MANDATE that biology teachers may > not teach biology. That is, they are to be prohibited from teaching > evolution as a "fact", which is about equivalent to excluding the > periodic table of the elements as a fact. Your arrogance is outstripped only by your ignorance. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory. The periodic table of the elements is not a fact, it is a schema. Facts are things you can verify in your own experience. Everything else is hearsay. As a high school chemistry instructor, I have to reverse the damage that has been done to my students nervous systems by an education that consists of spoon feeding facts. There is no higher superstition than that science is an objective search for the truth. Sincerely, Mark T. Burch ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 10:42:29 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: the object of our desire X-To: JJ Kane/NHSkeptics In-Reply-To: <96Mar6.050453hst.11456(6)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, JJ Kane/NHSkeptics wrote: > There must just be something about a field where a single atom in the > wrong position can transform an enzyme into a potent neurotoxin that leads > people to dismiss claims that objective reality is a social construct. Not to mention that "potent neurotoxin" is a social construct. In a different social construct, such a molecule could be the means to a visionary experience. --Mark Burch > "The intuitive thinker adroitly sidesteps the sterilities of rigid logic > as he sweeps boldly on toward the Grand Mystery." > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 20:02:10 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Howard S. Schwartz" Subject: Re: Levittown: tract housing for the mind At 10:36 AM 3/9/96 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >Facts are things you can verify in your own experience. Everything else >is hearsay. >As a high school chemistry instructor, I have to reverse the damage that >has been done to my students nervous systems by an education that >consists of spoon feeding facts. >There is no higher superstition than that science is an objective search >for the truth. >Sincerely, Mark T. Burch > My curiosity overwhelms me. Calling it chemistry, what in the name of God DO you teach? Does anybody else call it chemistry? Howard Schwartz Schwartz@Oakland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 17:36:32 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: Oh, really? X-To: Norman Levitt In-Reply-To: <96Mar6.091628hst.11772(2)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Norman Levitt wrote: > That historical and social circumstances (among other things) relegate > various groups of people to function within varying epistemologies is a > truism. It's quite something else to imply, a la Feyerabend, or, when > the fit is upon him, Rorty, that all have equal rights within some kind > of noetic democracy. Whether there is an algorithmic "scientific method" > is an interesting question, but it is not much to the point when the > question is whether there exists a hierarchy of methodologies. There > sure as hell does. > And, of course, YOUR methodology just happens to be at the top of the hierarchy. What a coincidence! To call your position noetic fascism is a truism. Mark Burch, Symbolic Synthesist ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:18:52 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Oh, really? At 17:36 10-03-96 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Norman Levitt wrote: >> That historical and social circumstances (among other things) relegate >> various groups of people to function within varying epistemologies is a >> truism. It's quite something else to imply, a la Feyerabend, or, when >> the fit is upon him, Rorty, that all have equal rights within some kind >> of noetic democracy. Whether there is an algorithmic "scientific method" >> is an interesting question, but it is not much to the point when the >> question is whether there exists a hierarchy of methodologies. There >> sure as hell does. >> >And, of course, YOUR methodology just happens to be at the top of the >hierarchy. What a coincidence! To call your position noetic fascism is a >truism. >Mark Burch, Symbolic Synthesist > -------I have a quite interesting automated system called "BetVote" to decide on issues in a "noetic democratic" way. The kernel is that everyone can bring in an issue (proposition) on which opinions (three options: Agree, Disagree, Neither because the formulation of the proposition is a red herring) are to be given. These opinions are personal probabilities assigned to each of the options with a reward/punishment coupled to it (points to be gained when "right" or risked loss when "wrong"). "Right" is the option that gets the most points, the personal payoff is the number of points set at stake. It's a fine system to reach consensus and to detect important issues were opinions widely differ and more discussion and (experimental) research is needed. The cumulated personal payoffs is a measure of intellectual status in the "noetic community" - whoever has the highest payoff be at the "top of the hierachy" - when you can convince your knowledgeable colleguas that "YOUR methodology" is best you may reach the top in a democratic way. I think it IS an algorithmic "scientific method" to evaluate opinions in a democratic way and to avoid that "noetic fascism" or "(social) power or status" are decisive in scientific discussions. When people are interested I'm quite willing to explain further and organise an experiment with this "BetVote" system on this list. If so enter a two, max. three, line proposition of interest to this list we could "vote" upon to discover if there is a common opinion on it. I'll make a start with this experiment by setting the first proposition on this list under the subject header "EXPERIMENT" please add additional propositions, when we get at least ten of them I'll start the experiment (vote according to the BetVote system), collect and analyse the data and report the results to this 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) } {========================================================================} When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977). ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:18:56 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: EXPERIMENT, was: Oh, really? In an earlier message (reply to Mark Burch) I proposed to formulate some propositions and vote upon them following the "BetVote" system to see if there is consensus about their truth value or if opinions widely diverge such that further arguments and discussions are needed. Here is my first proposition: 1. Someone who states that HIS methodology is best and evaluates other methodologies accordingly is not democratic but rather a noetic fascist. A. Agree xx% B. Disagree yy% C. Undecidable zz% (The proposition is a red herring) Please reply with another proposition (may be on quite a different topic) added to this message. When we have ten propositions I'll start the experiment. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:54:47 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John P. Rooney" Subject: FACT vs. THEORY TO: Science as Culture List March 11 1996 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Each time I see discussions about evolution being a theory or being a fact, I am reminded about "Phlogiston", the material principle of fire...a few centuries ago, phlogiston was a "fact" to whomever was teaching chemistry at the time. Then, along came the French Chemist, Antoine L. Lavoisier (1743-1794) who turned the fact of phlogiston into a discarded "theory". Same kind of thing holds true with Newton's mechanics versus Einstein's Physics. WE can eliminate a lot of heat and bring more light on the subject if we use and understand the words properly. Best regds John Peter Rooney jprooney@foxboro.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:09:40 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: Re: Levittown: tract housing for the mind Burch speaketh: >Your arrogance is outstripped only by your ignorance. Evolution is not a >fact, it is a theory. The periodic table of the elements is not a fact, >it is a schema. >Facts are things you can verify in your own experience. Everything else >is hearsay. I think to most biologists, evolution is a fact: people can see speciation start to happen. Darwinism may be a theory of evolution, but even that can become a fact in the social sense: a given, doxa, prior belief. As for verifying things with our own experience, I would call for caution on this too. As many feminist scholars have pointed out (Butler, Scott, Fuss) experience is in no way prior to discourse. What we experience is influenced by the theories, schema, ideologies, common senses (in Gramsci's use of the term) and ideas we have already have. --Matthew Weinstein Science *is* culture. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 14:12:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Karen Mercedes Subject: Re: FACT vs. THEORY In-Reply-To: <199603111458.JAA19916@mail1.access.digex.net> Oh, God...he's going to want us to understand the difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis" next. Sheesh! Karen Mercedes mercedes@access.digex.net ===== On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, John P. Rooney wrote: > TO: Science as Culture List > March 11 1996 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Each time I see discussions about evolution being a theory > or being a fact, I am reminded about "Phlogiston", the material > principle of fire...a few centuries ago, phlogiston was a "fact" > to whomever was teaching chemistry at the time. > > Then, along came the French Chemist, Antoine L. Lavoisier (1743-1794) > who turned the fact of phlogiston into a discarded "theory". > > Same kind of thing holds true with Newton's mechanics versus > Einstein's Physics. > > WE can eliminate a lot of heat and bring more light on the subject > if we use and understand the words properly. > Best regds > John Peter Rooney > jprooney@foxboro.com > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:50:47 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Warren Neal Subject: Re: FACT vs. THEORY I hesitate to display such ignorance in this matter, but I would be interested to hear exactly what people take to be the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory." I suppose I've been operating on the notion that a hypothesis ascends to the level of theory when repeated attempts to refute it have been unsuccessful, but that seems awfully vague. At what point do unsuccessful attempts at refutation become numerous or significant enough to elevate a hypothesis to theory? There is, of course, an assumed principle of demarcation underlying this question that could also be argued. --Warren Neal ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:08:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John P. Rooney" Subject: Re: FACT vs. THEORY To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE On Tuesday, March 12th 1996, Warren Neal wrote: >I hesitate to display such ignorance in this matter, but I would be >interested to hear exactly what people take to be the difference between >"hypothesis" and "theory." I suppose I've been operating on the notion that >a hypothesis ascends to the level of theory when repeated attempts to refute >it >have been unsuccessful, but that seems awfully vague. At what point do >unsuccessful attempts at refutation become numerous or significant enough to >elevate a hypothesis to theory? There is, of course, an assumed principle of >demarcation underlying this question that could also be argued. --Warren Neal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++ Well, Karen, Let us hear from you. Sincerely John Peter ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:00:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Karen Mercedes Subject: Re: FACT vs. THEORY In-Reply-To: <199603121513.KAA19396@mail1.access.digex.net> According to Webster's "hypothesis" is synonymous with "theory". Webster also bandies about the words "speculation" and "conjecture" in relation to both. Karen Mercedes mercedes@access.digex.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 16:47:20 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: CSSSP CSEC E-List distrib Subject: Simulation & Science Studies - new email list started X-To: STS@CCTR.UMKC.EDU, mersenne@mailbase.ac.uk NEW EMAIL LIST ON SCIENCE STUDIES AND COMPUTER SIMULATION Since the 1950s, various computer simulation techniques have become increasingly important research tools across a wide range of natural (and social) sciences. Software packages based on these techniques are also widely used in more applied fields such as engineering, finance, or environmental management, often in connection with computerised databases and electronic data gathering devices. We are trying to get in touch with other people working in the broad area of Science Studies / ST&S / HPS, who are interested in the issues raised by these modelling techniques, and who would like to join a special interest email list. Our intention is that by having a relatively narrow focus to the list, there will be a good chance of having lively debate of interest to most subscribers. The list will be useful for: - exchange