From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9609" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 12:24 PM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:06:12 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jennifer Tannoch-Bland Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum In-Reply-To: <199608311719.DAA26469@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> By way of self-introduction, my name is Jenny Tannoch-Bland. My interest is in the history and philosophy of science with the emphasis on history and the focus on the Scottish Enlightenment. Although most of what I read on the list is not directly related to my topic, I am interested also in the feminist critique of scientific objectivity. I like to feel, through the list, in touch with something more recent than the 18th century. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 11:40:04 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "J.D. Cottier" Subject: Introductions In-Reply-To: <199608312045.QAA04094@alcor.concordia.ca> Hi. You asked newer list members to introduce themselves, so I will. My name is Jocelyne Cottier and I am a graduate student in public policy at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. I subscribed to this list because I have an on-going interest in science, technology, and culture. I am particularily interested in how science and technology changes our perceptions and understandings, including our understanding of who we are and why we do what we do. I am interested, in other words, in how science changes or alters our world view, culture and attitudes and how they in turn change how we "do" science. If history is anything to go by I will probably be a lurker, but I will join in if I feel I have something worthwhile to contribute. Jocelyne ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 13:38:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: elizabeth green Subject: introduction In-Reply-To: <199609011212.HAA29657@obslave.ucs.indiana.edu> I've been sitting quietly on this list, but Jenny Tannoch-Bland's self-introduction encouraged me to find some colleagues here with similar interests. Somewhat like Jenny, I'm studying late-18th and early-19th century history of science. I'm beginning a dissertation on perception theory (mainly English & Scottish) in that period, and I hope to throw a wrinkle into the history of objectivity by showing that an inordinate number of perception theorists (physicists, natural philosophers, physicians, psychologists, etc) had vision problems of some sort or another -- malformed retinas, and other visual abnormalities due to drug use, aging, and disease. So far I've concentrated specifically on John Herschel, and have found that the way he rationalized his vision problems was quite gendered. I'd love to discuss such issues either on the list or privately. Best wishes, Elizabeth =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Elizabeth Green Dept of History & Philosophy of Science Goodbody Hall 130 phone: 812-323-2010 Bloomington, IN 47405 email: ejgreen@indiana.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:47:35 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jean-Luc Gautero Subject: Introduction I have just subscribed to Science as Culture mailing list, and answer to the request of Bob Young: >I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your >interest in the forum. I have subscribed to Science as Culture (the journal) for many years, when its name was not Science as Culture but Radical Science Journal. I was then a student in mathematics, and wanted to have another look, more politic, on what I thought would become my job, scientist or mathematics teacher. But as I wrote my thesis (it was about WKB theory), practising science stopped interesting me. =46ortunately, I also had some literature degrees, and would attend history of science seminars in Nice, so I could get a job as "maitre de conferences" (lecturer, I think) in epistemology, history and philosophy of science in the University of Nice. Reflecting about science still interests me, and it is now my job. So I have subscribed to this list as soon I have found it to better know what are the current discussions about science and society (I also subscribed to a Feyerabend list). One last point, which could interest Bob Young, who is (or was?) interested by Whitehead: I am one member of the french translation team of "Process and Reality". ------------------------------------------------------------ Jean-Luc Gautero - Centre de Recherches d'Histoire des Id=E9es =46acult=E9 des Lettres - Universit=E9 de Nice-Sophia Antipolis 98 Boulevard Edouard Herriot - BP 209 - 06204 Nice Cedex 3 Email: jgautero@hermes.unice.fr ------------------------------------------------------------ ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ ++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++ ++++ see: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 18:10:12 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum > I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your >interest in the forum. I am a 50 year old recent "eject" from the IBM Corporation, where I worked for 18 years as a computer programmer, but (unsuccessfully) aspired to play a role in shaping the social impact of the technology. During my time at IBM, I undertook and completed an Ed.D. program at Teachers College Columbia University, in interpersonal communication and communication media theory, with a "side trip" into psychoanalytic training (which provided me with my dissertation topic, and first hand experience of the petty-mindedness of some of those who identify themselves as depth analysts of the mind...). My orientation is phenomenological, hermeneutical, and critical/ constructivist, and is perhaps summarized by the dictum: "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (<--recurse!). I am interested in the structure of daily life in our present age, which is powerfully shaped by science and technology. To quote from an article by Robert Young, on your WEB site: >...The truth is, as I see it, that all facts are theory-laden, all >theories are value-laden and >all values exist only within an ideology or world view. The official version of >value-neutrality and objectivity which justifies the protected place of >scientists, >technologists, medics and other experts puts them above the battle of >values and >ideologies. But... this is a confidence trick, an elaborate public >relations exercise. The science, technology and medical research that >actually gets >done is the only research there is. What gets funded is decided by >priorities which are >set by funding bodies. Those bodies have members who represent interests. These >days the make-up of those bodies is increasingly people in or connected with >commercial firms.... We need to understand the lived experience of doing science and of being a scientist (computer programmer, technician, etc.), and to understand the "lifeworld" in which we live, which has been pervasively transformed by science and technology. To refer to the above quote, the extent to which scientists *really believe* science is "value neutral", etc. seems to me at least as much cause for concern as that they may pretend it is for strategic purposes. My belief is that a key ingredient in the antidote to the hazards of advanced science and technology does not lie in any romantic "going back", but in going forward to a situation in which scientific and technical (and all daily life) activity is done in a context of universal lifeworld-oriented reflection and consequent self-understanding. This would entail overcoming the specialist's form of life (in which his or her "personal life" is split off from their work), and the replacement of specialists by reflective-practitioners who would integrate their specialist knowledge into their personal and *social* daily life and a disciplined, continually elaborated self-understanding thereof. One expression of this is the ending of Joseph Weizenbaum's book Computer Power and Human Understanding, where he hopes that as the discipline of computer science matures, its practitioners will mature also, and that, whatever they do, they will *think* about it, to try to miminize the possibilities that those who come after them will wish they had not done it. Can one imagine computer programmers' preferred genre of reading changing from sci-fi to social theory (Ellul, Habermas, et al.)? Being currently unemployed, I am *also* interested in finding work that would underwrite my means of subsistence to pursue these issues, for, alas, I am not financially independent, and am therefore not free to apply my energies in a productive way on my own initiative (which surely per se says something about science and culture...). * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 08:18:48 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jennifer Tannoch-Bland Subject: perception theory In-Reply-To: <199609011839.EAA29663@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> Elizabeth Green wrote that <>. Although perception theory is not my bag, I am particularly interested in Dugald Stewart, who is usually recognised as the 'brilliant disciple' of Thomas Reid, famous for his perception theory. Now that you mention it Elizabeth, Dugald Stewart had colour blindness. There is a paragraph on it in Vol 10 of <> ed. Sir William Hamilton, 1858, pp. clxiv-clxv. Jenny Tannoch-Bland ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 01:16:47 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: M Bolt Subject: Re: perception theory Elizabeth Green wrote that various interesting people writing on perception theory had vision problems. Jenny Tannoch-Bland mentioned Dugald Stewart as example. John Dalton falls under this category as well. Herschel, in fact, spent some time examining Dalton's vision. Herschel's own vision problems led to his placing some sort of clear jelly on his own eye as a primitive type (and precursor) of contact lenses. Herschel's interest in and adoption of some of Dugald Stewart's views might prove to be an interesting avenue of research with respect to theories of perception. I've done some of the JH-DS broader links, but there's much more to do. DS gave a presentation copy of his Elements to William Herschel in 1792. William in turn gave it to John. Having inspected it, I can prove that John not only read it (marginalia are in his hand) but that he adopted some important ideas (and even "borrowed" from it on at least one occasion). As others seem to be introducing themselves to the list, I will do so as well. I am finishing off (or so I hope) my dissertation at the University of Notre Dame under the direction of Michael Crowe. My thesis examines the intellectual and social resources that went into the production of John Herschel's 1830 Preliminary Discourse. I argue for a rather different (i.e. noninductivist) reading of that work and show how his other writings exemplify my revisionary account. Despite my initial goals, it is nonetheless turning out to be more of the older sort of intellectual history, but of course worthwhile and fascinating nonetheless (to me if not my readers). I have worked on Crowe et al's John Herschel Correspondence Calendar and am planning to do similar volumes on William Herschel and Caroline Herschel. My interests are in intellectual history, broadly construed, with links to the sorts of things that end up on this list (such as the previous posts, I suppose). I am looking forward to hearing from anyone about any Herscheliana that might be of interest. Marvin Bolt ------------------------------------------------------------ E-mail: Marv_Bolt@orbit.adler.uchicago.edu Fax: (312) 322-9909 Assistant Curator Phone: (312) 322-0540 Adler Planetarium 1300 Lake Shore Drive (I am in my Adler office from Chicago, IL 60605 Monday - Thursday, 8:45-4:45.) ------------------------------------------------------------ E-mail: Marvin.P.Bolt.1@nd.edu Fax: (219) 631-4268 History and Philosophy of Science Dept: (219) 631-5015 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-5639 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:41:52 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jennifer Tannoch-Bland Subject: Re: perception theory In-Reply-To: <199609020520.PAA03596@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> Marvin Bolt wrote that Dugald Stewart gave a copy of his 1792 Elements (that would be vol 1) to William Herschel and that John read it. Since my interest is in Dugald Stewart, I would be interested to know what important ideas John adopted from Stewart, and especially what he borrowed. Jenny Tannoch-Bland Faculty of Humanities Griffith University Brisbane Australia tel 07 3367 3782 Email: J.Tannoch-Bland@hum.gu.edu.au ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:41:53 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bjarne Fjeldsenden Subject: Re: introduction My position and interest is basically in cognitive psychology. The more specific area of interest is man-machine. Examples here are technical mobility aids for the blind and aviation and psychology. Flying IFR (relying only on instruments compared with seeing the ground) has a lot in common with blind mobility, where a blind has to rely on "artificial information". There exists e.g. "auditory spectacles" which give consistent information about the surroundings within a range of about 10 feet, but the information is difficult to interpret. One new innovation is "a talking map" where information from GPS (a satellite navigation system used also in aviation and by boats) are linked to an electronic map. This system can tell a blind on which street corner he is and direction and distance to e.g. nearest subway station. I also teach cross-cultural psychology, and in this context I am most interested in which particular factors influence cognitive structures and also which cultures are better capable of learning and using modern technology. I have mostly been a lurker here but will write when I feel I have something to contribute. Bjarne +-------------------------+--------------------------------+ | Bjarne Fjeldsenden - Associate Professor | +-------------------------+--------------------------------+ | Dept. of Psychology | Phone: + 47 73 59 19 68 | | NTNU | Fax: + 47 73 59 19 20 | | N-7055 Dragvoll NORWAY | bjarne.fjeldsenden@sv.ntnu.no | +-------------------------+--------------------------------+ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 12:37:14 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ernest Mathijs Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum At 1:14 PM 31/8/96, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your >interest in the forum. In answering to Robert Young's request for information: My name is Ernest Mathijs. I am a 28-year old researcher at the Free University of Brussels (Belgium), at the Center Leo Apostel, an interdisciplinary research center. I subscribed to this list a few months ago, when I took this position. Before that I used to be a lecturer at the RITS, Higher institute for audio-visual communication, where I taught film history and film analysis. The main reason for subscribing to this list was an interest in the development and discussion of recent items in science and culture, and especially the link between them. I am currenty working on a PhD dissertation on the role that art criticism played in that discours. My main hypothesis is that art criticism plays (and played) an important role in linking the art of some era to other discourses (for instance scientific), thus making (or trying to make) art relevant. My concentration is on contemporary art and art criticism (especially on interpretation of such artists as Joseph Beuys), but I am also including a genealogical history on the subject (although briefly). The method I am using is a derivation of the works of Kula (on measurement), of Mirowski (on the construction of stages in history) and of Foucault (genealogy). I have been a silent watcher of the list, but the topics mentioned have not gone unnoticed. They surely add to a better understanding of the "making meaning" of the world of science and culture. Ernest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Ernest Mathijs Interdisciplinary Centre Leo Apostel (CLEA) Free University of Brussels (VUB) Pleinlaan 2 1050 Brussels Belgium tel: ++ 32 2 644 26 77 ++ 32 2 644 07 44 e-mail: emathijs@vnet3.vub.ac.be CLEA-home page: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CLEA/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:39:06 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sanjay Marwah Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum In-Reply-To: <9609021039.AA29214@osf1.gmu.edu> Hello. My name is Sanjay Marwah. I am pursuing my PhD in Public Policy at George Mason University with an emphasis on science and technology policy. My research and interests include philosophy of social science, philosophy of science, business-government relations, political economy, inequality-crime, and theoretical policy sciences. The science and culture list is interesting for my potential PhD topic in business, government, anc ulture:changing governance in a technological world. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:53:44 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: The Sokal incident rationally considered Date: 02 Sep 96 16:38:59 EDT From: "Alan J. Friedman" <71062.3706@CompuServe.COM> To: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: Re: The Sokal Matter Mike: Here's my 2 cents worth (wonder where that image came from--price of a stamp in the 1920's?) on "The Sokal Matter." I think the humanities folks are overreacting, and making Dr. Sokal's nasty prank seem more important that it is. Some highly visible scientists are feeling beleaguered, and lashing out at critics everywhere. These attacks take the form of intemperate, ill-mannered, and often irrational attacks on the humanities, social sciences, and historians. The great heat and furor over a modestly critical exhibit, "Science in American Life" at the Smithsonian, is typical. Neither the public nor most scientists care, yet the complaining scientists are somehow pleased that they have caused pain. I think the origins of these attacks lie in a genuine and justified fear of the influence of pseudoscientists (creationism), the anti-science stance of the far right, and the failure of science itself to command federal funds like it used to (the cancellation of the superconducting supercollider). The scientists who are leading these attacks are themselves overly emotional, and generally irrational in their furor. The people they are attacking (academics in the humanities and museum historians) are not real threats; but the scientists do not know how to begin attacking the real dangers to science--the religious right, ultra-conservative politicians, ill-trained teachers, charlatans and pseudoscientists. I just don't see the point in spending much time analyzing pranks like Sokal's. Of course it is easier to create a hoax in the humanities than it is in the "hard" sciences--what's new in that? The angry scientists do not care how the humanities respond; the public is disinterested in the whole matter; and in the meantime the real enemies of rational analysis (in both the humanities and the sciences) keep winning school board elections and seats in Congress. We need to concentrate on the real threats, and stop wasting time trashing each other. Alan ************************************ Alan J. Friedman New York Hall of Science 47-01 111th Street Flushing Meadows Corona Park New York 11368 Phone: (718) 699-0005 ext 316 Fax: (718) 699-1341 E-Mail: 71062.3706@compuserve.com Message prepared 9/2/96, 4:31 PM Michael Gregory Editor, H-NEXA: The Science-Humanities Convergence Forum ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:44:45 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Baber Zaheer Subject: Re: The Sokal incident rationally considered In-Reply-To: <199609031401.WAA17838@leonis.nus.sg> On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory wrote: > Date: 02 Sep 96 16:38:59 EDT > From: "Alan J. Friedman" <71062.3706@CompuServe.COM> > To: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory > Subject: Re: The Sokal Matter > > Mike: > > Here's my 2 cents worth (wonder where that image came from--price of a stamp in > the 1920's?) on "The Sokal Matter." > > I think the humanities folks are overreacting, and making Dr. Sokal's nasty > prank seem more important that it is. Some highly visible scientists are > feeling beleaguered, and lashing out at critics everywhere. These attacks take > the form of intemperate, ill-mannered, and often irrational attacks on the > humanities, social sciences, and historians. The great heat and furor over a > modestly critical exhibit, "Science in American Life" at the Smithsonian, is > typical. Neither the public nor most scientists care, yet the complaining > scientists are somehow pleased that they have caused pain. > > I think the origins of these attacks lie in a genuine and justified fear of the > influence of pseudoscientists (creationism), the anti-science stance of the far > right, and the failure of science itself to command federal funds like it used > to (the cancellation of the superconducting supercollider). > > The scientists who are leading these attacks are themselves overly emotional, > and generally irrational in their furor. The people they are attacking > (academics in the humanities and museum historians) are not real threats; but > the scientists do not know how to begin attacking the real dangers to > science--the religious right, ultra-conservative politicians, ill-trained > teachers, charlatans and pseudoscientists. > > I just don't see the point in spending much time analyzing pranks like Sokal's. > Of course it is easier to create a hoax in the humanities than it is in the > "hard" sciences--what's new in that? > > The angry scientists do not care how the humanities respond; the public is > disinterested in the whole matter; and in the meantime the real enemies of "disinterested" does not quite mean what you try to make it mean in this context. > rational analysis (in both the humanities and the sciences) keep winning school > board elections and seats in Congress. We need to concentrate on the real > threats, and stop wasting time trashing each other. > > Alan > ************************************ > Alan J. Friedman > New York Hall of Science > 47-01 111th Street > Flushing Meadows Corona Park > New York 11368 > > Phone: (718) 699-0005 ext 316 > Fax: (718) 699-1341 > E-Mail: 71062.3706@compuserve.com > > Message prepared 9/2/96, 4:31 PM > > > Michael Gregory > Editor, H-NEXA: The Science-Humanities Convergence Forum > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:09:02 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bert Mosselmans Subject: History of Mathematics - De Morgan Hello, I'm looking for information on De Morgan's mathematics classes, delivered in University College, London, during ca.1850-1860. Does anyone have information on this subject ? Is there a mailing list on the history of mathematics ? Yours sincerely, Bert Mosselmans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert Mosselmans Free University of Brussels CFEC M418 Pleinlaan 2 - 1050 Brussels - Belgium Tel. 0032/2/629.21.20 Fax 0032/2/629.22.82 bmosselm@vnet3.vub.ac.be My homepage : http://cfec.vub.ac.be/cfec/bert.htm VUB's homepage : http://www.vub.ac.be/VUB-home.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 15:09:39 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Clark Subject: Re: Introductions In-Reply-To: <199608311718.SAA08885@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Aug 31, 96 01:14:59 pm I'm professor of philosophy at Liverpool University. My work includes discussion of ethological and biological information relevant to the study of ethics, and the metaphysical foundations of science. I also run a philosophy e-mail list (philos-l@liverpool.ac.uk) and maintain a cluster of webpages: http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/philos.html. Stephen Clark srlclark@liverpool.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:26:52 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jesper Hoffmeyer Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum Bob Young wrote: >I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your >interest in the forum. Well, I guess 'science as culture' - broadly understood - has been central to my work as a biochemist ever since I read Radical Science Journal in the 70ties. I may have lost some of my political convictions from those days but I am still convinced that scientific understanding is deeply bounded by the horizon of science as culture. And this causes severe myopia in the theoretical approach of modern biology, which is what concerns me at the professional level. Predominant patterns of social and technological use of biological theory reflects (reinforces?) these biases. So my concern is not so much "history of biology" as it is natural history as such and evolutionary theory. I would like to push biological science (as culture) away from its genocentric manners. Biological information should be seen as something very different from physical information (=E1 la Shannon). My own approach concernes the development of a "biosemiotics", i.e. a reframing of biological theory in a semiotic (=3D sign theoretic) context. Shortly stated: Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic creatures. I do not expect many people from this list to take an interest in such intra-scientific matters. And my purpose in subscribing to this list is mainly to keep in touch with the area, and may be pick up some unexpected inspiration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- University of Copenhagen Institute of Molecular Biology, The Biosemiotics Group Jesper Hoffmeyer tel +45 3532 2032 Solvgade 83 fax +45 3532 2040 DK-1307 Copenhagen K e-mail hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Hoffmeyer.html --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 21:07:30 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Brendan Harkin Subject: Introductions Hi! I'm a 6 month old PhD student in HPS/Social Theory at the University of Melbourne, Australia. I'm thinking about whether 'repetition' (in all of its forms and disguises, including for example, recapitulation in biology, the compulsion to repeat in psychoanalysis, recursion, fractals, Nietzsche's eternal return of the same etc etc etc) is a suitable project to pursue for my research (hmm, re-search). Conversation, pointers, objections et al most welcome Cheers, Brendan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:31:59 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Semiotic creatures At 10:26 5-09-96 +0000, Jesper Hoffmeyer wrote: ---snip---- >My own approach concernes the development of a "biosemiotics", i.e. a >reframing of biological theory in a semiotic (=3D sign theoretic) context. >Shortly stated: Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because >thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic >creatures. Sounds interesting but also a little bit obscure to me. Could you expand a bit? Doesn't "sign" imply a sender and a reciever of the "sign"? Who is the "sender" in this case and what is the message the sign conveys? (I assume you didn't mean the "message" contained in DNA). Or do you mean by "semiotic" that we see some coherence and "meaning" in what we observe (in biology or in physics or other -social- sciences)? In that case the context is whatever meaning the universe and everything in it has (or what meaning we see in (of) it). Then your concern may be more philosophical about the place of biology in the totality of science and the "meaning" of science in the totality of human activity (culture)? I'm intrigued and puzzled - looking forward for your reaction. 