of ideas about computer simulation - passing on details of books and articles. - announcements of relevant conferences etc. To join the list, please send email containing only the words: subscribe simulist to the address majordomo@lists.lancs.ac.uk (No subject line necessary) Please pass on this message to anyone who may be interested. Thankyou, Andy Baxter, Centre for Science Studies and Science Policy, Lancaster University, U.K. (A.Baxter@lancaster.ac.uk) Deborah Dowling, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Melbourne, Australia (deb_dowling.hps@muwaye.unimelb.edu.au) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:56:30 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: SaC: Catalysing discussion: web site and invitation I wonder if anyone has any views about why our creation of the web site associated with the forum has not catalysed our discussions. Weve had one comment - from the Managing Editor of the journal. One reason for setting it up was a belief that email forums sometimes get lost in self-rumination, and it was hoped that the essays posted to the web site would give us food for thought - some things to ruminate together, as it were. It may, of course, just be early days, but I thought I'd raise the question. Don't forget that all are welcome to offer material , e.g., bibliographies, reading lists, unsolicited reviews. For newbies and as a reminder to others, here's the information about the site: SCIENCE AS CULTURE WEB SITE: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/sac.html When the Science-as-Culture forum was first created it was envisaged that it would be related to a web site where various writings could appear: *articles under consideration for publication in Science as Culture *articles from back issues of the journal *and other longer pieces from whatever source which are too long for the forum or of interest to its subscribers. The object of this WWW site is to provide food for thought, to stimulate debate and to obtain constructive criticism for articles. That is, we hope to enhance interesting discussion about theissues which led us to set up the journal and email forum. Here is how it works. Anyone wishing to submit something to the web site should write to me at robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk, sending the essay, article or whatever by attachment or by email (formatting - italics, indents, spacing, bold, etc. - is retained in attachments, but they don't always get through). I will assess it (taking advice, if I think it relevant to do so) and (very likely) put it on the web site. We will play by ear how long things remain there. Some things may be removed in due course, others may be put on a web 'backlist' and remain available for downloading and/or reading on-line. (If the downloading doesn't work, all you have to do is copy the article and paste it onto a new blank document.) People can post comments to the forum, to me or to the author(s). This is a new venture for us and one I have not seen tried before on the internet, although I doubt if it is unique. The Sheffield web site will be mirrored at St. Johns in New York to make downloading quicker. We welcome comments and suggestions about how to make this work better. Bob Young Editor and Forum Moderator The first articles on the site are: 1. Simon Schaffer, 'Babbage's Intelligence' In summer 1823 the new and controversial Astronomical Society of London decided to award its gold medal to one of its own founder members, the equally controversial Cambridge-trained mathematician Charles Babbage. The award formed part of an energetic campaign to launch the construction of a Difference Engine to calculate navigational and astronomical tables. The apotheosis of the intelligent machine was an integral part of Babbage's ambitious programme. This programme has been used here to illuminate the complex character of systematic vision in the Industrial Revolution. 2. Richard Barbrook, 'The Californian Ideology' There is an emerging global orthodoxy concerning the relation between society, technology and politics. In this paper we are calling this orthodoxy the Californian Ideology in honour of the state where it originated. By naturalising and giving a technological proof to a political philosophy, and therefore foreclosing on alternative futures, the Californian ideologues are able to assert that social and political debates about the future have now become meaningless and - horror of horrors - unfashionable. Under consideration for _Science as Culture_. Both of these are also on-line at the very interesting web site of the Hypermedia Research Centre, where there are a number of other interesting materials: http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/ Robert M. Young, 'A Place for Critique in the Mass Media' 46k Paper presented to programme in Science, Society and the Media', University of the West of England, June 1995. It explores the concept of critique and why it is so hard to do in the mass media, with proposals. It has been submitted to _Science as Culture_, refereed and rejected as saying nothing new. Thomas H. Thompson,'Metaphilosophy' 93K This is an autobiographical essay by a philosopher in which he reflects on his experiences as a graduate student in a department where a dominant figure, Gustav Bergmann, an adherent of the Vienna Circle, was in mortal combat with another philosopher, Everett Hall. The author explores the intellectual and interpersonal atmospheres and reflects psychoanalytically on the culture of graduate school in Iowa City. I look forward to your submissions and comments and discussion. You don't have to be a subscriber to the forum to access and make use of the articles, But I hope you will want to join in. EMAIL FORUM: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE For discussion of cultural aspects of science, technology, medicine and other forms of expertise (including the internet) Science as Culture is an unmoderated forum for critical discussion of the cultural aspects of all forms of expertise, for example, the impact of science on culture, how culture represents it, the culture of various forms of expertise, the theory of knowledge, the impact of science on culture, including film, video, music, writing, the internet and other communications media, etc.; changing concepts of nature, life and human nature, new technologies, gender aspects of science, racism, elitism, educational theories, you name it. Announcements of conferences, publications, jobs, issues in the relevant fields are also welcome. Science as Culture is affiiliated with the hard copy journal of the same name published by Process Press Ltd. (http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html) and (US & Canada) Guilford Publications Inc. (info@guilford.com). A list of back issues is at: http://rdz.stjohns.edu/gp/process.html A web site associated with the forum will hold articles from back issues, as well as submissions under consideration (not obligatory), whose authors may benefit from constructive comments for purposes of revisions before the hard copy is printed, as well as longer piece not suitable for the email format which forum members may wish to discuss. The core constituency may be people concerned with cultural, social, hoistorical and philosophical studies of science, technology and medicine, but all are welcome. Accessibility of expertise to critical scrutiny is a large part of the point. __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:53:12 +0000 Reply-To: Michael@strangelove.