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: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 10:02:45 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: richard nash Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum In-Reply-To: <199609050834.DAA05370@obslave.ucs.indiana.edu> > Bob Young wrote: > > >I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so > >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your > >interest in the forum. > I am an associate professor of English at Indiana University, specializing in eighteenth-century British literature, with a special interest in the convergence of literary and scientific discourse in culture. While those interests tend to be historically located in the eighteenth century, I try to remain open to the persistence of those convergences in contemporary culture, and this and other newsgroups keep me abreast of relevant conversations. The large research project I am currently engaged in focuses on literary and scientific constructions of the figure of the "wild man" (non-human primates, feral children, castaways, etc.) in the eighteenth-century. I would also like to put in a word of advertisement for the Society for Literature and Science, an organization that shares many of the same intellectual concerns as members of this list. The program for the next meeting (Oct. 10-13 in Atlanta) is available on the web at: www.gatech.edu/sls/sls-96 Richard Nash English Indiana University ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 19:26:15 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "M.A.B." Subject: Re: Introductions On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Brendan Harkin wrote: > Hi! I'm a 6 month old PhD student in HPS/Social Theory at the University of > Melbourne, Australia. > > I'm thinking about whether 'repetition' (in all of its forms and disguises, > including for example, recapitulation in biology, the compulsion to repeat > in psychoanalysis, recursion, fractals, Nietzsche's eternal return of the > same etc etc etc) is a suitable project to pursue for my research (hmm, > re-search). > > Conversation, pointers, objections et al most welcome > > Cheers, > > Brendan Brendan, This is a very interesting project, what you're thinking to pursue for your research. I'm working on nonlinear dynamics and I have a paper on chaos and critical theory: http://www.duth.gr/~mboudour/mab/cct.html Could you say something more about Nietzsche's eternal return of the same? Cheers! --Moses http://www.duth.gr/~mboudour/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:58:16 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: Introductions Brendan Harkin writes: >I'm thinking about whether 'repetition' (in all of its forms and disguises, >including for example, recapitulation in biology, the compulsion to repeat >in psychoanalysis, recursion, fractals, Nietzsche's eternal return of the >same etc etc etc) is a suitable project to pursue for my research (hmm, >re-search). > >Conversation, pointers, objections et al most welcome Isn't one of the issues here the extent to which repetition occurs and/or can occur? To the extent that an individual or culture does not lose its past, repetition is impossible, since doing the same thing again is *recognized* as, or at least informed by having done it before, and also the *context* is always different. Of course, "in practice" we often find what for all practical purposes can be called repetition, but how much of *this* is an artefact of social structures *designed* to make people do the same thing again and again (e.g., the assembly line worker as opposed to the worker who is responsible for managing the functioning of the assembly line, or the student in a pre-defined course of study)? Might "eternal return of the same", which I think is an unclear notion in Nietzsche, be understood as: the eternal recurrence of self-overcoming, i.e., paradoxically, as the open-ended repetition of the act of reflective appropriation, which, precisely, is *not* repetition but conscious re-new-al? Anent Freud's "repetition compulsion", I propose *it* can be understood in a way which makes the "repetition" part ambiguous: The victim of trauma continues to repeat behavioral patterns which bear witness to, enable him to endure, and, hopefully, will enable him to overcome and get beyond the trauma. The victim continues to beat his head against the wall (<--metaphor) in hopes of breaking through the wall, and being able to get on with his life. (That the behavior, in actuality, may have no prospects of success does not mean it is *intended* to be futile, but rather that the person doesn't have any better idea of something to try.) If you are going to study "repetition", I would encourage you (1) to gain a clear understanding of how personal being-in-the-world (consciousness, etc.) differs from any and all of its *contents* (which include theories of consciousness, etc.), and (2) to vigorously ferret out how much of repetition in persons' experience is due to the way social institutions are organized (either by "tradition" or by "design"), how much is due to limitations imposed on human existence by non-human forces ("nature", etc.).... As such persons as Hannah Arendt, Jacob Bronowski and Donald Winnicott would all urge, each infant who is born is *a new beginning*. A big question is how the newborn's human milieu can nurture instead of ignoring, crushing, manipulating... this potential in the largely self-fulfilling prophesy of making him or her become just another repetition of a pre-given set of specs. You might enjoy reading "The Cheese and the Worms" by Carlo Ginzburg (Johns Hopkins Univ Press). More seriously, Edmund Husserl's "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology" (Northwestern Univ Press) is IMO *essential* reading here (start with Appendix I: The Vienna Lecture). Personally, I generally find repugnant to do anything over: I feel revulsion at having to do again something I (or anybody else) has already done. On the other hand, "novelty" does not much interest me. What I like best is to engage with something familiar but in a way which reveals something new about it, thus *enriching* instead of just *extending* my experience (recursion instead of reiteration...). Good luck! * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:08:16 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Organization: Jungian Soultherapy: Healing & Mentoring of the Soul Subject: Re: Semiotic creatures -- a sign to me to introduce myself! Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > > At 10:26 5-09-96 +0000, Jesper Hoffmeyer wrote: > ---snip---- > >My own approach concernes the development of a "biosemiotics", i.e. a > >reframing of biological theory in a semiotic (=3D sign theoretic) context. > >Shortly stated: Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because > >thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic > >creatures. > > Sounds interesting but also a little bit obscure to me. Could you > expand a bit? Doesn't "sign" imply a sender and a reciever of the "sign"? > Who is the "sender" in this case and what is the message the sign conveys? > (I assume you didn't mean the "message" contained in DNA). Or do you mean by > "semiotic" that we see some coherence and "meaning" in what we observe (in > biology or in physics or other -social- sciences)? In that case the context > is whatever meaning the universe and everything in it has (or what meaning > we see in (of) it). Then your concern may be more philosophical about the > place of biology in the totality of science and the "meaning" of science in > the totality of human activity (culture)? I'm intrigued and puzzled - > looking forward for your reaction. > > 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). Well now it's time to introduce myself; I had been "lurking" a few weeks when we were invited by our host to introduce ourselves and our interests, and I have found since the introductions have been taking place that you all interest me! I am a Jungian psychotherapist practicing in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, the town that represented the "ideal American small-town" to me when I was growing up in Paris, France (and saw the covers of the American magazine, Saturday Evening Post). My mother was from such a town, but my father was from Constantinople, one of the cosmopolitan, cross-cultural synthesizing cities of this world. This alone would have been enough to make a Jungian of me, but I wanted to be an astronomer. So I returned to my mother's homeland and somehow the interaction of my field of energy within the spirit of the times brought about an interdisciplinary study of Western Civilization in the sciences (introductory courses across-the-board), social sciences (degree in Economics & Political Science) and humanities (degree in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Greek & Latin Literature) during my ten years at the Universities of Michigan & California. I taught another six years at California State & Golden Gate. "Organisms are semiotic creatures," and the response: "Who are the sender and who the receiver?" cut to the heart of Jungian psychology. The "Individuation" of the Psyche is the unfolding according to our genetic encoding as its signs appear in a higher-order of consciousness form we call "symbol." As the Greeks first construed the word, it means to 'build' presumably meaning from 'signs,' or as the theorists, like Janitsch and Lyall Watson, of the Self-Organizing Universe, propose: at each level of complexity the whole is greater than and different from the sum of the individual parts. In a paper I have on my website, I go into this higher order complexity as a cultural phenomenon at this end of our millenium. I would be happy to hear your responses to it from any of you. Science IS our culture, but there is a time-lag between the realizations of those on the frontiers of science and the common understanding of the general population. Accordingly, we are still at about the level of understanding of Physics in the implications of relativity between the two world wars, when it comes to our present-day culture. People are aware that the language of our cultural traditions has lost its meaning. It seems as though we dissipate in consciousness along with the molecular disintegration of the body -- that we have a "one and only lifetime." Yet at the frontier of the Physics of Light is the transmutation of Energy into Matter -- and Energy has neither been created nor destroyed. Much of the cultural conflict in our times is over the questions of life-experience misunderstood, because our interpretative perspective is misunderstood. The disintegration of our traditional culture of the last 2000 years, Judeo-Christianity in the West, is occurring because of Science. Yet, this incomplete understanding is causing a confrontation of "opposites" that has been synthesized on the frontier of Science. Jung has developed a "science" or methodology to perceive the "reality of the Psyche," based on his experience with thousands of patients, as well as upon his vast knowledge of our culture as it evolved over thousands of years. His principal tenet is that the synthesis of opposites takes place in the "transcendant function of the Psyche," which spirals along the horizon of antitheses before making a quantum change in which, again, the whole is greater than and different from the sum of the individual parts. This is what interests me as "Science-as-Culture." Michelle Christides ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:18:02 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Organization: Jungian Soultherapy: Healing & Mentoring of the Soul Subject: My URL got left behind! Hello again, thanks to Prof. Boudourakis for his response to mine re: Democritus University's interesting website, which I recommend to all. Mikhail Gorbachev asked in 1986, why intellectuals are not doing more to help this rebirth of our culture in the tribulation of its present dying, therefore, I am always heartened by what I see in your websites. Apparently, my URL is not attaching as I programmed Netscape to do: http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html Michelle Christides ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:04:15 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kana Drea Subject: BOARDING PASS FOR STAR TREK(tm) 30 *BOARDING PASS FOR STAR TREK(tm) 30 ONE WEEKEND ON EARTH* http://startrek.msn.com The Star Trek(tm) Universe descends on Huntsville, Alabama on September 7 & 8, Welcoming you to the largest Star Trek Convention ever! Celebrate 30 years of Star Trek and Space Exploration with over 14 Star Trek stars and 6 NASA astronauts. Sponsored by Paramount Pictures(tm) and the U.S. Space and Rocket Center. http://startrek.msn.com Audio and video clips Photographs Breaking news Live Chats Be sure to visit the site before the weekend to make sure your system is up to code. Star Trek is a property of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:20:48 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Baber Zaheer Subject: Re: Introductions In-Reply-To: <199609051825.CAA03094@leonis.nus.sg> On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, M.A.B. wrote: > On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Brendan Harkin wrote: > > > Hi! I'm a 6 month old PhD student Wow! That's pretty young... ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:42:21 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum X-To: Jesper Hoffmeyer In-Reply-To: <96Sep4.222717hwt.587491(5)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Jesper-you are the person I have been looking for! Would you like to critique my paper, "Plateaus of Consumption: The Biosemiotics of Consumer Fascism"? Do you have a bibliography of biosemiotic writings? I am also very interested in this field. My background is in biochemistry, anthropology and neuroscience. Mark Burch ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Jesper Hoffmeyer wrote: > Bob Young wrote: > > >I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so > >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your > >interest in the forum. > > Well, I guess 'science as culture' - broadly understood - has been central > to my work as a biochemist ever since I read Radical Science Journal in the > 70ties. I may have lost some of my political convictions from those days > but I am still convinced that scientific understanding is deeply bounded by > the horizon of science as culture. And this causes severe myopia in the > theoretical approach of modern biology, which is what concerns me at the > professional level. Predominant patterns of social and technological use of > biological theory reflects (reinforces?) these biases. > > So my concern is not so much "history of biology" as it is natural history > as such and evolutionary theory. I would like to push biological science > (as culture) away from its genocentric manners. Biological information > should be seen as something very different from physical information (=E1 la > Shannon). > > My own approach concernes the development of a "biosemiotics", i.e. a > reframing of biological theory in a semiotic (=3D sign theoretic) context. > Shortly stated: Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because > thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic > creatures. > > I do not expect many people from this list to take an interest in such > intra-scientific matters. And my purpose in subscribing to this list is > mainly to keep in touch with the area, and may be pick up some unexpected > inspiration. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > University of Copenhagen > Institute of Molecular Biology, The Biosemiotics Group > Jesper Hoffmeyer tel +45 3532 2032 > Solvgade 83 fax +45 3532 2040 > DK-1307 Copenhagen K e-mail hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk > http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Hoffmeyer.html > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:59:49 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jesper Hoffmeyer Subject: Re. Semiotic creatures On my suggestion that "organisms are semiotic creatures" Arie Dirkzwager write: Sounds interesting but also a little bit obscure to me. Could you >expand a bit? Doesn't "sign" imply a sender and a reciever of the "sign"? >Who is the "sender" in this case and what is the message the sign conveys? >(I assume you didn't mean the "message" contained in DNA). It will probably take more than a few words to make a convincing case for my suggestion. But let me first say, that the semiotics to which I refer is semiotics in the tradition of the American scientist and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). A sign in his conception is a triadic unity of the representamen (i.e. the sign vehicle), the object to which the representamen refers and the interpretant. Thus, e.g. a bacterium moving in a nutrient gradient is capable through its surface receptors to "measure" the gradient and thus decide in which direction it should move. Here the gradient is a sign or representamen (without any obvious sender); the cytoplasmatic organization of the bacterium is the interpretant, and the direction of movement is the object to which the gradient refers (as seen from the point of view of the bacterium). Another way to say this is that the bacterium posses a kind of internal standard, due to its historically appropriated organization, against which it measures cues in its surroundings thereby arriving at decisions as to what to do next. Now, at this point natural scientists generally think that this is just a cumbersome way of explaining something very simple, while researchers from the humanities often object that nothing like interpretation takes place in a bacterium. Now, either both are right or both are wrong (I mean, if something which deserves the word interpretion actually takes place in a bacterium, then the scientists cannot claim that the process is just simple). I have dealt with these problems in several publications. Foremost in a Danish book from 1993 which will appear in english with the title "Signs of Meaning in the Universe" at Indiana Umiversity Press, February 1997 (web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress/fall96/hoffmeyer.html). Also several papers (in english) for wich references can be found at my homepage: http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Hoffmeyer.html. Now to the question of DNA. Yes, I definitely think that DNA should be seen as an assembly of higly organized digitally coded signs. Which implies that they have to be interpreted. And in this case the obvious interpretant is the cyto-structure of the fertilized egg. The egg is the only entity in the world to know how to use the DNA for constructing babies. Also more on this in the above mentioned publications. This whole point of view of course have implications for our evaluation of projects such as the human genome project Arie further asks: >Or do you mean by >"semiotic" that we see some coherence and "meaning" in what we observe (in >biology or in physics or other -social- sciences)? No, this is not what I meant. But of course there is such a semiotic, i.e. a semiotic of the biological science. But this should not be confused with biosemiotics, i.e. the study of the semiotics of life processes. See also the biosemiotics web site: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/welcome.html *************************************************************** Jesper Hoffmeyer Institute of Molecular Biology The Biosemiotics Group University of Copenhagen Solvgade 83 DK 1307 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel (45) 3532 2032 Fax (45) 3532 2040 hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Hoffmeyer.html *************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 02:23:01 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: My URL got left behind! (X-Post ) X-To: H-NEXA@H-Net.msu.edu Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 17:18:02 -0400 From: Michelle Christides Organization: Jungian Soultherapy: Healing & Mentoring of the Soul Subject: My URL got left behind! To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Hello again, thanks to Prof. Boudourakis for his response to mine re: Democritus University's interesting website, which I recommend to all. Mikhail Gorbachev asked in 1986, why intellectuals are not doing more to help this rebirth of our culture in the tribulation of its present dying, therefore, I am always heartened by what I see in your websites. Apparently, my URL is not attaching as I programmed Netscape to do: http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html Michelle Christides ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 02:25:12 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: BOARDING PASS FOR STAR TREK(tm) 30 (X-Post SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE ) X-To: H-NEXA@H-Net.msu.edu *BOARDING PASS FOR STAR TREK(tm) 30 ONE WEEKEND ON EARTH* http://startrek.msn.com The Star Trek(tm) Universe descends on Huntsville, Alabama on Sept. 7 & 8 Welcoming you to the largest Star Trek Convention ever! Celebrate 30 years of Star Trek and Space Exploration with over 14 Star Trek stars and 6 NASA astronauts. Sponsored by Paramount Pictures(tm) and the U.S. Space and Rocket Center. http://startrek.msn.com Audio and video clips Photographs Breaking news Live Chats Be sure to visit the site before the weekend to make sure your system is up to code. Star Trek is a property of Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 02:26:02 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: Re: Introductions X-To: H-NEXA@H-Net.msu.edu Ed.: Here's where that infant PhD-bound prodigy first appeared. After all, he's "strine" (correct dialect pronuciation of Australian).] On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Brendan Harkin wrote: > Hi! I'm a 6 month old PhD student in HPS/Social Theory at the University of > Melbourne, Australia. > > I'm thinking about whether 'repetition' (in all of its forms and disguises, > including for example, recapitulation in biology, the compulsion to repeat > in psychoanalysis, recursion, fractals, Nietzsche's eternal return of the > same etc etc etc) is a suitable project to pursue for my research (hmm, > re-search). > > Conversation, pointers, objections et al most welcome > > Cheers, > > Brendan Brendan, This is a very interesting project, what you're thinking to pursue for your research. I'm working on nonlinear dynamics and I have a paper on chaos and critical theory: http://www.duth.gr/~mboudour/mab/cct.html Could you say something more about Nietzsche's eternal return of the same? Cheers! --Moses http://www.duth.gr/~mboudour/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:42:03 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: Re-petition under stress > On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Brendan Harkin wrote: > I'm thinking about whether 'repetition' (in all of its forms and disguises, > including for example, recapitulation in biology, the compulsion to repeat > in psychoanalysis, recursion, fractals, Nietzsche's eternal return of the > same etc etc etc) is a suitable project to pursue for my research (hmm, > re-search). Whether it's "suitable" or not may depend on institutional factors ... but I hope Brendan will keep us informed of his re-search, re-iterations, re-capitulations, re- whatevers: he certainly induced some interesting re-sponses. I particularly enjoyed reading M.A.B.'s paper on Chaos and Critical Theory ... At the risk of re-peating myself when under stress, I note his use, in the second paragraph, of terms/concepts/metaphors like: range, domain, mapping, (virtual) space: > The common way to distinguish between the "local" and the "global" character of a knowledge or a > theory examines the range of applicability and the domain of methodology involved in the followed > discourse. These types of criteria are pertinent to the organization and articulation of the examined > body of knowledge or theory. In a way, these criteria structure the body of knowledge or theory > through a correspondence or a mapping to an internal configuration in the virtual space of all possible > and contingent theoretical formations. Although analogies, shifts, and other transfers between > separate theories are quite often observed (often at the initial level of the intuitive theoretical > formation), they are generically smoothly appropriated into the internal structure. At least, this is > what happens far from the uprising conditions of scientific revolutions, when the interior coherence of > a theory is maintained by her epistemological autonomy. I hope others will follow up on this, while I dig out my under-grad notes on non-linear and partial differential equations and vector spaces, etc. Brendan's reference to the recapitulation theory reminded me of an old interest in an analogy between: a) Patterning, understood as physiotherapy, whereby a child with neural damage (I think) is taught to walk by first being taken through the stages of creeping like a reptile, crawling like a mammal, walking like an ape, then walking cross-patterned. The individual has to go through each stage: missing out on one or more results in pathological development, or no development. Or have I got that badly wrong? not my field ... and ... b) Teaching maths ... and maybe education in general. Do we need to teach things in the "right" historical order?! That is, when we were given Bell's History of Mathematics (I don't have the exact title I'm afraid) or similar to read, before starting the post-grad certificate of education course, were we being required to recapitulate the (mathematical) experience of the species, in a historical sequence, when "patterning" the individual? Or were we to stick to the common sense which follows the "right" (inherent) logical order? And was there a difference? If so, why ... if not, why not ... I don't remember the "right" answer (I don't think there was a left one), but it might have been 42. In any case, surprise surprise, we ended up teaching the "right" assembly line pattern: DO n PAGES OF EXERCISES by tomorrow at 9! and so to ontology / epistemology ... and the social construction of reality. Chaotic thoughts when "the fir is upon me", as one noted critic would say ... But I would recommend that Brendan listen to King Crimson's Indiscipline (from "Discipline") when considering the problems of repetition under stress: "I do remember one thing. It took hours and hours and By the time I was done with it I was so involved I didn't know what to think. I carried it around with me for days and days playing little games like - not looking at it for a whole day and then ... - looking at it to see if I still liked it. I did!" "I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I The more I look at it The more I like it. I do think it's good! The fact is: No matter how closely I study it No matter how I take it apart No matter how I break it down ... it remains consistent." "I wish you were here to see it!" "I like it!!" ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:12:05 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bert Mosselmans Subject: Nietzsche's eternal return of the same At 16:58 5/9/96, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: >Might "eternal return of the same", which I think is an unclear notion >in Nietzsche, be understood as: the eternal recurrence of self-overcoming, >i.e., paradoxically, as the open-ended repetition of the act of >reflective appropriation, which, precisely, is *not* repetition but >conscious re-new-al? In my view - I am not a specialist - it is indeed a conscious re-new-al, meaning that the free individual, not repressed by abstract structures, re-builds the world from within. It is therefore indeed not repetition, but it is placed in a world in which everything occurs over and over again. It signifies that every individual action is in need of much consideration, since this action will, once done, occur ever and ever again in the circularity of time. Any comments on this ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bert Mosselmans Free University of Brussels CFEC M418 Pleinlaan 2 - 1050 Brussels - Belgium Tel. 0032/2/629.21.20 Fax 0032/2/629.22.82 bmosselm@vnet3.vub.ac.be My homepage : http://cfec.vub.ac.be/cfec/bert.htm VUB's homepage : http://www.vub.ac.be/VUB-home.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:29:43 -0400 Reply-To: rsmith@moon.jic.