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Michael Strangelove Organization: Strangelove Internet Enterprises, Inc Subject: The Political Economy of the Internet: a new essay by Strangelov Here are the first few paragraphs from an essay on the relationship between of freedom of speech on the Net and the "statehood" of cyberspace. I am trying to define the role of values (ethics) in the new culture of online speech and am searching for sources/theories that will help explain the new value system of the Net within the larger context of global media culture. For the complete text of this essay, send the command GET POLITICS in the SUBJECT line of an e-mail message to Michael@Strangelove.Com Michael Strangelove The Political Economy of the Internet Draft -- March 12, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996, Michael Strangelove. All Rights Reserved. Comments to the author at Michael@Strangelove.Com This document may be forwarded and archived on the Internet, so long as no changes are made to the text, Publishers take note, this draft is part of a book on freedom and speech and the Internet which I am working on -- contact michael@strangelove.com for table of contents (for publishers only). Introduction "There is a growing concern that the very existence of the Internet is a threat to the nation-state" (Globe and Mail, Feb 3/96, p. A1). Recently, the headline "Nations see Internet as threat to security" appeared on the front page of Canada's national daily newspaper, The Globe and Mail. Consider for a moment that more than two decades after its "invention" and three years after its integration into popular culture and the business process, the Internet has distinguished itself on two fronts. It remains the only mass media system to escape monopolistic ownership by media conglomerates (with no sign of this changing) and it is increasingly seen, correctly, as a threat to national security and sovereignty. Meanwhile, the business community throughout the world is gradually integrating the Internet into the core of its communication and marketing infrastructure. The inevitable outcome of these trends is that the communication infrastructure (including marketing, customer service, and financial transactions) of the business community is destined to conflict with the information policies of governments. One way of looking at the Internet is to understand it as an emerging nation-state, a state that, with each passing day, becomes more entwined with the fabric of the geo- political balance of power. The corporate world, particularly multinational corporations, and governments are soon going to have to come to terms with the statehood of the Internet. Political theorist Anthony Giddons writes that "significant power, within any type of organization, consists in the capacity to determine or shape policy." This understanding of power -- policy making -- is one that any manager, executive, or bureaucrat can certainly appreciate. Power-as-policy-making sheds light on the type of power the Net, (and more comprehensively, cyberspace,) wields. More precisely, the statehood of the Net is founded on its power to deny existing nations any concrete method to exercise direct, unilateral influence over the "policy" of the Internet. It is quite clear that, congressional saber-rattling aside, no nation has successfully legislated the information policy of the Internet. As a landless nation-state, the Net's constitution, or bill of rights, is its internal information policy -- no one group, community, ideology or nation is universally recognized to have the right to determine what values, art forms, beliefs, or private thoughts can or cannot be expressed on the Net. While this information policy is framed by pre- existing international treaties concerning copyright, thus far this unwritten but very real policy has not been further defined or amended by any individual nation's internal moral standards or legislature. Bear in mind that no significant content has ever been removed from the Net as a result of any one nation's information-policy making process. Indeed, just the opposite is the case -- every attempt at censoring content on the Net has lead to increased exposure of the censored or banned content and its further proliferation throughout the Net. Admittedly, it is theoretically possible for a government to censor material on Internet servers within its borders. Yet all previous attempts at doing so have simply resulted in the censored material migrating to the Net servers of other nations and remaining accessible via the Net to all. The dynamic of regional censorship being undermined by the international Net community is now almost a daily occurrence. This "end of censorship" in the international information sphere is not threatened by the possibility of a global information policy trade agreement on censorship. Any attempt to impose the freedom of speech standards of one nation on another will certainly be interpreted as a violation of national sovereignty. As a new form of borderless state, Cspace (Internet/cyberspace) has demonstrated sovereign power over its internal information policy. The front pages of newspapers around the world are demonstrating a growing awareness of this new political animal. But neither the global body politic nor the corporate realm have come to terms with the extent of the Net's sovereignty and the future impact of this "new wired world order". For the complete text of this essay, send the command GET POLITICS in the SUBJECT line of an e-mail message to Michael@Strangelove.Com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:19:36 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Italo Cantore Subject: Re: Levittown: tract housing for the mind At 10.09 11/03/96 -0600, you wrote: >Burch speaketh: > >>Your arrogance is outstripped only by your ignorance. Evolution is not a >>fact, it is a theory. The periodic table of the elements is not a fact, >>it is a schema. >>Facts are things you can verify in your own experience. Everything else >>is hearsay. > >I think to most biologists, evolution is a fact: people can see speciation >start to happen. Darwinism may be a theory of evolution, but even that can >become a fact in the social sense: a given, doxa, prior belief. As for >verifying things with our own experience, I would call for caution on this >too. As many feminist scholars have pointed out (Butler, Scott, Fuss) >experience is in no way prior to discourse. What we experience is >influenced by the theories, schema, ideologies, common senses (in Gramsci's >use of the term) and ideas we have already have. > >--Matthew Weinstein > >Science *is* culture. > Evolution IS A REALITY, science is culture and nobody can make it false. I think all that is true. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 10:35:01 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sally Wyatt Organization: University Of East London Subject: call for papers ********************************************************************* IS THERE A FUTURE FOR THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE? Saturday, 7th September 1996 CALL FOR PAPERS ********************************************************************** The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) underwent dramatic changes and influenced many other areas of thought within and outside sociology from the 1960s to mid-1980s. More recently, its coherence has fragmented and more vociferous challenges to the rights of social scientists to examine science and scientists have been heard. Part of the fragmentation has been a result of the success of related fields, including the new sociology of technology, new histories of science and technology and feminist epistemology. This conference will explore the implications of these developments for the future of SSK. Keynote speakers will include Wiebe Bijker (Limburg), Sandra Harding (UCLA) and Barry Barnes (Exeter). Further contributions are invited for parallel sessions on the sociology of technology, politics and alternative epistemologies, and the relationship between SSK and other disciplines. Please send abstracts by May 1st to: Tim Jordan or Sally Wyatt Dep't of Sociology Dep't of Innovation Studies University of East London University of East London Longbridge Road Maryland House Dagenham Manbey Park Road Essex RM8 2AS London E15 1EY Email: T.R.JORDAN@UEL.AC.UK Email: S.M.E.WYATT@UEL.AC.UK If you are interested in attending the conference, please ring Joan Tremble on +44 (0)181 849 3460 or fax +44 (0)181 849 3619 or email TREMBLE@UEL.AC.UK Sally Wyatt, Dep't of Innovation Studies, University of East London, Maryland House, Manbey Park Road, London, E15 1EY, UK tel: +44 (0)181 849 3675/6 fax: +44 (0)181 849 3677 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:37:59 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: SAC hypothesis vs. theory Warren Neal wrote: ... I would be interested to hear exactly what people take to be the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory." I suppose I've been operating on the notion that a hypothesis ascends to the level of theory when repeated attempts to refute it have been unsuccessful, but that seems awfully vague.... *** and Karen Mercedes replied: According to Webster's "hypothesis" is synonymous with "theory". Webster also bandies about the words "speculation" and "conjecture" in relation to both. *** I was once taught the first one, in high school, and I've seen the second one in non-technical, non-science usage, BUT neither one of these is the definition I learned to use within science at a graduate level. Theory is something like a generally explanatory set of reasonably supportable propositions which enable one to make specific, falsifiable hypotheses about some issue of interest, a suggested answer to how something works and why it's like that rather than another way. That is brief and off-the-cuff, not an exhaustive treatise, I know, but much closer to my own use of the terms than other uses mentioned on SAC. Lisa Now if some people [Mark] want to go about saying that 'evolution is a theory not a fact' I'd appreciate it if he'd explain ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 07:35:12 -0500 Reply-To: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Phillipson Subject: Hypothesis vs. Theory X-cc: eqwq.lrogers@state.ut.us Lisa Rogers replied March 25 to Karen Mercedes citation: >According to Webster's "hypothesis" is synonymous with "theory". > I was once taught the first one, in high school, and I've seen the >second one in non-technical, non-science usage, BUT neither one of >these is the definition I learned to use within science at a graduate >level. Theory is something like a generally explanatory set of >reasonably supportable propositions which enable one to make >specific, falsifiable hypotheses about some issue of interest, a >suggested answer to how something works and why it's like that rather >than another way. Our discussion seems not yet to have clarified that: --there are no a priori rules for usage, --thus no rule requires that a word have the same meaning in different contexts e.g. A-- private speech, usually oral B-- technical dialogue between researchers, usually written C-- public political dispute, e.g. about evolution --Disciplinary knowledge has been accumulated about how these three realms of discourse (and others) use important words like theory. Our problem is that it belongs to different disciplines (A applied linguistics, B philosophy of science, C advertising and politics) that do not fit neatly into each other: but lack of a priori rules never justified our expecting that they should. Hard cases (still) make bad law. We can usually explicate real cases in adequate detail, e.g. disaggregate how anti-evolutionists cite common usage, holy writ, and scientific publications and verify every supposedly logical argument or citation of material evidence: but doing so to our satisfaction is unlikely to persuade the other side (real aim of type C discourse); and one such successful exercise seldom helps in any others, i.e. is "unscientific" and seldom worth the effort. -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, | | Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 | ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:44:40 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: CSSSP CSEC E-List distrib Subject: Science studies & simulation list. X-To: STS@CCTR.UMKC.EDU, mersenne@mailbase.ac.uk Apologies for re-posting this, but we had a problem with our listserver which meant