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Richard H. Smith, II" Organization: Georgetown University Subject: Re: Introductions I am another of the "lurkers" as well as being another of the "young" PhD students. My name is Dick Smith and I am a Research Administrator at Georgetown University in the areas of genetics, molecular biology, neonatal development, assisted reproductive technologies, immune system development, lung biology, cancer, and developmental neuroscience. I am also a graduate student at Virginia Tech in Science and Technology Studies. My primary field of interest is scientific research policy specifically as regards _ long range future_ science and technology. My thesis topic is how a research funding agent can intelligently differentiate between _speculative_ science and _prospective_ science when the empirical evidence (the "payoff") could be years away. The specific focus area is molecular nanotechnology which I _believe_ will become mainstream in the not-too-distant future. You can find some of my thoughts on the matter in "Molecular Nanotechnology: Research Funding Sources", published in NanoTechnology Magazine June, 1996 Pre-Press Monthly - Volume 2 No. 6 and on the Web at http://planet-hawaii.com/nanozine/nanofund.htm Cheers, Dick Smith ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:35:49 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Books on offer from Process Press Process Press has a small number of copies of some interesting and hard-to-obtain works in the history, philosophy & social studies of science, technology & medicine. They can be supplied by mail order or purchased from our London office. (Prices in British pounds sterling L1.00 = about $1.55) The Visible College: A Collective Biography of British Scientists and Socialists of the 1930s by Gary Werskey. Free Association Books, 1988 Hb L10 Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature by Donna J. Haraway. Free Association Books, 1991. Pb. L15.95 Languages of Nature; Critical Essays on Science and Literature edited by Ludmilla Jordanova. Free Association Books, 1986. Pb L10 Gender and Expertise edited by Maureen McNeil. Free Association Books, 1987. Pb. L10 Wild Desires and Mistaken Identities: Lesbianism and Psychoanalysis by Noreen O'Connor and Joanna Ryan. Virago, 1993. Pb. L12.9 9 Radical Science Essays, edited by Les Levidow. Free Association Books, 1986. Pb L10 Science and the Modern World by Alfred North Whitehead. Free Asssociation Books, 1985. Pb L10 Anti-Racist Science Teaching, edited by Dawn Gill and Les Levidow. Free Association Books, 1987. Pb L10 White Racism: A Psychohistory by Joel Kovel Free Association Books, 1988. Pb. L10 >From Taylorism to Fordism: A Rational Madness by Bernard Doray. Free Association Books, 1988. Pb L10 The Gene Business: Who Should Control Biotechnology? by Edward Yoxen. Free Association Books, 1983. Pb. L5 Commodities: How the World Was Taken to Market by Nick Rowling. Free Association Books, 1987. Pb L10 Behind the Silicon Curtain: The Seductions of Work in a Lonely Era by Dennis Hayes. Free Association Books, 1989. Hb L10 Corporate Killing: Bhopals Will Happen by Tara Jones Free Association Books, 1988. Pb. L10 More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave by Ruth Schwartz Cowan. Free Association Books, 1989 L10 Cyborg Worlds: The Military Information Society edited by Les Levidow and Kevin Robins. Free Association Books, 1989 L10 Science, Technology and the Labour Process: Marxist Studies , Vol. I edited by Les Levidow and Bob Young. CSE Books, 1981. Hb. L10 Science, Technology and the Labour Process: Marxist Studies , Vol. II edited by Les Levidow and Bob Young. CSE Books, 1985. Hb. L10 Technology and Toil in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Documents edited by Maxine Berg. CSE Books, 1979. Pb L10 Making Waves: The Politics of Communications edited by the Radical Science Collective. Free Association Books, 1985. Pb L5 Living Thinkwork: Where Do Labour Processes Come From? by Mike Hales. CSE Books, 1980. Hb. L7.50 Science or Society: The Politics of the Work of Scientists by Mike Hales. Free Association Books, 1986. Pb L5 The Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism by Alfred Sohn-Rethel. CSE Books, 1987. Pb. L7.50 We also have a number of review copies and second hand works in these areas. These can be purchased at substantial savings from the list price. Please ring for an appointment to view these books. Some issues of the Radical Science Journal are also available at bargain prices. Cheques should be in British pounds sterling and made payable to Process Press Ltd. For credit card orders, specify card number, expiry date, name, billing address. Payment in curencies other than sterling is troublesome, so please use credit card. Process Press 'only purity of means can justify the ends' 26 Freegrove Road London N7 9RQ tel 0171 609 0507 fax 0171 609 4837 pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk Information about the current and forthcoming publications of Process Press is at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html Robert M. Young 'You will not complete the task, but you may not give it up.' ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:12:39 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: Nietzsche's eternal return of the same Bert Mosselmans wrote: >At 16:58 5/9/96, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: >>Might "eternal return of the same", which I think is an unclear notion >>in Nietzsche, be understood as: the eternal recurrence of self-overcoming, >>i.e., paradoxically, as the open-ended repetition of the act of >>reflective appropriation, which, precisely, is *not* repetition but >>conscious re-new-al? > >In my view - I am not a specialist - it is indeed a conscious re-new-al, >meaning that the free individual, not repressed by abstract structures, >re-builds the world from within. It is therefore indeed not repetition, >but it is placed in a world in which everything occurs over and over again. >It signifies that every individual action is in need of much >consideration, since this action will, once done, occur ever and ever again >in the circularity of time. Any comments on this ? Surely this is a place to repeat(!) Santayana's oft cited dictum that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I am not sure how to understand Bert's claim that >every individual action is in need of much >consideration, since this action will, once done, occur ever and ever again >in the circularity of time. Unless, perhaps, he means that a *new* behavior we initiate, if not subjected to further reflection, often becomes a "habit", which is for practical purposes, even if not in a strict logical sense, repetition. Trying to be fair, I think Kierkegaard had something to say about repetition, too, but I have not studied what he wrote, so I leave it to others to follow up on this line of exploration, if it has any merit. * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:14:54 CDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: charlotte borst Subject: Re: Nietzsche's eternal return of the same In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:12:39 -0400 from In a way of introducing myself, I too have been a "lurker" on this listserv. I am a historian of medicine and science by training--I also have worked prior to my doctoral work as a biochemical research tech--so I know the world of laboratory science from both the intellectual and the labor context!! I am now an Assoc Prof of history and an administrator of historical collections here at UAB. My work has centered on understanding the social context of the history of science--I focus on gender as an analytical category. My first book examined the role of gender and ethnicity in the professionalization of obstetrics in the US; I'm now working on a book that analyzes the role of gender (and race--I'm in the Amer south, after all) in the development of academic health centers in the 20th c. I'm interested in many aspects of this evolution-- the gendering of space, of testing , and of scientific knowledge. And how race plays into this as well--American historians find that racial categories harden toward the middle of the 20th c. What I'm struck by on this listserv is how the latest discourse is so gendered--the lone thought, the lone thinker, all individuals-- sounds very much like Carol Gilligan, et al's analysis. any thoughts on this out there???? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 15:42:39 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: re-peat bog X-To: Brendan Harkin In-Reply-To: <96Sep5.010811hwt.587507(10)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> The writings of James Joyce provide a good case for analysis. "Dubliners" features short stories which 're-volve' around the numb sort of repetition. "Finnegans Wake", on the other hand begins "in media re's" and devolves and revolves around all sorts of echoes, repetitions, layerings, imbrications, and damn what is that loverly word that de-picts the stratification of the ruins of one civilation upon the next, of one memory upon the nexust, und so white? Then there is rhythm, which is repetitious only to the uninitiated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Brendan Harkin wrote: > I'm thinking about whether 'repetition' (in all of its forms and disguises, > including for example, recapitulation in biology, the compulsion to repeat > in psychoanalysis, recursion, fractals, Nietzsche's eternal return of the > same etc etc etc) is a suitable project to pursue for my research (hmm, > re-search). > > Conversation, pointers, objections et al most welcome > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:28:04 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: science virus In-Reply-To: <96Sep6.162529hwt.370641(8)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> I came across an article called "Viruses of the Mind" by Richard Dawkins. He analyses memes and all sorts of mental viruses, including religion. Then he asks the question, "Is Science A Virus?" The answer, since science signs his paychecks, is of course, no. Surprise, surprise! It occurred to me that a successful virus must always be in denial of the fact that it is a virus. It must always believe that it is the real thing. If you can fool yourself, you can fool anybody. Dawkins gave himself away though. Search the following excerpt for the Freudian slip: "4 Is Science a Virus No. Not unless all computer programs are viruses. Good, useful programs spread because people evaluate them, recommend them and pass them on. Computer viruses spread solely because they embody the coded instructions: ``Spread me.'' Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues. You may find elements of epidemiology in the spread of scientific ideas, but it will be largely descriptive epidemiology. The rapid spread of a good idea through the scientific community may even look like a description of a measles epidemic. But when you examine the underlying reasons you find that they re god ones, satisfying the demanding standards of scientific method. In the history of the spread of fait you will find little else but epidemiology, and causal epidemiology at that. The reason why person A believes one thing and B believes another is simply and solely that A was born on one continent and B on another. Testability, evidential support and the rest aren't even remotely considered. For scientific belief, epidemiology merely comes along afterwards an describes the history o its acceptance. For religious belief, epidemiology is the root cause." >From "Viruses of the Mind" by Richard Dawkins (linked from Biosemiotics home page, http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/welcome.html) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 11:47:58 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: science virus At 17:28 6-09-96 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >I came across an article called "Viruses of the Mind" by Richard Dawkins. >He analyses memes and all sorts of mental viruses, including religion. ------skip----- >the selective forces that >scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are >exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving >behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of >standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, >quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, >universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and >so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these >virtues. "Virus" is a concept of something (very) harmfull. The most srerious virus is the state of mind that puts all its FAITH (!) *only* is those "virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology". It's like returning to the scholastic middle ages where the top most scientific virtues was to conform to the old books of Aristotle (and the bible interpreted in an Aristotelian way). I agree with those "virtues" and value science conforming to these "virtues" highly, but I doubt VERY MUCH is "textbooks of standard methodology" are applicable to judge faith in the one and only eternal (as opposed to "temporary", existing within the restrictions of time) God, the Creator of the universe including our mental abilities, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Mind you: I'm NOT a "creationist" in the fundamentalistic sense, I agree very much with physicists who admit that is makes no sense to talk of "time before the Big Bang": time as such was created at that moment (as far as it makes sense to talk about "that moment": the Big Bang is the ultimate horison of our "time" in the direction of the past. In the direction of the future it is much less clear if such horison exists. I admit that "faith ... lacks every single one of these virtues", just as good (scientific) THOUGHTS lack the virtue of having an tangible materialistic physical existence with wonderful properties as physical form, colour, smell, taste and other beauties. Still thoughts are very substantial and influential in our human social existence: they drive us to actions, bad and good and therefore should be considered very carefully and critically, especially regarding the *faith* they stem from. I don't share Richard Dawkins' complete and only faith in scientific method. My faith includes the belief that we should follow this scientific method in science - but there is more between heaven and earth than science, and that's only in that restricted place "between heaven and earth" we can observe directly;-) Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:26:49 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Eigil Evert Subject: Re: Books on offer from Process Press for weeks i have been trying to get out of dcience-as-culture. it seems to be impossible. all the time the machine tells me that the list is unknown!!! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 11:42:11 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sarah W Salter Subject: Re: re-peat bog In-Reply-To: <199609070227.AA01860@world.std.com> On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Mark Burch wrote: > * * * damn what is that loverly word that de-picts the > stratification of the ruins of one civilation upon the next, of one memory > upon the nexust, und so white? > > * * * You may be thinking of "palimpsest" -- There is a magnificent song by the Chilean exile group Inti-Illimani from the 80's (I think) call "Palimpsesto" - the lyrics develop the layers, as does the music, and are printed in Sp. & in an only-occasionally-transparent (appropriately) Eng. trans. in the cassette liner. The album is also called Palimpsesto. Among other dimensions, the group passionately explores rhythms from differing streams that have fed Latin music. Sarah Salter Salter@world.std.com (Boston) ssalter@gold.interlog.com (Toronto) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:26:57 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: science virus "Language is a virus from outer space" (William S. Burroughs, quoted in a Laurie Anderson song) I am not a scientist (although I do fancy myself a reflective thinker on issues of science and technology as part of the world of human life -- Husserl's "Lebenswelt")...). I do not claim to be an expert on viruses. But I do seem to understand that a virus is an entity which cannot reproduce itself except by incorporating itself into a host living creature, which the virus "infects". I also seem to understand that not all viruses are *bad* for the host organism -- some have no effect on the host at all, and apparently scientists are now using viruses to modify defective genes and actually *cure* people of diseases. So much for my background understanding of viruses. Now, it seems clear to me that *all* symbols and symbol systems are analogous to viruses, in that they cannot survive or reproduce themselves except by "infecting" human beings (the process of "infection" here being understood as: (1) learning, (2) teaching to others, and (3 -- optionally) deploying in practice). Every infant is infected with the ethnic virus of the social group into which he or she is born and raised. This is called "acculturation", "education", "growing up", etc. The analogy works further here, in that the infant does not choose this infection any more than it chooses to get infected with measles, chicken pox, influenza, polio, etc. To what extent is it correct to say that persons live their lives, and to what extent is it correct to say that persons are "lived by" the ethnic virus which has infected them? The consequences of semiotic infection are ubiquitous, and I leave it to the reader's judgment whether such specific symptoms as ritual female genital mutilation and kamikaze male patriotism are good, bad or indifferent.... Is science a virus? On my definition, it is, but that doesn't say whether it is good, bad or indifferent, i.e., what we may wish to *do* about it. Ah! But what I am calling "doing" is really just part of the infection, a reader may object (And as to your objection itself?). It seems that there is a special virus which perhaps first appeared in classical Greece, and may have occurred elsewhere, which I will call "critical reflection". This particular virus has the unique attribute of interfering with the automatic metabolism of all viruses. If you are infected with the Somali ethnic virus, it makes you reflect on whether female genital mutilation is a good thing; if you are infected with the Samurai ethnic virus, it makes you reflect whether dying for the emperor is always a good idea; it also makes you wonder what exactly is happening to you by being infected with itself.... Now, here's an important question: What kind of virus is science (let me say that what I am calling "science" here is what I understand to be the tradition of empirical research from Galileo thru Gallo, etc.)? Is science the special "critical reflection" virus, or is it just another regular ethnic virus which infects people "unwittingly", or is it perhaps a hybrid or transitional formation between the two (or is it something else altogether)? I suspect the answer is not simple. I suspect there are some scientists who reflect on what they are doing in an open-ended way, i.e., who are infected with what I have called the special virus. But I also suspect that most scientists, most of the time, do science in the same unwitting way as a Somali or a samurai do their ethnic virus: perhaps very conscientiously attending to doing "what they're supposed to do" "the right way", but not thinking about whether what they are doing is the kind of thing they ought to be doing. Being lived by *any* smybolic formation seems to me just as dangerous as being lived by any other, because in each such case, what eventuates is not the result of intelligent reflection but of the accidental circumstance that the people are inculcated with this system rather than another (had I been born elsewhere and at another time I would believe in XXX...). Joseph Needham told a very suggestive story about the Chinese reception of the Jesuit missionaries in the 17th century. The Jesuits came to convert the heathens to The True Religion, and cited Gailiean science as one of the fringe benefits of believing in Jesus Christ as the SON OF GOD AND SAVIOR OF THE WORLD. The Chinese, on the other hand, saw Christianity as being just one more religion like the 50 or so they already tolerated in their kindgom, BUT they recognized the Galilean natural science as something genuinely new, namely, as knowledge which was valid for any person who took the effort to learn it, rather than (like Yin and Yang, etc.) a form of opinion which was valid only for those who believed in it. Needham's story leads me to think that what we call "science" is indeed a kind of transitional form between traditional ethnic viruses and the special virus ("open-ended critical reflection"), in that it is critical about *objects*, and even about the process of *forming opinions*, but it is not critical about its own place in the overall network of symbols (the "Lifeworld"). I would like to propose (and to propose that I am not being "original" in this...) that science needs to become "scientific" about itself, i.e., to pervasively integrate open-ended reflection upon itself into itself: that scientists integrate open-ended reflection upon what they are doing in the labortory and outside it into all their doings in the laboratory and outside it. I would suggest that this desideratum also addresses any questions about "the end of science", since this paradigm shift (which makes all things new even those which remain unchanged...) has only begun to occur. No matter what advances occur in particle physics or biochemistry, so long as the researchers do not come to grips with the phenomenological (<-- in Husserl's sense) event of what they are doing, it will at best be like adding more integers to any given set of integers, which process can never even begin to set one off on ascent through the series of *higher infinities*. Another question: Is science intrinsically "naive" (<--Husserl's term) about its place in the horizon of human experience (in extreme cases we find theories which propose to reduce "consciousness" to chemical processes in the world, instead of pursuing the unsurpassable fact that *all* theories are objects *of* consciousness, i.e., entities in the world)? Or is this situation a result of specific political conditions, i.e., The Inquisition showing Galileo the instruments of torture and thereby shutting his mouth, so that he would, as most, secretly promulgate new physical theories, but altogether avoid speculations about social as opposed to celestial dynamics and revolutions? * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:08:02 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: re-peat bog X-To: Sarah W Salter In-Reply-To: <96Sep7.054131hwt.586781(5)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Thank you! Palimpsest is a great word, but it is not the one that was tippling my tongue. You message joggled it out of its hiding place though. The word is SUPERFETATION! Superfetation refers to the way that civilizations layer upon each other, like the nine cities of Troy. Also the way that modernity is layered upon our mythic past. This is one of the major themes of Figgenans Weg. Superfetation also reminds me of feta cheese, something rank and fetid festering in the festooned spittoons of our unconscious. Thanks again, and I will check out "Palimpsesto." Mark Burch ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Sarah W Salter wrote: > You may be thinking of "palimpsest" -- There is a magnificent > song by the Chilean exile group Inti-Illimani from the 80's (I think) > call "Palimpsesto" - the lyrics develop the layers, as does the music, > and are printed in Sp. & in an only-occasionally-transparent > (appropriately) Eng. trans. in the cassette liner. The album is also > called Palimpsesto. Among other dimensions, the group passionately > explores rhythms from differing streams that have fed Latin music. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:16:28 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: science/language virus In-Reply-To: <96Sep7.062637hwt.586831(6)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Language as a virus is a fascinating idea. There is another fascinating aspect of the topic, and that is the way that viruses and parasites alter the behavior of their hosts in such a way that the life cycle of the virus or parasite is facilitated. There is an article in Scientific American from the 70's that is called "Parasites that alter the behaviour of their hosts." One example is a fluke that spends most of its life inside sheep. Another part of the life cycle is spent inside ants. How to get from the ants to the sheep? While inside the ant, the parasite alters the ants behaviour, making it attracted to light. The ant tends to climb up to the ends of branches on shrubs, where it is more likely to be eaten by a sheep. It has occurred to me that similar observations can be made of viruses, although I haven't seen this published anywhere. The rabies virus makes its host more prone to bite other animals, which spreads the virus. Infection by a rhinovirus gives you a cold, which makes you sneeze, which spreads the virus. One of my Fiendish Ideas is to consider the caffeine molecule as the smallest virus known to science. Caffeine is a methylxanthine very similar in structure to the purine nucleotides. The coffee plant once only inhabited a small peninsula in Arabia. Now it has spread all over the world because of the ability of caffeine to alter human behavior. Coffee gains entry into our metabolism by fooling us into thinking it is giving us energy. This energy is just borrowed from some other time and place, because coffee actually drains your energy. Caffeine binds to the adenosine receptor where is acts as an antagonist. The binding of adenosine to its receptor acts as an "off" switch for the cell, so caffeine disables the "off" switch and enables the cell to be "on." Caffeine not only alters the metabolism of individual organisms, but also the metabolism of the planet. Farmers across the globe stop growing edible crops and switch to coffee because it is more profitable. This disrupts local cultural metabolism. The disruption of global organization by colonialism and mercantilism was driven by coffee, sugar, spices and other commodities. It has been proposed that coffee was partly responsible for the rise of scientific thought in Vienna coffehouses. Terence McKenna has even pointed out that coffee is symbiotic with office culture. Work is another repetition compulsion. Business or "Busy-ness" is another virus that prevents us from the Great Work, the enlightenment of all beings. Mark Burch (written after downing a double cappucino) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am rhythm. I am the juice of all your religions. I am the slippery foundation of all your scientific laws. I am the pulsation which drives the drumwork of creation. I am eternally self-renewing and you are free to dance in and out of my grasp."--Principia Rhythmystica _____________________________________________________________________________ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 22:14:45 -1000 Reply-To: Mark Burch Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: science virus In-Reply-To: <96Sep6.191042hwt.370753(10)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> It is interesting how Dawkins applies a double standard to judging the relative viricity of religion and science. Religion is just an epidemic because it does not exhibit testability, evidential support, precision, etc. But these are the values of science, not religion. Dawkins is just trying to pretend like these are universal values that every meme should have. That is ridiculously ethnocentric. One could just as well say that science is an epidemic because it is incapable of producing miracles. This is the frusxtration I feel in trying to discuss science as culture-scientists are in denial that there is a culture or assume that the culture of science is objectively and universally the standard by which other cultures should be judged. In short, science is not a science, it is a religion! We should rename this list Science-As-Cult. And sure as clockwork, I will get flamed by the guardians against heresy. Normie Leavitt, where are you? If you look at the situation objectively without being biased towards either religion and science, religion is the more fit meme. Religion has reproduced itself more successfully in human minds over the last 2000 years. The science meme is a recent introduction and is fading fast. I am a high school science teacher, so I can tell you, the science meme just doesn't compute/compete in young minds. Then there is the study published in JAMA that cancer patients that were prayed for got better. The Guardians Against Heresy will spout the usual litany that it was an improperly controlled experiment blah blah blah. The Freudian slip is in the sentence: "But when you examine the underlying reasons you find that they re god ones..." > Mark Burch > "4 Is Science a Virus > > No. Not unless all computer programs are viruses. Good, useful programs > spread because people evaluate them, recommend them and pass them on. > Computer viruses spread solely because they embody the coded instructions: > ``Spread me.'' Scientific ideas, like all > memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look > superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that > scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are > exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving > behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of > standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, > quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, > universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and > so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these > virtues. > > You may find elements of epidemiology in the spread of scientific ideas, > but it will be largely descriptive epidemiology. The rapid spread of a > good idea through the scientific community may > even look like a description of a measles epidemic. But when you examine > the underlying reasons you find that they re god ones, satisfying the > demanding standards of scientific method. In the history of the spread of > fait you will find little else but epidemiology, and causal epidemiology > at that. The reason why person A believes one thing and B believes another > is simply and solely that A was born on one continent and B on another. > Testability, evidential support and the rest aren't even > remotely considered. For scientific belief, epidemiology merely comes > along afterwards an describes the history o its acceptance. For religious > belief, epidemiology is the root cause." > > >From "Viruses of the Mind" by Richard Dawkins > > (linked from Biosemiotics home > page, http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/welcome.html) > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 10:44:02 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: science virus This is a very interesting and important thread: I'm looking forward to a good debate on this list! I agree with Mark, but I would add that we should be critically aware of our religions that (unconsciously) steer our actions, and that it is important to search for the True (right) religion, that is to say knowing and loving God the Creator of the universe (including our thinking capabilities) and deriving all our faith (also our "faith" in science) from our faithful relation to this God. I'd like to discuss the role of science in our culture (and our "culture") from this perspective. What do you think about it? Arie At 22:14 7-09-96 -1000, Mark Burch wrote: >It is interesting how Dawkins applies a double standard to judging the >relative viricity of religion and science. Religion is just an epidemic >because it does not exhibit testability, evidential support, precision, >etc. But these are the values of science, not religion. Dawkins is just >trying to pretend like these are universal values that every meme should >have. That is ridiculously ethnocentric. ---snip---- >culture-scientists are in denial that there is a culture or assume that >the culture of science is objectively and universally the standard by >which other cultures should be judged. In short, science is not a science, >it is a religion! We should rename this list Science-As-Cult. >And sure as clockwork, I will get flamed by the guardians against heresy. >Normie Leavitt, where are you? > >If you look at the situation objectively without being biased towards >either religion and science, religion is the more fit meme. Religion has >reproduced itself more successfully in human minds over the last 2000 >years. The science meme is a recent introduction and is fading fast. I am >a high school science teacher, so I can tell you, the science meme just >doesn't compute/compete in young minds. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 08:40:39 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: How to unsub >for weeks i have been trying to get out of dcience-as-culture. it seems to >be impossible. all the time the machine tells me that the list is >unknown!!! You could easily have written to me and not troubled the whole forum. Bob Young If you wish to unsubscribe, do not write to the list but to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu with the message unsubscribe science-as-culture. If you write to the list to unsubscribe, you will annoy the subscribers and will not be unsubscribed. __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. 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/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:33:55 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: science virus X-To: Mark Burch Mark Burch said: > > If you look at the situation objectively without being biased towards > either religion and science, religion is the more fit meme. Religion has > reproduced itself more successfully in human minds over the last 2000 > years. The science meme is a recent introduction and is fading fast. I am > a high school science teacher, so I can tell you, the science meme just > doesn't compute/compete in young minds. > > Then there is the study published in JAMA that cancer patients that were > prayed for got better. The Guardians Against Heresy will spout the usual > litany that it was an improperly controlled experiment blah blah blah. > All this stuff about how science is a religion is interesting, as usual, but doesn't it lack a certain contextualization? Isn't it necessary to contextualize these ideologies within the fact that we are human beings trying to lead lives? Doesn't our attraction to science or religion rest on our beliefs about how certain practices will affect our lives? Don't beliefs have consequences? Mark, suppose that some charismatic dingus showed up in your community and massively converted people to the belief that such things as fluoridation of the drinking water and immunization of school children are against the will of God. Suppose this movement were at the edge of deinstitutionalizing fluordiation and immunization. Would you oppose this? If so, how? Howard S. Schwartz Schwartz@Oakland.edu http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/Schwartz/Schwartz.htm "Nothing is hidden from the lover of shadows. Mystery remains." -- Anais Nin ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:28:21 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Edward Woodhouse Subject: usable knowledge I'm a political scientist who studies how to improve the steering of technoscience. My books include THE DEMISE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY?: LESSONS FOR DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF TECHNOLOGY (YALE, 1989, with Joseph Morone). I don't mean to offend, but I confess to finding some of the discussions on this listserve a bit precious, overrefined; others start out okay but quickly go astray (in my possibly flawed judgment). I know that appraisals of such matters are subjective, and I wouldn't expect us all to agree, but I'd like to find out if others share my concern. And I want to try to persuade some of you who may initially disagree. To illustrate my claim, I invite you to compare the topics typical of this listserve with a closing passage from the best book I've read on science policy in recent years: "The most obvious place to start (reconstructing science and science policy) is by redressing the preposterous mismatch between the R&D agenda of the North and the development priorities of the South" (Daniel Sarewitz, FRONTIERS OF ILLUSION: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE POLITICS OF PROGRESS, Temple, 1996, p. 195). The book's central question is how research can best serve humanity. A great many side issues appropriately need to be investigated in analyzing such a question; but if one fails to return frequently to an anchoring question like Sarewitz's, the chances of becoming lost in the knowledge sphere are very high. Do you think that many science studies conversations give evidence that the scholars are attempting to develop usable knowledge that would help humans and their organizations steer research better? I offer one simple test: Ask yourself, "Who would do what better if they understood what this author knows?" ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 16:40:31 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Organization: Jungian Soultherapy: Healing & Mentoring of the Soul Subject: Re: usable knowledge Edward Woodhouse wrote: > > I'm a political scientist who studies how to improve the steering of > technoscience. > My books include THE DEMISE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY?: LESSONS FOR DEMOCRATIC > CONTROL OF TECHNOLOGY (YALE, 1989, with Joseph Morone). > > I don't mean to offend, but I confess to finding some of the discussions on > this listserve a bit precious, overrefined; others start out okay but > quickly go astray (in my possibly flawed judgment). I know that appraisals > of such matters are subjective, and I wouldn't expect us all to agree, but > I'd like to find out if others share my concern. And I want to try to > persuade some of you who may initially disagree. > > To illustrate my claim, I invite you to compare the topics typical of this > listserve with a closing passage from the best book I've read on science > policy in recent years: "The most obvious place to start (reconstructing > science and science policy) is by redressing the preposterous mismatch > between the R&D agenda of the North and the development priorities of the > South" (Daniel Sarewitz, FRONTIERS OF ILLUSION: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE > POLITICS OF PROGRESS, Temple, 1996, p. 195). The book's central question is > how research can best serve humanity. A great many side issues > appropriately need to be investigated in analyzing such a question; but if > one fails to return frequently to an anchoring question like Sarewitz's, the > chances of becoming lost in the knowledge sphere are very high. > > Do you think that many science studies conversations give evidence that the > scholars are attempting to develop usable knowledge that would help humans > and their organizations steer research better? I offer one simple test: Ask > yourself, "Who would do what better if they understood what this author knows?" Hear! Hear! This is the criterion, "useable knowledge." I find myself listening to the news, watching a film, reading, always with the question in the back of my mind: "How long do we have? How long can we go on living culturally as though we had not seriously thrown the biosphere out of equilibrium, as though culturally, the underlying web-of-life upon which we live, were not unraveling due to our cultural depredations?" As Einstein said about his theory of relativity: "Everything has changed, save our modes of thinking; and thus do we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." Michelle Christides http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:50:27 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Organization: Jungian Soultherapy: Healing & Mentoring of the Soul Subject: Science and/or Religion I'm going to enter the fray by doing what Jungians do, which is "synthesize the opposites at a quantum of higher level complexity with respect to the self-organizing Universe. :>) "The whole is greater than and different from the sum of the individual parts," is the dictum that theorists of the Self-Organizing Universe have used to explain why, to cite Lyall Watson, Lifetide: The Biology of the Unconscious: . . . polarity is basic to all processes in the universe, which is balanced between centrifugal forces throwing everything to the cosmic winds, and cohesive forces such as gravity, holding parts down in definite, albeit dynamic relation to one another. In biological terms, the equivalent of gravity is the life field, elan vital, soul substance, call it what you will, which brings the parts into meaningful relationship with one another. . . . an important idea . . . is that collections of cells, or groups of organisms, can fit together into a functional whole, which responds unconsciously and collectively to certain stimuli, and demonstrates properties unknown to any of the separate components. The whole is greater than, and very different from, the sum of its parts. [Simon & Schuster, 1979, p. 285] In a more recent book, The Physics of Immortality, [Anchor Books, 1994] Frank Tipler wrote: (p. xi) What happens is that intelligent life, in order to survive, must use the chaos in the physical laws to force the evolution of the universe into one of a very restricted number of possible futures. Its very survival requires life to impose order on the universe. Taking biology into account allows us to do the physics of the far future. In some 120 pages of calculations, he goes on to assert the Intelligence of the Universe. In Medieval Western philosophy, the *language* of which has atrophied in the mind raised in the scientific culture, the world-view was that the human species was at the nodal point in its consciousness "between angels & beasts" (we are speaking of more than animals here, but of a sub-animal consciousness called *evil*) brought about by the meeting of "Ascending Matter" and "Descending Spirit." Science would call the former "Evolution"; there is no analogue, but perhaps for Tipler's equations, for "Descending Spirit." At least, we could say that if we refuse to interpret the meaning of E = mc2. "Energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light," is the formula for the transition between energy and matter that takes place at the threshold -- of what? The threshold of the Big Bang, of life, of death --- between the two universes of Spirit and Matter. "Spirit" is another of those medieval words -- we say consciousness today. And "traditional" academic programs in Psychology (less than a century old) frown upon the investigation into consciousness, at the same time that they use the name: "study-thought of the soul," "Psyche + Logos." RELIGIO-RELICTARE means "to tie together," what? The INNER WORLD of Consciousness with the OUTER WORLD of Matter. SCIO-SCIERE means "to know" in the factual sense of "savoir" in French, hence in the EXTRAverted (turned outward) sense. MEANING comes from the VALUE component to LIFE: whether an ACTION results in the suffering or the healing and energizing of LIFE is the POWER of the PRESENT -- an eternal moment, which cleaves past and future. We are in the NOW what we have become. We may BE what we have learned if we can respond from the INNER BEING which is ETERNAL ENERGY THAT HAS NEITHER BEEN CREATED NOR DESTROYED. This Energy is the Intelligence of the Universe growing into Matter in Life-forms, and crystallizing into Matter in the nuclear fusion of stars, which condense the planets, Einstein's equation, which, as he said, "has changed all save our modes of thinking and thus do we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." The subjective or INTROverted [inward-turned] conscious human-being (it does take a certain level of complexity!) will become aware of the DNA encodings in one's consciousness in the symbolic meaning and language of thoughts that come into one's neo-cortex after filtering through the whole sensory organism which carries it around. This in fact is the "Incarnation of the Sons and Daughters of God & Goddess, the Energy and Matter of the Intelligent & Creative Universes (Two of them.)" Shall I quit while I'm ahead? As I thought about whether to write this on SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE, it occurred to me that I had seen it in your recent introductions. I therefore, beg your indulgence for the length of this posting: I have taken some excerpts of the last week of self-introductions that pertain to what I am saying here, perhaps those of you whom I've quoted may understand the convergences. May I also say that I have put a twenty-page paper on my website, which I delivered in a talk to the Unitarian Church (some of the congregation of which had been ruffled by the use of the word "God" previously by the Church when they offered a social protest as a congregation)! Michelle Christides http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html On 5th Sept. in my self-introduction, I wrote in part: Science IS our culture, but there is a time-lag between the realizations of those on the frontiers of science and the common understanding of the general population. Accordingly, we are still at about the level of understanding of Physics in the implications of relativity between the two world wars, when it comes to our present-day culture. People are aware that the language of our cultural traditions has lost its meaning. It seems as though we dissipate in consciousness along with the molecular disintegration of the body -- that we have a "one and only lifetime." In reply to Mark Burch's introduction of the topic "Science a virus?" in reaction to Dawkins' Viruses of the Mind, re: "for religious belief, epedemiology is a root cause." Arie Dirkzwager wrote on 8th Sept.: I agree with Mark, but I would add that we should be critically aware of our religions that (unconsciously) steer our actions, and that it is important to search for the True (right) religion, that is to say knowing and loving God the Creator of the universe (including our thinking capabilities) and deriving all our faith (also our "faith" in science) from our faithful relation to this God. I'd like to discuss the role of science in our culture (and our "culture") from this perspective. Howard Schwartz added his response to Mark's posting: All this stuff about how science is a religion is interesting, as usual, but doesn't it lack a certain contextualization? Isn't it necessary to contextualize these ideologies within the fact that we are human beings trying to lead lives? Doesn't our attraction to science or religion rest on our beliefs about how certain practices will affect our lives? Don't beliefs have consequences? Gene Moser a recipient of H-NEXA, cross transmitted by Michael Gregory, responded to Mark: Mark Burch wrote >>>>>Religion has reproduced itself more successfully in human minds over the last 2000 years. My only fault with this statement is the "2000 years". It is closer to 20000 and probably much more than that. There are, after all, many more religions than Christianity. I do agree that one should not judge religion by the standards of science or science by the standards of religion. This is also true of cultures. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:54:14 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Organization: Jungian Soultherapy: Healing & Mentoring of the Soul Subject: Science and/or Religion On Sept. 1st, Brad McCormick wrote in part of his self-introduction: My belief is that a key ingredient in the antidote to the hazards of advanced science and technology does not lie in any romantic "going back", but in going forward to a situation in which scientific and technical (and all daily life) activity is done in a context of universal lifeworld-oriented reflection and consequent self-understanding. This would entail overcoming the specialist's form of life (in which his or her "personal life" is split off from their work), and the replacement of specialists by reflective-practitioners who would integrate their specialist knowledge into their personal and *social* daily life and a disciplined, continually elaborated self-understanding thereof. On 2nd Sept. Bjarne Fjeldsensen wrote in part of his self-introduction: My position and interest is basically in cognitive psychology. The more specific area of interest is man-machine. Examples here are technical mobility aids for the blind and aviation and psychology. Flying IFR (relying only on instruments compared with seeing the ground) has a lot in common with blind mobility, where a blind has to rely on "artificial information". There exists e.g. "auditory spectacles" which give consistent information about the surroundings . . . On 4th Sept., Stephen Clark wrote in part of his self-introduction: My work includes discussion of ethological and biological information relevant to the study of ethics, and the metaphysical foundations of science. On 5th Sept., Jesper Hoffmeyer wrote in part of his self-introduction: . . . scientific understanding is deeply bounded by the horizon of science as culture. And this causes severe myopia in the theoretical approach of modern biology, which is what concerns me at the professional level. Predominant patterns of social and technological use of biological theory reflects (reinforces?) these biases. So my concern is not so much "history of biology" as it is natural history as such and evolutionary theory. I would like to push biological science (as culture) away from its genocentric manners. Biological information should be seen as something very different from physical information (=E1 la Shannon). My own approach concernes the development of a "biosemiotics", i.e. a reframing of biological theory in a semiotic (=3D sign theoretic) context. Shortly stated: Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic creatures. At 16:58 5/9/96, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: >Might "eternal return of the same", which I think is an unclear notion >in Nietzsche, be understood as: the eternal recurrence of self-overcoming, >i.e., paradoxically, as the open-ended repetition of the act of >reflective appropriation, which, precisely, is *not* repetition but >conscious re-new-al? On 6th Sept,. citing the immediate above, Bert Mosselmans replied: In my view - I am not a specialist - it is indeed a conscious re-new-al, meaning that the free individual, not repressed by abstract structures, re-builds the world from within. It is therefore indeed not repetition, but it is placed in a world in which everything occurs over and over again. It signifies that every individual action is in need of much consideration, since this action will, once done, occur ever and ever again in the circularity of time. Any comments on this ? Arie Dirkswager wrote on 5th Sept. in response to Jesper Hoffmeyer: [ Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because >thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic >creatures.] . . . Sounds interesting but also a little bit obscure to me. Could you expand a bit? Doesn't "sign" imply a sender and a reciever of the "sign"? Who is the "sender" in this case and what is the message the sign conveys? (I assume you didn't mean the "message" contained in DNA). Or do you mean by "semiotic" that we see some coherence and "meaning" in what we observe (in biology or in physics or other -social- sciences)? In that case the context is whatever meaning the universe and everything in it has (or what meaning we see in (of) it). Then your concern may be more philosophical about the place of biology in the totality of science and the "meaning" of science in the totality of human activity (culture)? On 6th Sept. Jesper Hoffmeyer added as an example of his theory above: Now to the question of DNA. Yes, I definitely think that DNA should be seen as an assembly of higly organized digitally coded signs. Which implies that they have to be interpreted. And in this case the obvious interpretant is the cyto-structure of the fertilized egg. The egg is the only entity in the world to know how to use the DNA for constructing babies. Also more on this in the above mentioned publications. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:05:30 +1200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Sinclair, Jim" Organization: The Open Polytechnic of NZ Subject: Re: science virus In-Reply-To: Of course William Burroughs got there first with his "Language is a virus from outer space" quote. We ignore the artists and poets in our midst at our peril. Jim Sinclair, T.O.P.N.Z, Pvte Bag 31914, Lower Hutt, New Zealand ph: +64 4 570 5506 fax: +64 4 566 5727 internet: sinjim@topnz.ac.nz ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 17:32:35 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: reusable knowledge In-Reply-To: <96Sep8.082857hwt.370423(4)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> Different strokes for different fokes. I am a mystic, so I am informed by subtle energies which I guide through my consciousness through my intuition. I like to analyse the Big Picture holistically. Others want to know how to build a better mousetrap today. Immanence vs. transcendence. We will have to rely on Michelle to provide for us the unity of opposites which will allow us to coexist in this memespace. A list is like a big meadow. You set up your scene on one side of the meadow. I set up my scene on the other side. The listreaders stroll around and enact their own scenes autonomously or in response to others. It is a complexly evolving memescape, unfolding unguided to no instrumentality whatsoever. Is the steersman in the realm of doing or of being? Mark Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Edward Woodhouse wrote: > I'm a political scientist who studies how to improve the steering of > technoscience. > My books include THE DEMISE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY?: LESSONS FOR DEMOCRATIC > CONTROL OF TECHNOLOGY (YALE, 1989, with Joseph Morone). > > I don't mean to offend, but I confess to finding some of the discussions on > this listserve a bit precious, overrefined; others start out okay but > quickly go astray (in my possibly flawed judgment). I know that appraisals > of such matters are subjective, and I wouldn't expect us all to agree, but > I'd like to find out if others share my concern. And I want to try to > persuade some of you who may initially disagree. > > Do you think that many science studies conversations give evidence that the > scholars are attempting to develop usable knowledge that would help humans > and their organizations steer research better? I offer one simple test: Ask > yourself, "Who would do what better if they understood what this author knows?" > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:17:25 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jennifer Tannoch-Bland Subject: Re: Information of interest to subscribers to this forum In-Reply-To: <199609050829.SAA08819@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> It is reassuring and inspirational to hear of scientists with the imagination of Jesper Hoffmeyer working within the scientific institutional system, even if he does consider his politics somewhat faded or jaded. It seems to me he is actually living the political life. Jenny Tannoch-Bland On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Jesper Hoffmeyer wrote: > Bob Young wrote: > > >I would appreciate it if those of you have not already done so > >would introduce yourself and include something about the reasons for your > >interest in the forum. > > Well, I guess 'science as culture' - broadly understood - has been central > to my work as a biochemist ever since I read Radical Science Journal in the > 70ties. I may have lost some of my political convictions from those days > but I am still convinced that scientific understanding is deeply bounded by > the horizon of science as culture. And this causes severe myopia in the > theoretical approach of modern biology, which is what concerns me at the > professional level. Predominant patterns of social and technological use of > biological theory reflects (reinforces?) these biases. > > So my concern is not so much "history of biology" as it is natural history > as such and evolutionary theory. I would like to push biological science > (as culture) away from its genocentric manners. Biological information > should be seen as something very different from physical information (=E1 la > Shannon). > > My own approach concernes the development of a "biosemiotics", i.e. a > reframing of biological theory in a semiotic (=3D sign theoretic) context. > Shortly stated: Molecules are basic to life, but they are basic because > thay are signs, and signs have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic > creatures. > > I do not expect many people from this list to take an interest in such > intra-scientific matters. And my purpose in subscribing to this list is > mainly to keep in touch with the area, and may be pick up some unexpected > inspiration. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > University of Copenhagen > Institute of Molecular Biology, The Biosemiotics Group > Jesper Hoffmeyer tel +45 3532 2032 > Solvgade 83 fax +45 3532 2040 > DK-1307 Copenhagen K e-mail hoffmeyer@mermaid.molbio.ku.dk > http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Hoffmeyer.html > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 18:03:48 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: science virus X-To: Howard Schwartz In-Reply-To: <96Sep8.073455hwt.587022(8)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> Toothpaste contains sugar. Why would 9 out 10 dentists recommend brushing your teeth with a cariogenic substance? Perhaps because 9 out of 10 dentists would be unemployed if people stopped having cavities? Why do dentists insist on subjecting people to implants containing mercury, a potent neurotoxin and mind-altering substance? Of course, there is no scientific evidence that mercury fillings have any harmful side effects (according to dentists). There is also no scientific evidence linking smoking and lung cancer (according to Philip Morris). You are right, there is a contextualization needed in this discussion. I think a good one would be unenlightened self-interest, or false objectivity. Franz Fanon (an Algerian) wrote: "For the colonized person, objectivity is always directed against him." When a kid hears, "We know what is best for you," he knows he is going to get screwed. In Apocalypse Now, Kurtz was describing an experience he had while immunizing children in the Vietnamese jungle. They came back the next day to find a pile of little immunized children arms. What is the horror? Is it the price that the other will pay for autonomy, or is the price that we will exact to remain in control? Science and religion are equally corrupt avenues of coercion. Do what thy will is the whole of the law. Love under will, Mark Burch _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Howard Schwartz wrote: > All this stuff about how science is a religion is interesting, as usual, > but doesn't it lack a certain contextualization? Isn't it necessary to > contextualize these ideologies within the fact that we are human beings > trying to lead lives? Doesn't our attraction to science or religion rest on > our beliefs about how certain practices will affect our lives? Don't > beliefs have consequences? > > Mark, suppose that some charismatic dingus showed up in your community > and massively converted people to the belief that such things as > fluoridation of the drinking water and immunization of school children are > against the will of God. Suppose this movement were at the edge of > deinstitutionalizing fluordiation and immunization. Would you oppose this? > If so, how? > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 23:21:18 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Meyer Subject: Re: Fanon Mark Burch writes: > You are right, there is a contextualization needed in this > discussion. I think a good one would be unenlightened self-interest, > or false objectivity. Franz Fanon (an Algerian) wrote: "For the > colonized person, objectivity is always directed against him." I don't suppose you have the reference for this quotation? Actually, Fanon was born in Guadeloupe and schooled in Martinique, both in the French Antilles. He studied medicine and psychiatry in France and married a French woman, only moving to Algeria when he was almost 30 to take a job as the head of the Psychiatric Department at the Blida-Joinville Hospital. Despite his support for the Algerian indepence movement, I don't think he would have considered himself an Algerian. David Meyer ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 20:35:06 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mark Burch Subject: Re: Fanon X-To: David Meyer In-Reply-To: <96Sep8.202033hwt.371027(8)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> I found the quotation without a source given in Anthony Wilden's "System and Structure." I think Wilden was At UCSD at about the same time as Marcuse. How is the New Indicator doing? Thanks for the info about Fanon. Mark _____________________________________________________________________________ On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, David Meyer wrote: > I don't suppose you have the reference for this quotation? > > Actually, Fanon was born in Guadeloupe and schooled in Martinique, > both in the French Antilles. He studied medicine and psychiatry in > France and married a French woman, only moving to Algeria when he was > almost 30 to take a job as the head of the Psychiatric Department at > the Blida-Joinville Hospital. Despite his support for the Algerian > indepence movement, I don't think he would have considered himself an > Algerian. > > David Meyer > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:17:26 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Wessels Subject: Re: science virus X-To: Mark Burch In-Reply-To: <96Sep7.221423hwt.370950(9)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Mark Burch wrote: > It is interesting how Dawkins applies a double standard to judging the > relative viricity of religion and science. Religion is just an epidemic > because it does not exhibit testability, evidential support, precision, > etc. But these are the values of science, not religion. Dawkins is just > trying to pretend like these are universal values that every meme should > have. That is ridiculously ethnocentric. One could just as well say that > science is an epidemic because it is incapable of producing miracles. I think you have it wrong about Dawkins trying to pretend about anything. There is no doubt that western religion and science has come to believe in an almost diametricly opposed set of values. I think scientific philosophy holds that there are universal truths (not values). These truths are based on factual data, or at least atempts at factual data. The memes of science has only aquired strength in relatively recent times because its findings are now vastly extensive, rigorous (translated BORING in American culture), sometimes counter intuitive and no it doesn't offer the salvation of miracles. Fact finding doesn't offer the pacification of social and exitential fear. Fact finding doesn't offer salvation of your soul. Science is by and far the process finding and integration of facts. The practice of scientific investigation how potentially universal truths are put together. Science is dynamic and uncertain it function to find understanding. Religion is the belief that the universal truths are already known because some holy text says so. Religion offers stability and certainty, even when it contradicts the facts, which is very emotional comforting. This > is the frusxtration I feel in trying to discuss science as > culture-scientists are in denial that there is a culture or assume that > the culture of science is objectively and universally the standard by > which other cultures should be judged. In short, science is not a science, > it is a religion! We should rename this list Science-As-Cult. > And sure as clockwork, I will get flamed by the guardians against heresy. > Normie Leavitt, where are you? > > If you look at the situation objectively without being biased towards > either religion and science, religion is the more fit meme. Religion has > reproduced itself more successfully in human minds over the last 2000 > years. The science meme is a recent introduction and is fading fast. I am > a high school science teacher, so I can tell you, the science meme just > doesn't compute/compete in young minds. Some form of religion has probably been around for millions of years. Your form of judeo-christian (I'm assuming this is what you believe in) has only been around 2000 years. Of course the religion you believe in today is vastly different from these original believers -- changed by the irrefutable facts discover by secular science and culture. You are probably right that religion is a more fit meme than science because it feeds on human fear and ignorance. But the shear weight of scientific understanding in todays world is pushing judeo-christian to the theological/philosophical ropes and it is my hope that with in the next century (if we survive) that it will go down for the count or at least science will win by a TKO. As for the high school students not liking science this is truly dangerous to US economic supremacy in competing in a world economy that is increasingly dependant on people that are scientifically literate. > > Then there is the study published in JAMA that cancer patients that were > prayed for got better. The Guardians Against Heresy will spout the usual > litany that it was an improperly controlled experiment blah blah blah. > > The Freudian slip is in the sentence: "But when you examine the underlying > reasons you find that they re god ones..." > > > Mark Burch > > [snip] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. | Religion is answers that may never be questioned. | --J.J. Hahn --------------------------------------------------- + -------------------- For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care. | Donald F.Wessels,Jr -A.E. Housman | wessels@hawaii.edu xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:06:40 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Olivier Joseph Subject: Re: Fanon >Mark Burch writes: > >> You are right, there is a contextualization needed in this >> discussion. I think a good one would be unenlightened self-interest, >> or false objectivity. Franz Fanon (an Algerian) wrote: "For the >> colonized person, objectivity is always directed against him." > >I don't suppose you have the reference for this quotation? > >Actually, Fanon was born in Guadeloupe and schooled in Martinique, >both in the French Antilles. He studied medicine and psychiatry in >France and married a French woman, only moving to Algeria when he was >almost 30 to take a job as the head of the Psychiatric Department at >the Blida-Joinville Hospital. Despite his support for the Algerian >indepence movement, I don't think he would have considered himself an >Algerian. Hmmmm ... hard to answer ... As you know, Algeria was not a *colony* but a french department and that is the reason why its independance was so traumatizing for the *white* french living there. Some of them considered that they was Algerians and choosed the Algerian nationality after the independance : Bishop Pierre Claverie, who has been killed a few weeks ago by pseudo-muslim terrorists was Algerian ... Olivier Whose great-great-grandparents, great-grandparent, grandparents and mother was french colonizers in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, La Reunion and Morroco (but not in Algeria) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:55:18 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Science and Stupidity At the most fundamental level science is simply about rationality - do we need evidence to support what we believe or do we simply believe that wish we would like to be true? Microsoft Encarta has the following definition: Science (Lat., scientia, from scire, to know ), term used in its broadest sense to denote systematized knowledge in any field, but usually applied to the organization of objectively verifiable sense experiencecience (Lat., scientia, from scire, "to know"), term used in its broadest sense to denote systematized knowledge in any field, but usually applied to the organization of objectively verifiable sense experience It's a small (though philosophically complex) step from needing evidence to support our beliefts to having a systematic way of collecting and analysing it - the scientific method. The fact is that all of us in Western culture defer to the findings of science. If you feel ill do you cast some runes, or try and read a chicken's entrails, or do you go and see your doctor for the latest scientific diagnostic techniques? If your television set breaks down do you call the priest to exorcise the demons that are causing the problem or do you get a television repair man? Any individual scientist or group of scientists may have any number of prejudices, vices and absurd beliefs, but a systematically assembled body of facts, and a method cannot. Scientific theories such as the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution hold sway because of their abilitiy to synthesise exisiting knowledge and to *predict*,. When the facts demand it theories are superseded by new ones, just as the three-hundred year old theory of gravitational attraction was superseded by the Theory of Relativity. For any irrationally held belief, creationism, racism, scientology, or whatever, it is inconceivable that any fact or body of knowledge could make any difference. If we have no way of verifiying our beliefs, and no way reaching conclusions about them there is no reason why we shouldn't believe that evolution is bunkum, that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, that negros should be slaves because they are intellectually inferior, that temples should be consecrated by the tearing out of twenty thousand living hearts, or that the moon is made of green cheese. Without science we are subject to the tyranny of unreason, a tyranny which known no bounds and under which any practice can be justified and under which human beings lose control of their own lives. Ian Pitchford ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 11:45:43 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: science virus At 21:17 8-09-96 -1000, Donald Wessels wrote: >On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Mark Burch wrote: > >> It is interesting how Dawkins applies a double standard to judging the >> relative viricity of religion and science. Religion is just an epidemic >> because it does not exhibit testability, evidential support, precision, >> etc. But these are the values of science, not religion. Dawkins is just >> trying to pretend like these are universal values that every meme should >> have. That is ridiculously ethnocentric. One could just as well say that >> science is an epidemic because it is incapable of producing miracles. > > I think you have it wrong about Dawkins trying to pretend about >anything. There is no doubt that western religion and science has come to >believe in an almost diametricly opposed set of values. I think scientific >philosophy holds that there are universal truths (not values). These >truths are based on factual data, or at least atempts at factual data. You should make a distinction between the (may be: unknown) *facts* of (in, about) the universe and our *observation* and *knowledge* of those facts. The *facts* are the object of our (subjective) *observation* and resulting (subjective) *knowledge*. "Truth" concerns the *relation* between the objects and the subjective knowledge that either is "true" or "false" depending upon the relation between the content of the "knowledge" and the objective "state of affairs" in (and about) the universe. This relation is again an object we can have subjective knowledge about. This knowledge again is either true or false. I know the universe is created by an act God and stays in existence and develops by His continuing concern. I know this knowledge is true. I also know that the universe began with the "Big Bang", before which there wasn't even "time". I'm less sure this knowledge is true as science is still in development. You may have other "knowledge", especially knowledge about my knowledge being true or false. Your and mine knowledge are subjective and God knows which is true (probably neither). It is a serious fallacy to reduce and restrict knowledge only to scientific knowledge, in my knowledge base there is no contradiction between scientific and religious knowledge, on the contrary: my religious knowledge enables me to better understand scientific knowledge. In the mean time all (subjective) knowledge (also religious) developes historically and is determined by the cultural context of the moment. But that's not all: we know that our knowledge is largely and mostly determined by the objective facts. To me that's not a loose belief, it's based upon the knowledge that God created a coherent evolving universe with objects and subjects in a meaningful coherent relation and it's based upon the knowledge that we with our human consciousness are meaningful parts of that universe. I think that a discussion of "values" goes in an analoguous way. > Fact finding doesn't offer the pacification of social and >exitential fear. Fact finding doesn't offer salvation of your soul. Those are outdated, mediaeval "religious" concepts. Such fear is understandable, but we can know it is unjustified, so "pacification" is besides the point. "Salvation of your soul" is an expression that has had it's time IMHO, I'm not Roman Catholic! Use of such concepts and expressions shows a stand-still of thinking about the universe and the humans in it and it shows a lack of religious development. >Science is by and far the process finding and integration of facts. The >practice of scientific investigation how potentially universal truths are >put together. Science is dynamic and uncertain it function to >find understanding. Religion is the belief that the universal truths are >already known because some holy text says so. Religion is not! Some fundamentalists THINK that's religion. Are you a fundamentalist? >Religion offers >stability and certainty, (Our subjective) "religion" does not! God and His love does. In it's original meaning (the Latin "religio") religion mean the bond between God and mankind. >even when it contradicts the facts, When there is contradiction there is something wrong with our knowledge and we have to learn, being very modest about our presumed knowledge, even when it is "religious": it just might be wrong, "science" is unable to judge. The first Russian astronaut made the joke that he didn't see God above ("high up the sky"). It's quite stupid to take this literally to "prove" ones atheism with "facts". >which is very >emotional comforting. Not to me, I'm uneasy with contradictions and I love facts, especially the religious ones ;-) > You are probably right that religion is a more fit meme than >science because it feeds on human fear and ignorance. Isn't SCIENCE our way to overcome ignorance and (scientific) TECHNOLOGY our way to overcome fear? You'd better ask: "How come, "fear" and "ignorance"?". I think because of a bad conscience. Neither my scientific activity nor my religion is fed by fear. I think cocksureness based on faith in "science" is fed by (religious) ignorance. >But the shear >weight of scientific understanding in todays world is pushing >judeo-christian to the theological/philosophical ropes and it is my hope >that with in the next century (if we survive) that it will go down for the >count or at least science will win by a TKO. Your words, your fight, judeo-christian religion has no weapons and thus is always "to the ropes", it does not fight your way and does not attack "science", you attack religion like Don Quichote the windmills. > As for the high school students not liking science this is truly >dangerous to US economic supremacy in competing in a world economy that is >increasingly dependant on people that are scientifically literate. Is that your top-value: "US economic supremacy"? At all cost? 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, 9 Sep 1996 12:54:40 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity At 08:55 9-09-96 UT, Ian Pitchford wrote: >At the most fundamental level science is simply >about rationality - do we need evidence to support what >we believe or do we simply believe that wish we >would like to be true? When there is hard evidence AGAINST whatever we belief we'd better stop believing it (Popper's scientific methodology). When we have evidence SUPPORTING our beliefs we'd better be careful and critical: the belief might still be wrong (everyday "evidence" supports the belief that we live in an Euclidian space on a flat earth, it took mankind some time to discover otherwise). Sometimes we have beliefs without "enough" evidence (especially regarding the future) and we act upon those beliefs. It would be stupidity to mark these beliefs as false as long as there is NO evidence: the evidence supporting or falsifying such beliefs lay in the future and we trust our common sense and all (scientific) knowledge we have at this moment. May be it is even very fruitfull to "believe that wish we would like to be true" and *make* it true by our actions (self-fulfilling prophesy, a well known fact of psychology). >For any irrationally held belief, creationism, racism, scientology, >or whatever, it is inconceivable that any fact or body of knowledge could make >any difference. > >If we have no way of verifiying our beliefs, and no way reaching conclusions >about them there is no reason why we shouldn't believe Right you are! But your examples are rethoric bunkum: >that evolution is >bunkum, that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, that negros should >be slaves because they are intellectually inferior, that temples should be >consecrated by the tearing out of twenty thousand living hearts, or that the >moon is made of green cheese. The merit of some of them is that they make us aware of the fact that our knowledge (belief) is limitated and under development. It would be stupidity to think that people in the year 2300 wouldn't make our beliefs as "scientists" anno 1996 in Western culture as ridiculous as we do with the beliefs of people living some millennia ago. >Without science we are subject to the tyranny of unreason, >a tyranny which known no bounds and under which any practice >can be justified and under which human beings lose control >of their own lives. It is stupidity to think that with science (and technology) as such we have "control". What about the "tyranny" of our economy and multi-nationals, the ecological damage, what kind of "control" is it we have of the lives of people in the third world and "underdeveloped" countries? Do people there with our "science" have control of their own lives? Much of our science, scientific technology and scientific economy and politics is no more than nicely packaged and advertised "tyranny of unreason" or even anti-reason. I think you should have said "without true religion we are subject to .... (all kinds of evil)". To religious people science can be a great help, they will apply it wisely (I hope) and can use it to fight *some* very evident excrescences of our natural, human, "unreason". Science as such is not bad and religion is no substitute for science. To suggest that there is a competition between science and religion is promoting bad religion. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 12:37:09 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Clark Subject: Re: science and religion In-Reply-To: <199609090720.IAA10540@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Donald Wessels" at Sep 8, 96 09:17:26 pm I doubt if there is anything to be gained by fighting the old `science versus religion' routine yet again: it's such an ill-formed dichotomy, and so infected by mythistorical anecdotes and lousy philosophy, that no one's original opinion is ever changed. Nonetheless, I feel constrained to respond to Donald's comments: > There is no doubt that western religion and science has come to > believe in an almost diametricly opposed set of values. Since neither religion nor science (being abstract objects or possibly social institutions) believe anything at all, I presume that we must construe this as: `there is no doubt that religious believers in the West and scientists (in the West?) have completely different values'. Since plenty of scientists are religious there is good reason to doubt this. And if it were true that scientists disbelieved entirely in the value of honesty, courage, charity and so on we would have every reason to distrust and fear them. > Science is dynamic and uncertain it function to > find understanding. In my experience scientists are often extraordinarily certain about things, and deeply resent challenges to their authority. In this they are of course exactly like every one else... > Religion is the belief that the universal truths are > already known because some holy text says so. Not all religions are scriptural; very few insist that the text is all, or that we can never discover new implications of old practice. And scientists have foundational beliefs as well. > Religion offers > stability and certainty, even when it contradicts the facts, which is very > emotional comforting. How *comforting* do you imagine it to be to believe that what one does may have infinite significance? It would be a lot easier and more restful to imagine that nothing we do will matter in the end. And what facts do you have in mind? > > Some form of religion has probably been around for millions of > years. Your form of judeo-christian (I'm assuming this is what you believe > in) has only been around 2000 years. Talk of `judaeo-christian' religion is actually rather offensive to a good many practising jews. There is indeed a monotheistic tradition stemming (mythistorically) from Abraham (which includes Islam) but the different strands aren't identical. > You are probably right that religion is a more fit meme than > science because it feeds on human fear and ignorance. No it doesn't (I can be dogmatic too). Religious practices (stories, rituals, laws) are ways of reinforcing attitudes and emotions that seem appropriate. There are relatively `stoical' religious forms (including `science', when this is adopted as a structure for an entire life rather than being something that some people do for part of it). Stoical forms, though, tend to mutate into passivity or despair. > But the shear > weight of scientific understanding in todays world is pushing > judeo-christian to the theological/philosophical ropes and it is my hope > that with in the next century (if we survive) that it will go down for the > count or at least science will win by a TKO. No, it isn't. I hereby challenge Donald to name any single credal statement of (say) the orthodox Christian Church which has been refuted by science (check the Nicene, the Apostles', the Athanasian). Or even made less likely. Christian creeds are certainly the most bizarre of the Abrahamic religions'. If even they survive, other creeds also do. And so do non-Abrahamic religions like Buddhism (in its various forms) or Hindu. Western science, historically, grew out of theological convictions, notably the wildly unlikely idea that creatures like us have access to the principles that govern the entire cosmos, that what seems humanly reasonable will turn out to be cosmically true. See (if anyone is interested) my books *From Athens to Jerusalem* (Clarendon PRess 1984), The Mysteries of Religion (Blackwell 1986), God's World and the Great Awakening (Clarendon Press 1991) Stephen Clark srlclark@liverpool.ac.uk http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/philos.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 13:45:53 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity Arie Dirkzwager wrote: When there is hard evidence AGAINST whatever we belief we'd better stop believing it (Popper's scientific methodology). When we have evidence SUPPORTING our beliefs we'd better be careful and critical: the belief might still be wrong (everyday "evidence" supports the belief that we live in an Euclidian space on a flat earth, it took mankind some time to discover otherwise). REPLY: This is the core of science - all scientific knowledge is provisional and open to amendment or complete refutation. Religious 'knowledge' is not. Believers insist on the validity of their beliefs whatever the evidence, and my point is that if no evidence is required then any belief is acceptable and all belief systems have equal validity. In this sense the beliefs of Chrisitians are no different to those of the priests who celebrated the dedication of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan by sacrificing eighty thousand people over four days. ================================================= It is stupidity to think that with science (and technology) as such we have "control". What about the "tyranny" of our economy and multi-nationals, the ecological damage, what kind of "control" is it we have of the lives of people in the third world and "underdeveloped" countries? Do people there with our "science" have control of their own lives? Much of our science, scientific technology and scientific economy and politics is no more than nicely packaged and advertised "tyranny of unreason" or even anti-reason REPLY: Scientific knowledge brings the ability to predict the behaviour of those systems that are understood. To cite examples of things that are not understood and cannot be controlled says nothing. Do you suggest that we adopt some sort of mystical approach to their solution? ================================================= I think you should have said "without true religion we are subject to .... (all kinds of evil)". To religious people science can be a great help, they will apply it wisely (I hope) and can use it to fight *some* very evident excrescences of our natural, human, "unreason". REPLY: What true religion? Christianity, Hinduism, The Religion of Huitzilopochtli? If no evidence is required to support your belief system you can choose any of these. They are all equally vald. Ian ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:55:08 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity At 13:45 9-09-96 UT, Ian wrote: >Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > > When there is hard evidence AGAINST whatever we belief we'd better >stop believing it (Popper's scientific methodology). When we have evidence >SUPPORTING our beliefs we'd better be careful and critical: the belief might >still be wrong (everyday "evidence" supports the belief that we live in an >Euclidian space on a flat earth, it took mankind some time to discover >otherwise). > >REPLY: This is the core of science - all scientific >knowledge is provisional and open to amendment or >complete refutation. I explicitely used the word "belief" instead of "knowledge", when you use "knowledge" you'd better omit the restriction "scientific" >Religious 'knowledge' is not. You can refute my religion, so it is. When you do so I know you are probably wrong and I have the strong faith that you will be convinced by the evidence eventually (after death?) and be happy with it. >Believers insist on the validity of their beliefs whatever the evidence, and >my point is that if no evidence is required >then any belief is acceptable and all belief systems have >equal validity. In this sense the beliefs of Chrisitians are no different to >those of the priests who celebrated the >dedication of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan by sacrificing >eighty thousand people over four days. From a reduced "scientific" viewpoint you are right: all knowledge is subjective and it does not prove itself nor is it proven by evidence (Popper: it can be falsified by evidence, not proven, evidence can only "support" by not contradicting our beliefs). Christianity survived and it's beliefs and values are largely taken over by our culture, those priests and their cults are passee, that's some supporting evidence (not final of course). No "objective evidence observed by the senses" (scientific evidence) supports Christian religion, good considerate thinking may. See "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought", a masterpiece by the Dutch philosopher H. Dooyeweerd. He does not present "evidence" but makes it very clear that good scientific thinking fits quite well with Christian Faith and even is enlightened by it. >================================================= It is stupidity to >think that with science (and technology) as such >we have "control". What about the "tyranny" of our economy and >multi-nationals, the ecological damage, what kind of "control" is >it we have of the lives of people in the third world and "underdeveloped" >countries? Do people there with our "science" have control of their >own lives? Much of our science, scientific technology and scientific economy >and politics is no more than nicely packaged and advertised "tyranny of >unreason" or even anti-reason > >REPLY: Scientific knowledge brings the ability to predict >the behaviour of those systems that are understood. To cite examples of things >that are not understood and cannot be controlled says nothing. Do you suggest >that we adopt some >sort of mystical approach to their solution? Nothing mystic in "Love God above all and thy neighbour like thou self". The problem is we don't. We don't even try to know and understand God or our "neighbour". We only love ourself (and some selected people that suit us) and act accordingly. I think Christ as quite ironic when he added "like thou self": we can't even love ourselves in a true constructive way that does not harm others, but still we are quite fanatic in our self-love and egocentrism. >================================================= >I think you should have said "without true religion we are >subject to .... (all kinds of evil)". To religious people science can be a >great help, they will apply it wisely (I hope) and can use it to fight >*some* very evident excrescences of our natural, human, "unreason". > >REPLY: What true religion? Christianity, Hinduism, The Religion of >Huitzilopochtli? If no evidence is required to support your belief system you >can choose any of these. They are all equally valid. You can and have to "choose" (add only "complete and only faith in science and it's method that recognizes only a very special kind of "evidence" that's evolutionary quite new and not yet completely cristallized and in it's final shape" to your range of religions) knowing that they are NOT "all equally valid". We are responsible for our choice of religion and this choice has serious consequences in practical life and academic (scientific) behavior. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:15:29 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Marvin Bolt Subject: Re: science virus Richard Dawkins claims the existence of virtues in science and that they are laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Perhaps he should read some of the recent sociology of science literature, but I'll let it pass, as many others have already shown the rather dubious nature of that claim. By contrast, he says: "Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues." Again, I have many doubts, but I'll shoot at a much easier target: Does Dawkins's complete and only faith in scientific method meet his own stringent requirements? I thought not. While I'm at it, I'll add to Arie Dirkzwager's comment: "Science as such is not bad and religion is no substitute for science. To suggest that there is a competition between science and religion is promoting bad religion." It promotes pretty bad science, too. This debate is not really about science or religion as typically understood. Frank Turner and (at the risk of sounding ingratiating) Bob Young have written much of interest about the debate and have said it better than I can in the limited time I have. Suffice it to say that the debate is not epistemological in nature. Marvin Bolt ------------------------------------------------------------ History and Philosophy of Science Dept: (219) 631-5015 University of Notre Dame Fax: (219) 631-4268 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Home: (219) 234-1584 Bolt.1@nd.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ Assistant Curator (as of June 17, 1996) History of Astronomy Department Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum 1300 South Lake Shore Drive Direct:(312) 322-0540 Chicago, IL 60605 Fax: (312) 341-9935 Marv_Bolt@orbit.adler.uchicago.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:37:43 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Marvin Bolt Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity Ian Pitchford writes: > This is the core of science - all scientific >knowledge is provisional and open to amendment or >complete refutation. Even the theory of evolution for those who have been mentioned previously in this list? I just see the same rhetoric to which Dawkins objects coming from his own laserwriter. Thus we read: "Evolution is FACT, FACT, FACT." (or close to it). Note: I do think that the theory of common ancestry is well-confirmed, so please don't flame; it just wastes everyone's time. >What true religion? Christianity, Hinduism, The Religion of >Huitzilopochtli? If no evidence is required to support your belief system you >can choose any of these. They are all equally vald. But who says no evidence is required? People may be wrong about the warrant of their religious beliefs, but that hardly means that there is no evidence at all, nor that none is required. I can't think of anyone who thinks that; I would want to assert nonetheless that some people at least are seriously mistaken, but that's a far cry from the rejection of all evidence. Perhaps you have in mind some exotic cult, but no mainline religious group could plausibly be described in the way you claim. A principle of charity suggests that just about any religious system has something to contribute to our understanding of the world. Even Ian's and Dawkins's scientism, though surely not as much as they think. That would seem to hold for the rest of us as well. Perhaps a little more humility and less flaming rhetoric are in order. Marvin Bolt ------------------------------------------------------------ History and Philosophy of Science Dept: (219) 631-5015 University of Notre Dame Fax: (219) 631-4268 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Home: (219) 234-1584 Bolt.1@nd.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ Assistant Curator (as of June 17, 1996) History of Astronomy Department Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum 1300 South Lake Shore Drive Direct:(312) 322-0540 Chicago, IL 60605 Fax: (312) 341-9935 Marv_Bolt@orbit.adler.uchicago.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions expressed are the author's (well, they might be and they might not be). They certainly do not necessarily reflect those held by anyone else at the Adler Planetarium, its offical policies, or any other sentient being. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:30:12 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity Marvin Bolt writes: Even the theory of evolution for those who have been mentioned previously in this list? I just see the same rhetoric to which Dawkins objects coming from his own laserwriter. Thus we read: "Evolution is FACT, FACT, FACT." (or close to it). Note: I do think that the theory of common ancestry is well-confirmed, so please don't flame; it just wastes everyone's time. REPLY: Evolution is the theory that has the greatest body of substantiating evidence and for all practical purposes can be regarded as fact. I think there is a problem with the way that some scientists define science. Phiolosophy and religion are concerned with ultimate truths and about the nature of knowledge. Science is really only about modelling the world in useful ways - ways that draw together bodies of knowledge in unified theories, which prediuct the behaviour of systems and which suggest new lines of enquiry , not about ultimate truth, or transcendental truth or whatever. All of the evidence from biology, especially biochemistry and molecular biologiy suggest that there has been a slow development of complex life forms over time via the process of natural selection. Currently there is no competing theory capable of explaining all of the evidence. ================================================= But who says no evidence is required? People may be wrong about the warrant of their religious beliefs, but that hardly means that there is no evidence at all, nor that none is required. I can't think of anyone who thinks that; I would want to assert nonetheless that some people at least are seriously mistaken, but that's a far cry from the rejection of all evidence. Perhaps you have in mind some exotic cult, but no mainline religious group could plausibly be described in the way you claim. REPLY: When was the last time that a mainline religious group rewrote its scriptures to taken new findings into account? ================================================= A principle of charity suggests that just about any religious system has something to contribute to our understanding of the world. Even Ian's and Dawkins's scientism, though surely not as much as they think. That would seem to hold for the rest of us as well. Perhaps a little more humility and less flaming rhetoric are in order. REPLY: All religions have much to contribute to our understanding, but the question remains as to how we assess what that contribution is. Ratehr than pray for inspiration I would use the scientific method. Regards Ian ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:50:31 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity Arie Dirkzwager wrote: You can refute my religion, so it is. When you do so I know you are probably wrong and I have the strong faith that you will be convinced by the evidence eventually (after death?) and be happy with it. REPLY: I don't know what your religion is and if you are not prpeared to consider the evidence for and against any particular point then perhaps you don't either. There is no reason to believe that I will be able to consider anything after my death, but I am open to persuasion - as someone who favours a scientific approach to the accumulation of knowledge my standpoint couldn't be otherwise. =================================================Christianity survived and it's beliefs and values are largely taken over by our culture, those priests and their cults are passee, that's some supporting evidence (not final of course). REPLY: The beliefs that you think Christian are thought by muslims to be distinctively Islamic and by Buddhists to be distinctly Buddhist. I prefer to think that we behave with the moral standards we do purely as a result of enlightened self-interest. After all, how could we have the complex society that we do without co-operating with each other for our common good? Robert Axelrod's book 'The Evolution of Cooperation' is very convincing on this point. ================================================ No "objective evidence observed by the senses" (scientific evidence) supports Christian religion, good considerate thinking may. See "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought", a masterpiece by the Dutch philosopher H. Dooyeweerd. He does not present "evidence" but makes it very clear that good scientific thinking fits quite well with Christian Faith and even is enlightened by it. REPLY: Inspiration may be derived from any source, but it's not clear to me that the validity of any view about the nature of the physical world can be assessed without recourse to scientific investigation. ================================================ Nothing mystic in "Love God above all and thy neighbour like thou self". The problem is we don't. We don't even try to know and understand God or our "neighbour". REPLY: Does it never occur to you to ask how something perfect could need to be loved and worshipped? Belief in God really explains nothing. We are still left with the mystery as to why God exists and why He created anything. Why should anything be explainable? Why should science be able to find answers? There is no reason why human beings shouldn't be empty shells that are sustained by the will of God. However when we open up a human body we find structures that can be understood in terms of biology and biochemistry, no theology required. ================================================= You can and have to "choose" (add only "complete and only faith in science and it's method that recognizes only a very special kind of "evidence" that's evolutionary quite new and not yet completely cristallized and in it's final shape" to your range of religions) knowing that they are NOT "all equally valid". We are responsible for our choice of religion and this choice has serious consequences in practical life and academic (scientific) behavior. REPLY: If religious beliefs are not all equally valid how do you determine that they are not? What are your criteria and how do you assess the evidence? No one would argue that there are many forms of knowledge, that insights can come from literature, the arts and religions. In common with most atheists I am utterly fascinated by religion and have studied the religious texts of most major religions. I find the Koran, the Dhammapada and the Bible utterly delightful, but the fact is that in most practical circumstances we all defer to the power of the scientific method and consult scientists, not priests when we want practical answers to the problems of our daily lives, as my banal examples of medical treatment and broken television sets were meant to demonstrate. Best wishes Ian ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 16:07:56 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Marvin Bolt Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity I note with satisfaction that this discussion has clarified rather than digressing into the usual sort of diatribe one finds on such topics. Still, I would like to clear up a few difficulties. Ian (if I may be so bold as to avoid surnames) writes: > >Phiolosophy and >religion are concerned with ultimate truths and about the nature of knowledge. >Science is really only about modelling the world in useful ways - ways that >draw together bodies of knowledge in unified theories, which prediuct the >behaviour of systems and which suggest new lines of enquiry, not about >ultimate truth, or transcendental truth or whatever. I agree wholeheartedly. My objection was not to an evolutionary account of biological phenomena but the ends to which people such as Dawkins use that account. My reading sees that he fails to restrict his claims to behavior and modeling and that he does make transcendent claims (albeit in a negative manner). Therein lies my objection. Not that Dawkins's case (or the evolutionary story) is sui generis, but that is another matter. As far as the domains of science, religion, and philosophy are concerned, I welcome and embrace your suggestion. And accordingly, I willingly, cheerfully, and humbly recant any accusation to the contrary if I have made one or even suggested such. > When was the last time that a mainline religious group rewrote its >scriptures to taken new findings into account? That assumes they need to. Why assume that? If, indeed, as we both seem to agree, that the domain of science as opposed to (in contrast to, not in the antagonistic sense) those of religion and philosophy have different foci and in some sense limited overlap, why whould a religious group need to re-write its sacred texts in the light of new findings? Indeed, how could it? Furthermore, there's far more to religiosity than sacred text. There's much more one could say about the spheres of authority of science and religion, and an overwhelming literature on it, so we've probably flogged this long enough. In any event, if religions do have some element of transcendental significance, they would seem to be able to absorb any new findings that are warranted, so I maintain my objection to the need for such wholesale revision. But I promise to be more charitable than persnickety. Mainline groups do change (though far too slowly, to be sure) in response to new findings and cultural attitudes and understandings. Think about the changing role of women in (non-Roman) churches in the past few decades. That's not to say that all religious groups incorporate new findings, nor even that they do so as promptly as perhaps they ought to. So we may agree on this one, though perhaps we do not. > Ratehr than >pray for inspiration I would use the scientific method. Ah, but why not do both? Cheers, Marvin Bolt ------------------------------------------------------------ History and Philosophy of Science Dept: (219) 631-5015 University of Notre Dame Fax: (219) 631-4268 Notre Dame, IN 46556 Home: (219) 234-1584 Bolt.1@nd.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ Assistant Curator (as of June 17, 1996) History of Astronomy Department Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum 1300 South Lake Shore Drive Direct:(312) 322-0540 Chicago, IL 60605 Fax: (312) 341-9935 Marv_Bolt@orbit.adler.uchicago.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ All opinions expressed are the author's (well, they might be and they might not be). They certainly do not necessarily reflect those held by anyone else at the Adler Planetarium, its offical policies, or any other sentient being. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:21:18 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: science virus > On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Howard Schwartz wrote: > > > All this stuff about how science is a religion is interesting, as usual, > > but doesn't it lack a certain contextualization? Isn't it necessary to > > contextualize these ideologies within the fact that we are human beings > > trying to lead lives? Doesn't our attraction to science or religion rest on > > our beliefs about how certain practices will affect our lives? Don't > > beliefs have consequences? > > > > Mark, suppose that some charismatic dingus showed up in your community > > and massively converted people to the belief that such things as > > fluoridation of the drinking water and immunization of school children are > > against the will of God. Suppose this movement were at the edge of > > deinstitutionalizing fluordiation and immunization. Would you oppose this? > > If so, how? > > Mark Burch responded: > > Toothpaste contains sugar. > Why would 9 out 10 dentists recommend brushing your teeth with a > cariogenic substance? > Perhaps because 9 out of 10 dentists would be unemployed if people stopped > having cavities? > Why do dentists insist on subjecting people to implants containing > mercury, a potent neurotoxin and mind-altering substance? > Of course, there is no scientific evidence that mercury fillings have any > harmful side effects (according to dentists). There is also no scientific > evidence linking smoking and lung cancer (according to Philip Morris). [snip] > Science and religion are equally corrupt avenues of coercion. Mark, I'm afraid you have not answered my question. The question is not where you will find others who are as pure and incorruptible as you are. Let us presume that you will not. The question is rather that, other people being what they are, which of their cultural products can we rely on in living our lives as best we can and what is the basis of this reliability? The question is not where you will find absolute truth, as guaranteed by the rectitude of its creators. You will not. The question is, given the uncertainty of life, where, and on what basis, will you place your bets? There are consequences if you make the wrong bet. When I was a kid, my parents would not let me go to the beach during the summer for fear of polio. Then vaccines were developed and polio largely disappeared in our society. Now people have forgotten that it was ever a problem, and have lost sight of the role that science played in this. I presume this includes your wonderful students who are so disenchanted with science. But, in fact, it still exists in the world and if we stop immunizing we will get it back. Now, if you delegitiimate science, don't you run the risk of undermining support for its useful products, and decrease the likelihood that it will have useful products in the future? Are you prepared to accept that as a consequence? Let me put a spin on my original question. Suppose that a former student of yours, convinced by you that science and its products are corrupt, attempted to ban polio immunization. Would you oppose this person, and if so, with what arguments? A further question: If that person succeeded in banning immunization and your community were inundated with polio, would there not be grounds for holding you partly to blame? The reason I ask that, frankly, is that some of my constructionist friends, so fervent in discovering the moral failures of others, sometimes seem to lose their zeal when it comes to reflecting upon their own roles. I figure maybe they need some help. And by the way, Mark, what was the last time you heard of a cavity? My kids are nine and eleven and neither of them has ever had one. Dump the products of science and you'll get those back, too. Our dentist, by the way, is doing just fine. Howard S. Schwartz Schwartz@Oakland.edu http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/Schwartz/Schwartz.htm "Nothing is hidden from the lover of shadows. Mystery remains." -- Anais Nin ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:46:45 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Wessels Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity In-Reply-To: <96Sep8.230720hwt.587190(9)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Sun, 8 Sep 1996, Ian Pitchford wrote: > At the most fundamental level science is simply > about rationality - do we need evidence to support what > we believe or do we simply believe that wish we > would like to be true? Microsoft Encarta has the following definition: > > Science (Lat., scientia, from scire, to know ), term > used in its broadest sense to denote systematized > knowledge in any field, but usually applied to the organization > of objectively verifiable sense experiencecience (Lat., scientia, > from scire, "to know"), term used in its broadest sense to denote systematized > knowledge in any field, but usually applied to the > organization of objectively verifiable sense experience > > It's a small (though philosophically complex) step from needing > evidence to support our beliefts to having a systematic way of > collecting and analysing it - the scientific method. The fact is that > all of us in Western culture defer to the findings of science. > If you feel ill do you cast some runes, or try and read a chicken's > entrails, or do you go and see your doctor for the latest scientific > diagnostic techniques? If your television set breaks down do you > call the priest to exorcise the demons that are causing the problem > or do you get a television repair man? > > Any individual scientist or group of scientists may have any > number of prejudices, vices and absurd beliefs, but a systematically assembled > body of facts, and a method cannot. Scientific theories > such as the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution hold > sway because of their abilitiy to synthesise exisiting knowledge and to > *predict*,. When the facts demand it theories are superseded by new > ones, just as the three-hundred year old theory of gravitational > attraction was superseded by the Theory of Relativity. > > For any irrationally held belief, creationism, racism, scientology, > or whatever, it is inconceivable that any fact or body of knowledge could make > any difference. > > If we have no way of verifiying our beliefs, and no way reaching conclusions > about them there is no reason why we shouldn't believe that evolution is > bunkum, that the Earth was created six thousand years ago, that negros should > be slaves because they are intellectually inferior, that temples should be > consecrated by the tearing out of twenty thousand living hearts, or that the > moon is made of green cheese. > > Without science we are subject to the tyranny of unreason, > a tyranny which known no bounds and under which any practice > can be justified and under which human beings lose control > of their own lives. > > Ian Pitchford > YAA, well written I think I might save this post for future reference. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. | Religion is answers that may never be questioned. | --J.J. Hahn --------------------------------------------------- + -------------------- For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care. | Donald F.Wessels,Jr -A.E. Housman | wessels@hawaii.edu xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:41:01 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Don Maroc Subject: science and fact "Evolution is the theory that has the greatest body of substantiating >evidence and for all practical purposes can be regarded as fact." It is very difficult to connect the two ends of that statement. It is especially difficult when I read this excellent operational definition, "Science is really only about modelling the world in useful ways - ways that draw together bodies of knowledge in unified theories, which predict the behaviour of systems and which suggest new lines of enquiry , not about ultimate truth, or transcendental truth or whatever." Mainline religious groups may not rewrite their scriptures but, as you do with the U.S. constitution, they completely reinterpret them every generation or so. You don't have to change the words to completely alter the meaning. Hey, I think in our present environment the concept of prayer has been considerably broadened, and all for the good. You choose scientific method, my grandmother likes the rosary, I think you're both on a useful path. May I close on this positive note. There are many people whose intelligence I respect who have trouble with the concepts of evolution as it is currently posited. Don Maroc maroc@islandnet.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:12:04 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Clark Subject: Re: Science and Religion In-Reply-To: <199609091430.PAA03876@listserv.rl.ac.uk> from "Ian Pitchford" at Sep 9, 96 01:45:53 pm In the last mail Ian Pitchford said: > all scientific > knowledge is provisional and open to amendment or > complete refutation. Religious 'knowledge' is not. > Believers insist on the validity of their beliefs whatever the evidence This is, historically, completely false. Religious practices and doctrines change in response to our situation and experience. It is true that believers will sometimes hold on to their belief even in the face of what might strike others as counter-evidence (so do scientists in the practice of their science). This doesn't mean that nothing that happens or could happen would cause them to modify their beliefs or even, at the last, abandon them. Othello was morally as well as epistemically at fault in abandoning his belief in Desdemona on the basis of the evidence provided by Iago. Former scientists (they used to be called philosophers) were at fault in abandoning heliocentrism because they thought that the motion of the earth would ensure a constant wind from west to east (or do I mean east to west?). In personal and scientific life we hang on to some beliefs even in the face of apparent evidence, and are right to do so. It doesn't follow that nothing at all can count against the theory in question, and no-one, to my knowledge, supposes that any theories are utterly immune to imaginable refutation. Ian's other remark, that science does not pretend to offer an account of how things actually are, but only usable and helpful models of the world we presently experience, is true to one particular strand of scientific history. There are others (that was indeed one of the issues about Galileo: he insisted on `knowing' what was true rather than what worked). But if it is the better view of science, then it clearly follows (for example) that Philip Gosse was right: the fossil evidence does not establish that there really was a pre-human past of the kind evolutionary theorists suppose. The evidence is compatible with God's having made the world complete (as He would have to: what would an oak without internal rings be like?). And Gosse, of course, believed that he had evidence (in the form of historical testimony) that this is what God did. Science and religion alike are often looking for the `best available explanation or guide'. There need be no incompatibility between their results. My own view (previously stated) is that every scientific success actually lends weight to monotheism, since such successes are enormously more likely in a monotheistic cosmos than an atheistic one (if the latter could be a cosmos at all). But this dispute has surely gone on long enough (at least on this list, which has other aims). Stephen Clark srlclark@liverpool.ac.uk http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/philos.