that some names were lost from the list. If you joined but haven't received any mail from the list recently, you may need to re-subscribe. NEW EMAIL LIST ON SCIENCE STUDIES AND COMPUTER SIMULATION Since the 1950s, various computer simulation techniques have become increasingly important research tools across a wide range of natural (and social) sciences. Software packages based on these techniques are also widely used in more applied fields such as engineering, finance, or environmental management, often in connection with computerised databases and electronic data gathering devices. We are trying to get in touch with other people working in the broad area of Science Studies / ST&S / HPS, who are interested in the issues raised by these modelling techniques, and who would like to join a special interest email list. Our intention is that by having a relatively narrow focus to the list, there will be a good chance of having lively debate of interest to most subscribers. The list will be useful for: - exchange of ideas about computer simulation - passing on details of books and articles. - announcements of relevant conferences etc. To join the list, please send email containing only the words: subscribe simulist to the address majordomo@lists.lancs.ac.uk (No subject line necessary) Please pass on this message to anyone who may be interested. Thankyou, Andy Baxter, Centre for Science Studies and Science Policy, Lancaster University, U.K. (A.Baxter@lancaster.ac.uk) Deborah Dowling, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Melbourne, Australia (deb_dowling.hps@muwaye.unimelb.edu.au) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:54:25 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Teixeira Of course you have to be kidding when you say that evolution is a fact. Well before I even take a shot a chasing that one around with you, I want you to explain your position (as briefly as possible) and then explain your profoundly closeminded, all accepting, non scientific, antagonistic, attitude regarding something you know so little about. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:34:37 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Research opportunities at Brunel RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES - CENTRE FOR RESEARCH INTO INNOVATION, CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY (CRICT) BRUNEL UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON CRICT aims to research into the social and cultural dimensions of science and technology in all its aspects, with particular reference to information and communication technologies and environmental issues. CRICT research focuses on a variety of substantive areas - notably ways in which new technologies are created, diffused and used. All CRICT projects share an analytic scepticism: a commitment to question taken for granted assumptions, particularly as these relate to "technical" matters. The analytic scepticism which informs CRICT research is captured in the description of our approach as ethnographic: the combination of theoretical questioning and detailed empirical study. Under this broad rubric, CRICT research deploys a variety of techniques and draws upon expertise and backgrounds in disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, computer science and history. CRICT has an established PhD Programme, incorporating both taught courses and advanced research training. The Centre has ESRC Research Training Recognition (Grade A) for the receipt of both full and part-time studentships. For further details and applications forms please contact The Director of the PhD Programme. CRICT, Brunel - University of West London, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH. Tel: 01895 203119. Fax:01895 203155. Email: w.c.mangabeira@brunel.ac.uk __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:34:43 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Conf on rels between history & philosophy of science First announcement GRADUATE COURSE / SUMMER SCHOOL THE RELATION BETWEEN HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Mols Laboratory, Femmoeller, Denmark, July 26-31, 1996 The Danish Humanities Research Council's Network for the History and Philosophy of Science organizes a five-day summer graduate course focussing on "The Relation Between History of Science and Philosophy of Science". The following themes will be covered: * The historical development of the relation between history and philosophy of science. * What has history done for the methodology of science? * What can philosophy of science do for history of science? * Is there a historical methodology of science? * The implications of developments in cognitive science for history of science: a "cognitive history" of science. * Biography as the meeting ground between philosophical analysis and historical description. * The study of conceptual change in history. * History and philosophy of science in science education. * The relation between history and philosophy of science to recent developments in social studies of science. The faculty includes: - Thomas Nickles, Philosophy Department, University of Nevada - Nancy Nersessian, Center for Cognitive Studies, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta - Helge Kragh, Center for Technology and Human Values, Oslo University - Stig Andur Pedersen, Department of Physics and Mathematics, Roskilde University - Thomas Soederqvist, Unit of History of Science, Department of Biology, Roskilde University The program will include lectures, seminars, presentations of participants' research projects, group discussions, and tutorials. The mornings will be devoted to lectures and plenary discussions, while the afternoons will be reserved for presentations of participants' projects, group discussions and tutorials. There will be rich opportunities for informal talks between faculty and students. The Mols Laboratory (owned by Aarhus University) is situated in a hilly nature reserve area on the Mols peninsula, a few kilometers from the small town of Femmoeller in Eastern Jutland and with a magnificent view of the North Sea. The Mols, with its gently rolling hills and cattle grazed vegetation, is known as one of the most scenic areas in Denmark. The summer course starts on Friday, July 26 at 6pm., and ends on Wednesday, July 31 at 7pm. The Mols Laboratory can be reached in approx. 30 minutes by (shared) cab from Aarhus airport. Aarhus has several daily train and flight connections with Copenhagen. Femmoeller also has several daily connections with Aarhus (bus) and Copenhagen (bus and ferry). The number of participants will be limited to 20. Priority will be given to graduate students (or the equivalent) in history and/or philosophy of science or science studies. However, junior scholars in these fields and graduate students in other disciplinary areas (history, philosophy, etc.) with an active interest in the topic of the course are also welcome to apply. Graduate students and junior scholars from the Nordic and other European countries are encouraged to apply. Tuition fee for PhD-students with a Danish graduate fellowship (which includes overhead for PhD-courses) is 3000 DKK (approx. 500 USD). A number of course stipends will be allocated to PhD- students who are not covered by this or similar programs. Please indicate in your application if you are not covered by a graduate program and therefore are need of a stipend. Applications, including a curriculum vitae and a short (200 words) abstract of the applicant's graduate project, should be sent, before May 15, 1996, to: The Secretariat, Danish Humanities Research Council's Network for the History and Philosophy of Science, Building 17.2, Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark (e-mail: vidnet@virgil.ruc.dk) A detailed program and travel information will be sent to the participants in early June. For further information, please contact: Thomas Soederqvist The Danish Humanities Research Council's Network for the History and Philosophy of Science Roskilde University, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark +45 4675 7711/2714 (thomass@virgil.ruc.dk) or Hanne Andersen Max Planck Institut fuer Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Wilhelmstrasse 44, D-10117 Berlin, Germany +49 30 22667 116 (andersen@mailmac.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de) __________________________________________ | Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk | 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, England | tel. +44 171 607 8306 fax. +44 171 609 4837 | Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, | Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield | Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:12:04 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adam Nieman Subject: SaC: Announcing WAVELENGTH web site. Wavelength magazine, which is produced in association with the BA degree in Science, Society and the Media at the University of the West of England, is now available on the World Wide Web. The address is: http://science.btc.uwe.ac.uk/~waveleng/home.html Wavelength carries articles which explore the historical, social and cultural contexts of science as well as more 'traditional' science features. Wavelength also provides a critical forum for discussions about the Public Understanding of Science movement. In the near future we hope that students on the SSM course will use the site to establish their own critical forum (or whatever else they want to do with it). There will also be links to similar sites. (I am, by the way, a big fan of Tech Nothings or Techno Things (whichever it is) at http://www.dur.ac.uk/dss8zz2/tec.htm). AdAm Nieman (PhD student in the popularisation of physics, University of the West of England, Bristol) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 13:56:40 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Teixeira Subject: Re: SaC: Announcing WAVELENGTH web site. >Wavelength magazine, which is produced in association with the BA degree in > Science, Society >and the Media at the University of the West of England, is now available on the > World Wide Web. > >The address is: http://science.btc.uwe.ac.uk/~waveleng/home.html > >Wavelength carries articles which explore the historical, social and cultural > contexts of >science as well as more 'traditional' science features. Wavelength also >provides > a critical >forum for discussions about the Public Understanding of Science movement. > >In the near future we hope that students on the SSM course will use the site to > establish their own >critical forum (or whatever else they want to do with it). There will also be > links to similar sites. (I am, >by the way, a big fan of Tech Nothings or Techno Things (whichever it is) at >http://www.dur.ac.uk/dss8zz2/tec.htm). > >AdAm Nieman >(PhD student in the popularisation of physics, University of the West of > England, Bristol) SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS SERVICE THANKS ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:32:51 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Lisa Rogers Subject: "evolution" as "fact"? Robert, I don't expect that your post below was addressed to me, but I am curious as to how you define "evolution", and "fact". It is already clear that you do not consider "evolution" to be a "fact", but I'm not sure what exactly that means to you. My recent post was intended to say, in part, that I don't see "fact vs. theory" as a valid, useful or relevant dichotomy, but I don't know if that would be your position. Lisa Rogers From: Robert Teixeira Subject: Of course you have to be kidding when you say that evolution is a fact. Well before I even take a shot a chasing that one around with you, I want you to explain your position (as briefly as possible) and then explain your profoundly closeminded, all accepting, non scientific, antagonistic, attitude regarding something you know so little about. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 07:23:08 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Teixeira Subject: Re: "evolution" as "fact"? >Robert, I don't expect that your post below was addressed to me, but >I am curious as to how you define "evolution", and "fact". It is >already clear that you do not consider "evolution" to be a "fact", >but I'm not sure what exactly that means to you. > >My recent post was intended to say, in part, that I don't see "fact >vs. theory" as a valid, useful or relevant dichotomy, but I don't >know if that would be your position. > >Lisa Rogers > >From: Robert Teixeira >Subject: >Of course you have to be kidding when you say that evolution is a >fact. >Well before I even take a shot a chasing that one around with you, I >want you to explain your position (as briefly as possible) and then >explain your profoundly closeminded, all accepting, non scientific, >antagonistic, attitude regarding something you know so little about. Lisa, I was just bothered by the person who made such light of the possibility of creation. Fact to me is I am in fact on the computer. There is no disputing fact. Theory is developed to describe events as such. To say I'm on the computer to write mail, would be a theory. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 11:18:27 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Douard Subject: Re: "evolution" as "fact"? Re: a couple of recent posts on "fact" and "theory: As far as I know, evolutionary biologists generally regard evolution as a theoretical explanation, and the best story we've got on origin and survival of species, whether evolution is construed as narrowly Darwinian or as broadly construed by defenders of punctuated equilibrium. There is room in biology for competing theories. Even if we take creationism to be a competing theory, the claim against it is that evolution has the weight of evidence on its side. With respect to the epistemic status of evidence, data becomes useful elvidence when it is interpreted: there are some standards for exluding wildshot or irrelevent observations from a data set. If there is a distinction between "theory" and "fact" it is pragmatic: no statement is true come what may, including that I am on my computer. Furthermore, sstandards for assessing scientific practices are implicit in the practices, and there are no scientifically useful judgements about what counts as evidence that don't get assessed by those impicit standards.On the other hand, I recall reading somewhere that Einstein claimed that if there is a conflict between facts and theory, the facts are wrong. That, of course was a rhetorical flourish, but so is the distinction between "fact" and "theory" in the arguments for and against creationism. Creationists in particular know that some folks will silently modify "theory" with "mere". Look--theories are models; we need models to understand and get about in the world; in fact, the brain builds models (i.e. theories), and without mental models we wouldn't be able to make rudimentary decisions. (In my view, incidentally, mental models--or any other sort of "theory"--are not bereft of the social). John Douard jdouard@beach.utmb.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:10:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Howard S. Schwartz" Subject: Re: "evolution" as "fact"? At 11:18 AM 3/28/96 -0500, John Douard wrote: >Re: a couple of recent posts on "fact" and "theory: [snip] and without mental >models we wouldn't be able to make rudimentary decisions. (In my view, >incidentally, mental models--or any other sort of "theory"--are not bereft of >the social). > >John Douard >jdouard@beach.utmb.edu > > It seems to me that John has his finger on the critical point here. The question about how well validated an idea has to be in order to be called a theory or a fact has a practical dimension to it. No idea can ever be perfectly validated, I suppose, so if all that concerned us were absolute truth, we'd have to say that they are all (mere) theories. But we have to live in the world, and we live differently depending on what we believe and take as evidence for what we believe. For example, if I believe that God created the world in its present biological form, I don't have to be concerned about the effects of radioactive waste on the gene pool. If I believe that the basic theories of evolution and molecular biology are pretty well established, I do. Howard Schwartz Schwartz@Oakland.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:50:03 -0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "I.Pitchford" Organization: Biomedical Science (bm), University of Sheffield , UK Subject: http://www.shef.ac.uk/psysc/rmy/indsac.html The _Science as Culture_ Web site now has e-mail links to facilitate easy feedback on all articles to the Editor and to the forum, as well as to the individual authors. The following papers are available: Robert M. Young, 'A Place for Critique in the Mass Media' 46k Paper presented to programme in Science, Society and the Media', University of the West of England, June 1995. It explores the concept of critique and why it is so hard to do in the mass media, with proposals. Simon Schaffer, 'Babbage's Intelligence' In summer 1823 the new and controversial Astronomical Society of London decided to award its gold medal to one of its own founder members, the equally controversial Cambridge-trained mathematician Charles Babbage. The award formed part of an energetic campaign to launch the construction of a Difference Engine to calculate navigational and astronomical tables. The apotheosis of the intelligent machine was an integral part of Babbage's ambitious programme. This programme has been used here to illuminate the complex character of systematic vision in the Industrial Revolution. This article appears courtesy of the Hypermedia Research Centre. Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, 'The Californian Ideology' There is an emerging global orthodoxy concerning the relation between society, technology and politics. In this paper we are calling this orthodoxy the Californian Ideology in honour of the state where it originated. By naturalising and giving a technological proof to a political philosophy, and therefore foreclosing on alternative futures, the Californian ideologues are able to assert that social and political debates about the future have now become meaningless and - horror of horrors - unfashionable. Under consideration for Science as Culture Thomas H. Thompson,'Metaphilosophy' 93K This is an autobiographical essay by a philosopher in which he reflects on his experiences as a graduate student in a department where a dominant figure, Gustav Bergmann, an adherent of the Vienna Circle, was in mortal combat with another philosopher, Everett Hall. The author explores the intellectual and interpersonal atmospheres and reflects psychoanalytically on the culture of graduate school in Iowa City. Science as Culture Home Page ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:07:01 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Jude L. Hollins" Subject: Re: http://www.shef.ac.uk/psysc/rmy/indsac.html In-Reply-To: <199603282331.SAA25590@listserv.syr.edu> "404 Not Found The requested URL /psysc/rmy/indsac.html was not found on this server." I haven't checked out the site yet...what's the correct URL? Or, maybe my colonial attitude was sensed and the firewall rejected me? I don't know, maybe the gremlins 'out there' were fighting over turf, and meanwhile the pirates came and stole my 'are you there?' message to www.shef.ac.uk? I am just baffled. Utterly baffled. What happened? And, why does this all translate into my alledgedly looking for a 404? Can some experts come in and clear this confusion up for me? jude ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:55:59 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/indsac.html Slight correction (see SUBJECT) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ian Pitchford, Room 6, 116 Whitham Road, SHEFFIELD, S10 2SQ, UK Tel: +44 (0)114 2685931 Email:I.Pitchford@InterPsych.Telme.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++