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:17:37 BST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon Agar Subject: Seminars at CHSTM, Manchester University X-To: mersenne@mailbase.ac.uk, sts@cctr.umkc.edu UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER CENTRE FOR THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND MEDICINE, and WELLCOME UNIT FOR THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE SEMINARS FIRST SEMESTER, 1996-1997 4.00 pm TUESDAYS, Room 3.29, 3rd floor, Maths Tower, Oxford Road (Unless otherwise stated) Tea from 3.30 pm, Room 3.04 8 Oct Jean-Paul Gaudillere (INSERM, Paris) Making Biomedical Networks: Mice, Viruses, and Cancer in Cold War United States 15 Oct Keith Tribe (Keele) Making a Discipline of Economics: the Cambridge Tripos, 1900- 1950 22 Oct Anne Secord (Cambridge) Observing Differences: Artisans, Gentlemen, and the Work of Nineteenth-Century Botany 29 Oct. University History of Medicine Lecture *Stopford Prof. Robert Tattersall (Nottingham) Bldg. *5.30 Understanding Diabetes in Victorian England 5 Nov Simon Chaplin (Science Museum, London) Invisible Industrialisation: the Centrifugal Cream Separator and the Manufacture of Milk, 1879-1900 12 Nov. Roger Cooter (Manchester) The Encounter of Encounters: Malingering, the Great War and the Rise of Defensive Medicine 19 Nov. Joe Cain (University College London) Intimate Working: Collaborations between Husband and Wife in the Early Scientific Careers of Anne Roe and George Gaylord Simpson 26 Nov. Gerrylynn Roberts (Open University, Milton Keynes) The Making of the Chemist in England, 1902-1939: A Portrait of the Chemistry Department at University College London 3 Dec. Lara Marks (Imperial College, London) The Barrier of a Common Language: The History of British and American Policy around Thrombosis and the Oral Contraceptive Pill 1960s - 1970s 10 Dec. Peter Bowler (Queen's University of Belfast) Myths, Narratives and History in the Study of Human Origins 17 Dec. David Edgerton (Imperial College, London) History of Technology Enquiries: Professor John Pickstone, Room 3.31, Maths Tower (0161- 275-5926) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:39:37 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Science and Stupidity At 17:50 9-09-96 UT, Ian wrote: >There is no reason to believe that I will be able to consider >anything after my death, but I am open to persuasion Not now. All I can say is: wait and see, we can't have scientific evidence for everything we believe. I respect that you are an atheist and thus difficult to persuade, especially by God or by any religious experiences reported in different books. >The beliefs that you think Christian are thought by muslims to be >distinctively Islamic and by Buddhists to be distinctly Buddhist. Only when you look very superficially you're right. I did read those scriptures while asking critically what they revealed about God, if He existed. Then my conclusion was that there is quite a difference between those beliefs and that they even often (not always) contradict each other. My conclusion was that (if a God exists) there is a very special and unique revelation of Him in the Judaeistic-Christian tradition. As a scientist it shouldn't seem too strange to you to study handed down evidence assuming some hypothesis true, trying to falsify it, and becoming convinced that the hypothesis is true. Couldn't you, even as an atheist, be open-minded to the hypothesis that God exists, without dressing Him up with all kinds of weird properties beforehand? >Does it never occur to you to ask how something perfect could need to >be loved and worshipped? Not "something" but "someone" please. As a person I think I would be less "perfect" when I wasn't loved at all. Belief in God really explains nothing. We are still >left with the mystery as to why God exists and why He created anything. Same kind of "mystery" as why we exist and create things: He just liked to create something "good" including mankind to love Him and to discover, develop and love His creation. >If religious beliefs are not all equally valid how do you determine >that they are not? What are your criteria and how do you assess the evidence? When two things are contradicting each other it's evident that they are not *both* valid - they might be both equally invalid. Simple matter of rational logic. Evidence: logic works. >In common with most atheists I >am utterly fascinated by religion and have studied the religious texts of most >major religions. Religion as an exotic expression of human fantasy? How did you study those texts? In search for some truth, for some revelation? Or through the spectacles of your prejudiced atheism? >I find the Koran, the Dhammapada and the Bible utterly >delightful, but the fact is that in most practical circumstances we all defer >to the power of the scientific method and consult scientists, not priests when >we want practical answers to the problems of our daily lives, as my banal >examples of medical treatment and broken television sets were meant to >demonstrate. When scientist were still lacking we went to the priests who were the "scientists" of that day, and often not too bad ones in the context of their culture either! Arie ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 19:48:14 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: SPECIAL OFFER FOR _SCIENCE AS CULTURE_ JOURNAL (long) SCIENCE as CULTURE JOURNAL SPECIAL OFFER: QUARTER PRICE BACK ISSUES IF YOU SUBSCRIBE OR EXTEND YOUR SUBSCRIPTION FOR TWO YEARS _Science as Culture_ explores the role of expertise in shaping the values which contend for influence over the wider society. The journal analyses how our scientific culture defines what is rational, and what is natural. SaC provides a unique, accessible forum for debate, beyond the boundaries of academic disciplines and specializations. The journal is associated with an internet email forum: science-as-culture@sjuvm.stjohns.edu and a web site at http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/sac.html Contributors to the journal have included: Vincent Mosco, Donna Haraway, Langdon Winner, Richard Barbrook, Michael Chanan, Sarah Franklin, Michael Shortland, Steve Best & Douglas Kellner. Roger Smith, Slavoj Zizek, Mary Mellor, Scott L. Montgomery, Roger Silverstone, Bruce Berman, Ashis Nandy, Jack Kloppenburg, Jr, Les Levidow, Christopher Hamlin, Philip Garrahan & Paul Stewart, Maureen McNeil, Barbara Duden, Andrew Ross, Dennis Hayes, Kevin Robins & Frank Webster, David Pingitore, Jon Turney, Stephen Hill & Tim Turpin, Chunglin Kwa, Joel Kovel, David Hakken, Andrew Barry, Sharon Macdonald, Robert M. Young. The journal has published articles on mass-media representations of expertise, the political role of radio, human and agricultural biotechnologies, cultures of workplace automation, the metaphors central to scientific knowledge, artificial intelligence, images of the scientist in film and theatre, science museums, Post-Fordism, labour relations in high-tech Japan, etc. Editor: Robert M. Young Managing Editor: Les Levidow Board: Sarah Franklin, Pam Linn, Maureen McNeil Advisory Panel: Tom Athanasou, Roger Cooter, Ruth Schwartz Cowan, Stephen Cross, Norman Diamond, David Dickson, Karl Figlio, Marike Finlay, Donna Haraway, Ludmilla Jordanova, Anne Karpf, Douglas Kellner, Sonia Liff, Vincent Mosco, Dorothy Nelkin, David Noble, Don Parson, Barry Richards, Eveleen Richards, Kevin Robins, Roger Smith, Tony Solomonides, Judy Wajcman, Gary Werskey, Judith Williamson, Langdon Winner Science as Culture is published quarterly, and each issue contains 160 pages. Subscription may begin with any issue. (L1.00 =3D ca $1.55) Subscriptions for United Kingdom: L25 individual for four issues, L42.50 for eight issues; L50 institutional for four issues, L85 for eight issues. Overseas: L30 for four issues, L50 for eight issues. All prices include postage. Air Mail L10 extra. Orders to Science as Culture, 26 Fregrove Road, London, N7 9RQ Payment should be in sterling or US dollars or by credit card (Visa/Barclaycard/MasterCard). If payment is made in another currency, add the equivalent of L5. to cover conversion charges. Back issues are normally L7.50 each for non-subscribers, L4.00 for subscribers; L10.75 for institutions. Available from Science as Culture, 26 =46reegrove Road, London N7 9RQ. Tel. +171 609 0507 email pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk. ***SPECIAL OFFER: SUBSCRIBE FOR TWO YEARS AND GET A COMPLETE SET OF 26 BACK ISSUES: TOTAL PRICE L100 (BRITISH POUNDS STERLING L1.00 =3D CA $1.55) ******EXISTING SUBSCRIBERS: EXTEND YOUR SUBSCRIPTION FOR TWO YEARS AND RECEIVE ANY NUMBER OF BACK ISSUES AT HALF THE L4.00 PRICE USUALLY CHARGED TO SUBSCRIBERS - PRICE TO YOU IS L2.00 EACH. ***This offer stands only as long as stocks last. CONTENTS OF BACK AND FORTHCOMING ISSUES: Pilot Issue Star Wars is already working (Vincent Mosco); Science, poetry and utopia:Humphrey Jennings' Pandaemonium (Kevin Robins); A new way of talking: community radio in 1980s Britain (Richard Barbrook); The scientist as guru: the explainers (Robert M. Young); Sex selection in India: girls as a bad investment (Les Levidow. SaC 1 'Play it again, Sony': the double life of home video technology (Ben Keen); Alan Turing on stage (Tony Solomonides); Nostalgic naturalism: Granta on science (Sally Shuttleworth); 'Choice' in childbirth (Grazyna Baran); Making chips with dust-free poison (Dennis Hayes); Socially useful production (Pam Linn). SaC 2 The home computer (Leslie Haddon); Science shops in France (John Stewart); Counting on the cards: a blackjack system (Holly Gamble); High-tech mining and the new model miner (Joe Bohen & Nick Wroughton); Science-fiction utopias (Barbara Goodwin); Electronic surveillance -- or security perverted (Bertrand Giraux). SaC 3 Athens without slaves... or slaves without Athens? (Kevin Robins & =46rank Webster); Piano studies (Michael Chanan); Life Story: the gene as fetish object on TV (Sarah Franklin); Non-Western science, past and present (Les Levidow); Romancing the future (Peter Hulme). SaC 4 Wonder stories in Alienland (Michael Shortland); Watching television (Steve Best & Douglas Kellner); The trials of forensic science (Roger Smith); The female in scientific biography (Sylvana Tomaselli); Looking backward at the socialist utopian (Patrick Parrinder); Chernobyl: nobody's to blame? (Les Levidow). SaC 5 Robocop and 1980s sci-fi films (Fred Glass); The embracing vision of Joseph Needham (Joel Kovel); Charles Darwin: man and metaphor (Robert M. Young); TechnoCity: symbolic utopia and status panic (Vincenzo Ruggiero). SaC 6 Nuclear emergency: an 'unusual event (Patricia Kullberg); Turning green: whose ecology? (Mary Mellor); The cult of jargon (Scott L. Montgomery); The operating theatre as degradation ritual (Larry O'Hara); Television: text or discourse? (Roger Silverstone); Black Athena: two views (John Gabriel and George W. Stocking, Jr). SaC 7 The computer metaphor: bureaucratizing the mind (Bruce Berman); AIDS culture (John Fauvel); Science as a reason of state (Ashis Nandy); The telephone as romance in Hollywood film (George Custen). SaC 8: Post-Fordism Post-fordism and technological determinism (Eloina Pelaez & John Holloway); Management-by-stress in the US auto industry (Mike Parker & Jane Slaughter); Foreclosing the future (Les Levidow); Mistranslations: Lipietz in London and Paris (Richard Barbrook); Scientism in the history of management theory (Robert M. Young); Rationalism, irrationalism and Taylorism (Bill Schwarz). SaC 9 Monstrous nature or technology? (Ian Barns); The double helix as icon (Greg Myers); Woman, nature and the international division of labour (Maria Mies interviewed by Ariel Salleh); Repressive tolerance in science policy (Philip Bereano); Nuclear accidents by design (Les Levidow); Darwinism and the division of labour (Robert M. Young). SaC 10 Science as kitsch: the dinosaur and other icons (Scott L. Montgomery); India's human guinea pigs (Vandana & Mira Shiva); 'Mathophobia': Pythagoras and roller-skating (Richard Winter); Women who make the chips (Les Levidow). SaC 11 Cervical screening, medical signs and metaphors (Tina Posner); Chaos and entropy: postmodern science and social theory (Steven Best); Technological cultures of weapons design (Perry Morrison & Stephen Little); Reclaiming experience (Richard Gunn). SaC 12: Deadly science as culture Exterminating angels: morality, violence and technology in the Gulf War (Kevin Robins & Asu Aksoy); Some are mathematicians (Mike Siddoway); Codes and combat in biomedical discourse (Scott L. Montgomery); The culture of Star Wars (Edward Reiss); Postmodern politics in Los Angeles (Don Parson); The anti-nuclear campaign on the Ganges (Dhirendra Sharma). SaC 13: Genes 'n' Greens Alternative agriculture and the new biotechnologies (Jack Kloppenburg, Jr); Green meanings: what might sustainable agriculture sustain? (Christopher Hamlin); Cleaning up on the farm (Les Levidow); The social side of sustainability (Patricia Allen & Carolyn Sachs); Biodiversity and food security (Alistair Smith); India's Green Revolution in crisis (Praful Bidwai); Surviving development (Sarah =46ranklin). SaC 14 The Bird and the Robot at Walt Disney World (Stephen Fjellman); =46IAT's cultural revolution (Sheren Hobson); Otherworldly conversations; terran topics; local terms (Donna Haraway); The virtual unconscious in post-photography (Kevin Robins); Genes and racial hygiene (Deborah Steinberg). SaC 15 Science, ideology and Donna Haraway (Robert M. Young); Science in China and the West (Matthew Gutmann); British radio in the 1980s (Richard Barbrook); The constructed female in women's science fiction (Debbie Shaw). SaC 16 Working for Nissan (Philip Garrahan & Paul Stewart); Why people die (Lindsay Prior & Mick Bloor); Darwin's metaphor and the philosophy of science (Robert M. Young); Roger Penrose and the critique of artificial intelligence (Bruce J. Berman); Social constructivism: opening the black box and finding it empty (Langdon Winner); Agricultural biotechnology: whose efficiency? (Les Levidow). SaC 17: Procreation Stories New reproductive technologies: dreams and broken promises (Maureen McNeil); The gender character of in vitro fertilization (Marta Kirejczyk); Postmodern procreation: representing reproductive practice (Sarah Franklin); Visualizing 'life' (Barbara Duden); The public foetus and the family car (Janelle Sue Taylor). SaC 18 The world according toNational Geographic (Scott L. Montgomery); Japan: panacea or threat? (Ron Mitchinson); Technology assessment in German's biotechnology debate (Bernhard Gill); Powders, pills, bodies and things (Tony Kirman); The new smartness (Andrew Ross); The emperor's new genes (Pat Spallone). SaC 19 Family medicine in American culture (David Pingitore); Evolution, ethics and the search for certainty (Martha McCaughey); Thinking about the human genome project (Jon Turney) Gravity's Rainbow and the Newton/Goethe colour controversy (Megan Stern) SaC 20 Academic research cultures in collision (Stephen Hill & Tim Turpin); Modelling technologies of control (Chunglin Kwa); Desmond and Moore'sDarwin:: a critique (Robert M. Young); De-reifying risk (Les Levidow). SaC 21 Demolition derby as destruction ritual (Stephen C. Zehr); Electronic curb cuts and disability (David Hakken); Te(k)nowledge & the student/subject (James McDonald); The zoo: theatre of the animals (Scott L. Montgomery). SaC 22: Science on Display Making nature 'real' again (Steven Allison); Supermarket science? (Sharon Macdonald); Realism in representing race (Tracy Teslow); Nations on display at Expo '92 (Penelope Harvey). SaC 23 Body wars, body victories: AIDS and homosexuality in immunological discourse (Catherine Waldby); Animal experiments: scientific uncertainty and public unease (Mike Michael & Lynda Birke); Reading the human genome narrative (Josie van Dijck); What scientists need to learn (Robert M. Young); UK Consensus Conference on plant biotechnology (Ian Barns); Brains from space: mapping the mind in 1950s science and cinema (Jeffrey Sconce). SaC 24 =7F 'Antarctic Interfaces: Science, Human Subjectivity and the Case Robert Byrd' Michael Bryson 'Vannevar Bush: an Engineer Builds a Book' Larry Owens 'Ethics and the Human Genome Project' Dirk Stemerding and Jaap Jelsma 'Dacron polyester: The Fall from Grace of a Miracle Fabric' Stephen De Meo 'AIDS Science: Killing More than Time' John Erni 'The Pinnochio Theory' Richard Barbrook SaC 25 'The water closet: public and private meanings' by Marja Gastelaars 'Sex in the age of virtual reality' by Slavoj Zizek 'Naming the heavens: a brief history of earthly projections, Part I: nativizing Hellenic science' by Scott L. Montgomery 'Farm pollution as environmental crime' by Philip Lowe _et al_. 'Contested expertise: plant biotechnology and social movements' by Derrick Purdue Reviews: _Media Freedom: The Contradictions of Communications in the Age of Modernity= _ by Richard Barbrook, reviewed by John Barker _Contested Technology: Ethics, Risk and Public Debate_, edited by Rene von Schomberg, reviewed by Alison J. Hill _Juvenile Violence in a Winner-Loser Culture_ by Oliver James, reviewed by Vincenzo Ruggiero _SaC_ 26 will include: 'Reducing AIDS risk: a case of mistaken identity?' by Simon Carter 'The Californian Ideology' by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron 'A spoonful of blood: Haitians, racism and AIDS' by Laurent Dubois 'Naming the heavens: a brief history of earthly projections, Part II: nativizing Arab science' by Scott L. Montgomery _SaC_ 27 will include: 'The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracy theories and an ambival= ent American dream' by Stephen DeMeo 'Death comes alive: technology and the re-conception of death' by Karen Cerulo and Janet Ruane 'Inoculating gadgets against ridicule' by Mike Michael 'Sperm stories: romantic, entrepreneurial and environmental narratives about treating male infertility' by Kirsten Dwight In future issues: 'Designing flexibility: science and work in the age of flexible accumulation' by Emily Martin 'Healthy bodies, healthy citizens: the anti-secondhand smoke campaign' by Roddy Reid 'Israel's first test-tube baby' by Daphna Birenbaum Carmeli Robert M. Young, Editor, SaC robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 'You will not complete the task, but you may not give it up.' __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. 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/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 12:29:51 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Weinstein Subject: science virus This whole idea of certain knowledge systems as viral I find interesting from a Mary-Douglassian Anthropological take. Virus's certainly fit her basic definition of dirt: matter out of place. Our notion of a virus is that it has (inappropriately) taken the place of proper (non-dirt) genetic material. Naming something (a belief or object) viral is a way of locating it in a social structure, not simply describing it by some list of internal qualities. Dawkins' (see article, btw, in latest New Yorker) of course finds science *not* out of place. The point isn't the intrinsic properties of science vs. other thought systems, but the value placed on them.So it seems to me; Dawkins conclusion just points out Haraway (and originially Young's (??)) comment that science *is* culture. --matthew weinstein ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:17:30 +0000 Reply-To: skwyman@mailbox.syr.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Steven Wyman Organization: Syracuse University Subject: Evolutionary ecology and information Greetings, folks -- I am a student at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies. I did graduate work in the history and philosophy of science a few years ago, and have maintained my interests in those areas. I am currently thinking of ways that information moving through systems, such as organizations or computer networks, may behave analogously to energy transformations in ecosystems. For that matter, I am just as interested in whatever differences may exist from one environment to another. As I try to work through the complex issues involved, I find myself becoming reacquainted with various historical constructs intended to characterize invisible substances, or forces. On the one hand, there are categories of essences, for lack of a better term, which somehow animate or permeate objects or environments. Such essences include pneuma, phlogiston, gravity (action-at-a-distance), lifeforce (vitalism), energy, and of course, information. I welcome other examples, if any come to mind. On the other hand, there are the explanatory frameworks in which the supposed or observed essences (qualia) operate. An explanatory framework is defined by structural features of that system which restrict the range of phenomena possible within it. Examples are cosmos, species / genotype, fields, and ecosystems. Many other examples could be given. This is all simple enough to grasp in a general sense, given our historical knowledge of these ideas. However, I have been unable to identify patterns in our conceptualization of information which follow any of the historical examples listed above. Perhaps I simply need better resolution in my instruments. Perhaps information is no more a real thing than phlogiston? Well, obviously I do not believe that, and communications theory does have a metrical description of information. Oddly enough, though, communications theory per se considers information only in an engineering sense (how much organized energy moves from one point in this type of cable to the next point, to put it quite crudely), and lacks a way of representing how much meaning is conveyed along with the information. I sense that the fact of the matter is, we have accepted a tacit, pragmatic notion of information. We speak of the Information Age, the Information Society, knowledge workers and the like routinely, and knowingly. I fear that the closer I look at information phenomena, the less knowledgeable I find myself. It's disconcerting, really. If most of us are knowledge workers in the postmodern age, and we are building national economies around this understanding, then what we are doing amounts to an evolutionary discontinuity, fueled in large part by information technologies. Call it punctuated equilibrium, perhaps. I am interested in much more than dystopian ideas of technology, or of economic rationalism: I wish to look at current shift of resources involved in the construction of the National Information Infrastructure and the impending G7 Nations' plan for a Global Information Infrastructure, among other things, in an international social context. I find that without a better description of the essence of information, as well as a reference frame such as ecosystems, this is an overly abstract task. Although I have cut out much muscle in order to present the bones of this problem, I would be most interested in the insight from members of this listserv regarding ways to model information flow through systems using an evolutionary ecology approach. I am also interested in any symmetries anyone sees between historical concepts of essences within their respective theoretical frameworks, and current views of information in the new Information Society. Do we regard information as the opposite of entropy, in the language of thermodynamics? Is information pieces of theories floating around looking for contextualization? Is information a residue of the Early Modern Period's Mechanical Philosophy which is still alive and well in many of our habits of mind and curricula? Perhaps I could simply ask for responses to the question how would you define "information"? I realize that this bears little or no relation to the spirited threads currently taking place on the list, but I think it an important topic to ponder and would be grateful for your reactions. I expect I have overlooked many relevant data. Cheers -- Steve Steven K. Wyman skwyman@mailbox.syr.edu 4-206 Center for Science & Technology School of Information Studies Syracuse University Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 20:51:39 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mihai Christodorescu Subject: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? I think (in MY HUMBLE OPINION) that Religion and Science are just two of the many ways of acquiring knowledge. Let me explain MHO: In my humble opinion, there is a unique Reality that exists beyond our powers, and which cannot be modified (or almost not...) by our choices. This Reality is characterized by some Facts. In my humble opinion, humanity is striving to get to know those Facts. Why is this striving I do not know. In this process, we acquire what we call knowledge; we do not know if we know something even closer to Reality. In my humble opinion, Science is the way of interpreting, and cataloging the Facts as we get them through our physical 'sensors'. In science everything comes down essentially to physical measure and comparison. (... i might be wrong on this one... ). In my humble opinion, Religion is another (not THE other) way of keeping in touch with the Reality, and this way relates more to the mind, to the soul. Now, there are several important distinctions between Religion and Science, the most important one being that Religion explains WHY is there the Reality, while Science does not do that (... i might be wrong on this one too...). The main idea is that even though Religion and Science are very different in their proceedings, they have a common goal. They are just different approaches. I do not say that God does not exist, or that Science is wrong. Both Science and Religion are non-statical, they evolve: scientific discoveries on one side, new viewpoints on the other (e.g. Christian Saints are people who not only Believed in God, they also Loved God and Lived through God - IMHO). One more thing and I go away, I promise: most scientists have not denied Religion, and some were/are deeply involved in the religious life (of their communities, possibly). Many monks helped the development of Science (at least during the Middle Ages). Neither monks, nor scientists lived/live their lives as dual ones, hiding or being tormented by the 'contradiction'. No flames, just 'clear' thoughts, please! Mihai P.S. The creationists say the Earth was created some thousand years ago (6? 8? ). The scientists say the Earth was created some billion years ago (4? 6?). Who says it is the same YEAR they are referring to? Mihai Christodorescu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA 93012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:50:44 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: Science ___ Religion Message-ID: <32366B3D.3036@sesam.it> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 09:33:17 +0200 From: Hobson Sherren X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.05 9000/715) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LISTSERV@SJUVM.stjohns.edu Subject: Science ___ Religion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I confess I am one of those who regard this thread as more appropriate to the "back" option, but in the spirit of community with those who are still interested in re-working it, ie Arie, Ian, Stephen, Howard, Donald, Mihai et al, you might not be aware of this link / book: Polkinghorne, J.: The Faith of a Physicist: http://aaup.pupress.princeton.edu:70/0h/books/presses/princeton/titles/93041071. html "John Polkinghorne, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics, is President of Queens' College, Cambridge. Ordained a priest in 1982, he is a member of the General Synod of the Church of England." I point it out to you because I remember JP with great respect and gratitude, since he introduced me to quantum mechanics at Cambridge in such an enthusiastic and gripping way. We also invited him to "take tea" with some of us in rooms at Queens' (he wasn't President then), and chat with us about his reconciliation of mathematical physics and Christianity. He had the same twinkle in his eye on that occasion, as when we also invited him to hold an impromptu seminar explaining the significance of the just-discovered intermediate vector boson (and that dates us ...) For those who are more interested in the "forward" option: I'll submit another brief posting, under a different subject. All power to Sisyphus and his followers. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:07:55 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: science virus Matthew Weinstein wrote: > snip < > Dawkins conclusion just points out Haraway (and originially > Young's (??)) comment that science *is* culture. Science is Social Relations I am delighted to find this as a recent addition to Bob's site, http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/papers/index.html For those who are not familiar with it, he starts with: "It is time to move on both in theory and in practice." The bit that made the biggest impression on me at the time is: > A scientific fact appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, > and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, > a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and > theological niceties .... A scientific fact is therefore a mysterious > thing, simply because in it the social character of men's labour > appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the > product of that labour, because the relation of the producers > to the sum total of their labour is presented to them as a social > relation, existing not between themselves, but between the > products of their labour, i.e., between scientific findings. .... > A definite social relation between people assumes the fantastic > form of a relation between things.... This fetishism of scientific > facts has its origin in the peculiar social character of the labour > that produced them. (1:71-2) He now comments: "Of all the essays I have written, this is one of the two or three which I most enjoyed writing. I know it is dated, but I stand by its main argument" Forza, Sisyphus! ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:25:54 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? At 20:51 10-09-96 -0700, Mihai Christodorescu wrote: > I think (in MY HUMBLE OPINION) that Religion and Science are just two >of the many ways of acquiring knowledge. Let me explain MHO: > > In my humble opinion, there is a unique Reality that exists beyond our >powers, and which cannot be modified (or almost not...) by our choices. This >Reality is characterized by some Facts. > In my humble opinion, humanity is striving to get to know those Facts. I share and appreciate your Humble Opinion very much. Just want to add the humanity is in no way and in none of its parts outside Reality. Rational thinking and developing knowledge is part of the developing reality. Religion and philosophy give some insight into how these are possible and how they are embedded in Reality. Developing science clarifies this insight. > In my humble opinion, Religion is another (not THE other) way of >keeping in touch with the Reality, and this way relates more to the mind, to >the soul. Here we differ. As an up-to-date psychologist I think the bifurcation of Reality in "mind" and "matter" stems from outdated (but very firmly rooted) philosophy, and as far as the concept "soul" regards: it is either a mystification of that philosophyn or it indicates the total of the human person ("body" and "mind" NOT as different "substances"): man is "a living soul". When I started studying psychology it still was considered the "logos" (study) of the "psyche" (soul). I overcame that view by scrutinizing what psychologist really can study scientifically and how philosophers think about "Reality". Arie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:00:33 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: science and fact Don Maroc wrote: May I close on this positive note. There are many people whose intelligence I respect who have trouble with the concepts of evolution as it is currently posited. REPLY: It's very respectable to have doubts about any and every scientific theory, but if the doubts your freinds have about evolution relate to it not being a staggeringly good explanation of all the evidence we have at present, or that there is some competing theory with similar or greater explanatory power then they are simply wrong. Most of those with doubts tend to be either those with a creationist bent, who just ignore the evidence, or those with insufficient knowledge of modern biology. Some years ago I was given a splendid book called 'God or Evolution' published by the Jehovah's Witnesses. It was really well writen and very convincing, but now that I have some knowledge of biology I realise that the ideas criticised were not those of evolutionary theory at all but easily dismissible arguments which were said to be core principles in biology. Now I read this book for amusement. The fact that the sort of scientific illiteracy which leads to the casual disavowal of powerful concepts such as evolution is becoming common is something that should worry everyone, particularly those of you in the United States. A recent survey found that 62% of your high school students accept the Adam and Eve myth for example. This illiteracy threatens your standing as a great power and as the world's leading nation in scientific research. Ian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:21:24 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Science and Religion Stephen Clark worte: This is, historically, completely false. Religious practices and doctrines change in response to our situation and experience. It is true that believers will sometimes hold on to their belief even in the face of what might strike others as counter-evidence (so do scientists in the practice of their science). REPLY: Believers certainly amend their beliefs with time, ususally by adopting notions as preposterous as those they curently hold. The Jew's adoption of the Babylonian flood myth in 700BC or Chritianity's adoption of the Platonic ideas about the soul spring to mind. My point is that beliefs are not tested against new scientific knowledge in any systematic way. The whole thrust of what I am saying is that in our modern society religious belief is basically a sham and that we all defer to the power of the scientific method. Religious belief is essentially now 'religion as culture' ; beliefs and rituals are maintained as largely meaningless social processes, and the factual knowledge which gives us the power to tackle medical, social and technological problems is the domain of science to which we might attach a bit of ritual such as prayer, or attendence at Church. ================================================= Ian's other remark, that science does not pretend to offer an account of how things actually are, but only usable and helpful models of the world we presently experience, is true to one particular strand of scientific history. REPLY: I haven't expressed myself clearly enough. Science is about modelling the world in accordance with whatever body of data had been assembled. Such models synthesise bodies of information and give us limited power to predict the behaviour of systems. This the only sort of practical knowledge to which we definitely have access. I have no idea whether there is ultimate truth or transcendental knowledge or indeed whether these ideas mean anything at all. ============================================== Science and religion alike are often looking for the `best available explanation or guide'. REPLY: Religion doesn't seek at all in any meaningful sense, it just accepts what is handed down, perhaps with minor reinterpretation of fringe doctrine. Basically we are invited by believers to conduct our lives in accordance with myths assembled by illiterates thousands of years ago. ================================================= There need be no incompatibility between their results. My own view (previously stated) is that every scientific success actually lends weight to monotheism, since such successes are enormously more likely in a monotheistic cosmos than an atheistic one (if the latter could be a cosmos at all). REPLY That this world was created by the Christian deity is absolutely incredible. Even a benign human being would not construct the horrors that this natural world inflicts on its inhabitants let alone a perfect omniscient, benevolent deity. Ian Pitchford ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:34:34 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: science and fact At 08:00 11-09-96 UT, Ian wrote: >A recent survey found that 62% of your high school students accept the >Adam and Eve myth for example. This illiteracy threatens your standing as a >great power and as the world's leading nation in scientific research. This need not to mean that all those students are "creationists". The myth tells a very true story. Misunderstanding it is cause by reading it as a modern scientific account. It is not, it's the very true story about the relation of God and man, told in the language and with all knowledge at hand in the culture where this story was told originally. We do Moses injustice when we judge his scriptures only in the context of scientific knowledge we have to day, as if he had not much deeper understanding of those facts that science-of-today can't see. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:34:37 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Science and Religion At 08:21 11-09-96 UT, Ian wrote: (and at the risk of starting a flame I reply) >myths assembled by illiterates thousands of years ago. People who study those "myths" (theologians) study them from the whole of their cultural background and interprete their meaning using all knowledge that is available nowadays. Those people are very "literate", I'm afraid your interpretation and the way you read those "myths" is quite illiterate, the writers of those "myths" were mostly very literate in their times, much more than many specialised scientists nowadays. >That this world was created by the Christian deity is absolutely >incredible. Even a benign human being would not construct the horrors that >this natural world inflicts on its inhabitants let alone a perfect omniscient, >benevolent deity. A "benign human being" probably would create a world with no place for a free will and personal responsibility, a world with no possibility of love or hate, a world with no choice between good and evil, in short: a world with no human beings in the full sense of the word. That's what happens when tyrans and dictators "create" the world for the people in their power: everyone who does not conform to their "good regime" is exterminated to get a world according to the "omniscient, benevolent deity" they pretent to be. More modern: what are we doing in our computerised strongly regulated world? Even "benevolent" countries like Germany and the USA are introducing censorship and restrictions on the freedom of speech that is common in more tolerant countries like the Netherlands. Computers and robots are not responsible, their human designers and users are. When we let them take over because we believe them more accurate and efficient, enabling strong regulation according to what we think "good" (mostly: no political "trouble" and economic profit at whatever cost) we give up our human responsibility and expell love and punish hate of whatever really is evil: exploiting the underdeveloped and the poor and their land and natural resources. The major horrors are not "constructed" by your "deity", they are caused by mankind that denies the existence of God and goes its own way, neither loving God not their neighbours. Be not mistaken: religious fanats are the worst wolfs in sheepclothes, "christian" as well as "jewish" as well as "islamic" "fundamentalists". Arie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:55:44 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Myths Dear Arie, you wrote: the writers of those "myths" were mostly very literate in their times, much more than many specialised scientists nowadays. REPLY: Perhaps it's a bit unkind to split hairs, but yes those who wrote down the myths were obviously very literate and amongst the great minds of their times, but the fact remains that what they wrote down were porobably very ancient mytys assembled at the time when few if any were literate. If you or other believers think it sensible to conduct your life on the basis of these writings without testing them against curent scientific knowledge the I think you are in error. I also think that you leave us with no way of rejecting any belief however abhorrent, or with any way of chosing between them opposing beliefs. As a consequence some might choose relatively benign forms of irrationality such as Judiasm or Christianity, others might choose to subscribe to ideas that threaten the whole fabric of society - some of which have come close to threatening the annihilation of life on this planet: racism, fascism, communism - take your pick. All you could say to such people is 'acccept this set of myths of which I approve not that set'. I choose to ask such people to justify their beliefts against scientific fact. Regards Ian ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:52:30 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Olivier Joseph Subject: Re: Science and Religion > People who study those "myths" (theologians) study them from the >whole of their cultural background and interprete their meaning using all >knowledge that is available nowadays. Just a word : according to my "Petit Robert" dictionnary, folks who study "myths" are not theologian ... Olivier ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 21:12:47 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Myths At 14:55 11-09-96 UT, Ian wrote: >Dear Arie, you wrote: > > the writers of those "myths" were mostly very literate in their >times, much more than many specialised scientists nowadays. > >REPLY: Perhaps it's a bit unkind to split hairs, but yes those who wrote down >the myths were obviously very literate and amongst the great minds of their >times, but the fact remains that what they wrote down were porobably very >ancient mytys assembled at the time when few if any were literate. If you or >other believers think it sensible to conduct your life on the basis of these >writings without testing them against curent scientific knowledge...... You can't test if your loved one loves you by any "scientific" means. In the same way no crucial religious fact can be tested scientifically. Sorry for that, but I accept obvious truths "even" when they cannot be tested scientifically. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:51:04 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: H-NEXA Editor Michael Gregory Subject: Proper procedure for SUB to your list Hello, If you have answered this question, I have not received it. Many of our subscribers wish to subscribe to Sci-Cult, but are having trouble doing it. Could you please disclose the proper drill in a private message to me at ? Should you wish to notify your subscribers of the new H-Net list called H-NEXA, I will be pleased to send you a short bit of copy. Much obliged, and congratulations on a wonderful list! Michael Gregory Editor, H-NEXA: The Science-Humanities Convergence Forum ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:58:23 -1000 Reply-To: Donald Wessels Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Wessels Subject: yRe: science and religion In-Reply-To: <96Sep9.013920hwt.587515(5)@relay1.Hawaii.Edu> On Mon, 9 Sep 1996, Stephen Clark wrote: > I doubt if there is anything to be gained by fighting the old > `science versus religion' routine yet again: it's such an ill-formed > dichotomy, and so infected by mythistorical anecdotes and lousy > philosophy, that no one's original opinion is ever changed. > You are right I hastily wrote my post and I should have phrased my prose a little more precisely. I will try to articulate my views a little better. >Nonetheless, I feel constrained to respond to Donald's comments: > > > There is no doubt that western religion and science has come to > > believe in an almost diametricly opposed set of values. > > Since neither religion nor science (being abstract objects or > possibly social institutions) believe anything at all, I presume > that we must construe this as: > > `there is no doubt that religious believers in the West and scientists > (in the West?) have completely different values'. Your assumption is correct. What I should of said is that religious believer and non-believer scientists often find themselves believing completely different values. > > Since plenty of scientists are religious there is good reason to > doubt this. And if it were true that scientists disbelieved entirely > in the value of honesty, courage, charity and so on we would have every > reason to distrust and fear them. > I have had several science professors who are are religious. Religion and science can be separated. I have heard it stated that religion and science discribe two aspects of reality one is transcendental, the other materialistic. I see this as a subtle form of denial, a rationalisation for believing in myth. The reason for maintaining these beliefs are probably multifaceted in that they provide both comfort, a sense of mystery or even because it incites fear. (Why do so many _like_ the fear of a good horror movie?). I am an atheist and I consider myself to have the values of honesty, courage and charity. These values, in a person, are independant of ones religious creed. The values that a person maintians for ones behavior is irrelevent to the issue of claims of knowledge. > > Science is dynamic and uncertain it function to > k> find understanding. > > In my experience scientists are often extraordinarily certain about > things, and deeply resent challenges to their authority. In this > they are of course exactly like every one else... There is no doubt a combination of influences for scientists for being "extraordinarily certain" and "deeply resent challenges". Often a challenge to there pet theory may be tied in to their livihood and thereby threaten their standard of living, They could be just may have to much faith in the data in which they are basing their theory on. And, of course the person could be just be a plain old egotist and believe that he could not possibly be wrong (I met a few egotistical scientists). Each one of us may have been guilty of "coping an attitude "at various times in our lives. We all want to believe ourselves to be right that is why we as a society should insist on substantiation (evidence) of claims to knowledge. We as individuals should remind ourselves often of the fallibility of our beliefs and perceptions and regularly question our own understand of what we think we know. > > > Religion is the belief that the universal truths are > > alreay because some holy text says so. > > Not all religions are scriptural; very few insist that the text is all, > or that we can never discover new implications of old practice. And > scientists have foundational beliefs as well. > I am well aware of the fact many religions are less dependant on scriptural text than others. Zen for insistance and the practice the physical discipline of zazen meditation. But, even they use language to point to the transcendental with the use of the koan or the meditation on a mantra. All systems of understanding have a core set of untestable assumptions. Which, in my opinion, all boils down to the question -- what can or should we accept as fact? Some aspects of eastern philosophy says this world we live in is illusion and our goal in life is to fully realize this "fact." Then by seeing through this world of illusion come to realize an ultimate reality or enlightenment. The problem I see is they make a lot of unsubstantiated empirical claims, such as they can levitate, they are invincible and many other claims, some with parallels in western religion, such as faith healing. All of which brings me back to the topic of substantiation. There is no way of substantiating claims of an ultimate reality any more than one can substantiate claims of an omnipotent god they are simply outside the realm of empirical tests. I define any firmly held belief that is outside the realm of empirical tests religious. The evidence for the claims paranormal, that seemly contradict science, that could comfirm the reality of a god or ultimate reality has failed to materialize in any of tangible manner. It could be of course we are just not looking in the right way. But, until there is enough evidence to verify the existance of the paranormal I am sticking with the rapidly expanding claims of empirically testable knowledge. I think this leads me to another dicotomy I perceive between science and religion. Science and religion both strive for certainty in claims of knowledge. I think in could pretty much be said that all religion have some form of dogma or absolute postulate, such as an ultimate reality, a godhead, or omnipotent god, that is held to be unquestionably true. The scientific method strives to establish postulates that are by design testable. The religious "method" uses claims of knowledge based on unverifiable absolutes and often picking and choosing (or even ignoring) empirical data when it bolsters their claims. Testability of religious claims are not necessary in fact it is often discouraged and sometimes it is vehemently opposed -- such as the impassioned opposition by Creationists to the acceptance of the established facts of evolutionary biology in the U.S. today. > > Religion offers > > stability and certainty, even when it contradicts the facts, which is very > > emotional comforting. ~> > How *comforting* do you imagine it to be to believe that what one does > may have infinite significance? It would be a lot easier and > more restful to imagine that nothing we do will matter in the end. > And what facts do you have in mind? > I have personally experienced the fact the paranormal beliefs can be on the neurotic or even paranoid side. When I was growing up I accepted all kinds of paranormal beliefs. Without going into details I was pretty neurotic young man. As for the facts, or the lack of them, I discussed above, there is little or no evidence of changing water to wine much less exorcised demons drowning in a herd of swine. The supposed facts of the existance of miracles or gifts of the spirit are the areas of testability that has seriously fallen short of conclusive verification. There is copious evidence of fraud and flim-flam but precious little evidence of through serious paranormal investigation. > > > > Some form of religion has probably been around for millions of > > years. Your form of judeo-christian (I'm assuming this is what you believe > > in) has only been around 2000 years. > > Talk of `judaeo-christian' religion is actually rather offensive to > a good many practising jews. There is indeed a monotheistic tradition > stemming (mythistorically) from Abraham (which includes Islam) but > the different strands aren't identical. > I don't mean to offend, just to criticize. > > You are probably right that religion is a more fit meme than > > science because it feeds on human fear and ignorance. > > No it doesn't (I can be dogmatic too). Religious practices (stories, > rituals, laws) are ways of reinforcing attitudes and emotions that > seem appropriate. There are relatively `stoical' religious forms > (including `science', when this is adopted as a structure for an > entire life rather than being something that some people do for > part of it). Stoical forms, though, tend to mutate into passivity > or despair. > I have no problem with ancient stories, rituals, and laws as a means for reinforcing appropriate attitudes and emotions. Appropriateness is what should be subject to empirical verification. I have serious doubt as to the appropriateness to many ancient practices, especially bibical practices. What I think you are trying to express here is that you have the impression that a scientist is somehow dispassionate and objective. Our propensity for passion and subjectivity is precisely the reason we need temperance by open critique of our ideas. Stoic indifference in a human behavioral trait that all to many people exhibit. > > > But the shear > > weight of scientific understanding in todays world is pushing > > judeo-christian to the theological/philosophical ropes and it is my hope > > that with in the next century (if we survive) that it will go down for the > > count or at least science will win by a TKO. > > No, it isn't. I hereby challenge Donald to name any single credal statement > of (say) the orthodox Christian Church which has been refuted by > science (check the Nicene, the Apostles', the Athanasian). Or even made > less likely. Christian creeds are certainly the most bizarre of the > Abrahamic religions'. If even they survive, other creeds also do. And so > do non-Abrahamic religions like Buddhism (in its various forms) or Hindu. > To reiterate, statements of faith based on absolutes such as an ultimate reality or an omnipotent deity are untestable. They can only be tested by inference from any claims that the deitys power or the realization of godhead has on the material world. There are NO rigorously tested experiments that has shown the existance of the paranormal of any type, shape, or form. Of course this paucity of evidence does not disprove the existance of paranormal phenomena. It just shows that we havent found any conformation yet. But there is a distinct possiblity that these phenomena may be just in the head of the believers. > Western science, historically, grew out of theological convictions, > notably the wildly unlikely idea that creatures like us have > access to the principles that govern the entire cosmos, that what > seems humanly reasonable will turn out to be cosmically true. > It is intriguing and a wildly unlikely idea that we can have certainty about anything. But, I do belief we can have reasonable ideas that are approximations the cosmically true. > See (if anyone is interested) my books *From Athens to Jerusalem* > (Clarendon PRess 1984), The Mysteries of Religion (Blackwell 1986), > God's World and the Great Awakening (Clarendon Press 1991) > > Stephen Clark > srlclark@liverpool.ac.uk > http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/philos.html > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. | Religion is answers that may never be questioned. | --J.J. Hahn --------------------------------------------------- + -------------------- For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care. | Donald F.Wessels,Jr -A.E. Housman | wessels@hawaii.edu xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:45:13 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mihai Christodorescu Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? X-To: Arie Dirkzwager In-Reply-To: <199609110915.CAA28317@acme> I said: >> In my humble opinion, Religion is another (not THE other) way of >>keeping in touch with the Reality, and this way relates more to the mind, to >>the soul. Mr Arie Dirkwager replied: > Here we differ. As an up-to-date psychologist I think the >bifurcation of Reality in "mind" and "matter" stems from outdated (but very >firmly rooted) philosophy, and as far as the concept "soul" regards: it is >either a mystification of that philosophyn or it indicates the total of the >human person ("body" and "mind" NOT as different "substances"): man is "a >living soul". > When I started studying psychology it still was considered the >"logos" (study) of the "psyche" (soul). I overcame that view by scrutinizing >what psychologist really can study scientifically and how philosophers think >about "Reality". I am sorry, but I think you misunderstood, possbily because I have not stressed enough one thing: Religion AND Science (NOT versus). If I had considered "mind" opposed to "flesh", Religion would have been of course opposed to Science. Here are my previous thought ordered in a more scientific manner(?!): Reality ==> Tools /\ || || \/ Ways of using the Tools ==> our opinion The Tools are: "soul", "flesh". One does not exclude the other (_maybe_ it complements! the other). The Ways are "religion", "science". There is nothing wrong with one or another; none is better than the other in my humble opinion; they add valed to each other. Mihai P.S. Does not the concept of man as "living soul" implies that the "soul" is better than the "flesh" (and therefore it "decided" to "come down and exist" as "flesh")? Isn't this the same thing as the philosophy of the dichotomized Reality? Mihai Christodorescu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA 93012 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:40:49 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Metaphilosophy I am sure that members of this forum will be most interested in an article recently published at a site for which I am Webmaster: Thomas H. Thompson,'Metaphilosophy' 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. The URL is: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/rmy/indsac.html Regards Ian ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:43:41 UT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Archives on the WWW I would like to ascertain whether members of this forum would like to see the Science-as-Culture archives available in hypertext format with email links back to the original authors, and whether any of you would be interested in submitting lengthier pieces outlining your views on issues of interest to members. Please send your replies to Ian Pitchford Thanks Ian ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 15:09:07 MET Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rene von Schomberg Organization: Tilburg University Subject: new publications New Publications from The International Centre for Human and Public Affairs(ORDER INFO SEE BELOW) Contested Technology Ethics, Risk and Public Debate Edited by Ren=E9 von Schomberg ISBN 90-802139-2-6; Dfl (dutch guilders) 59,-, 265 pages with index New discursive procedures for technology assessment are introduced and reflected within the framework offered by critical theories such as Ulrich Beck's analysis of the `risk society', J=FCrgen Habermas' theory of communicative action and Anthony Giddens's approach to late-modernity. The papers collected for this volume address the following themes: conte- sted technology: the social-philosophical dimension; public debate and technological innovation, ethics of risk assessment and implications for the legal system. Contributions among others by: Wolfgang van den Daele - Fritz Gloede - Ruth McNal- ly and Peter Wheale Coping with Deliberate Release The Limits of Risk Assessment Edited by Ad van Dommelen ISBN 90-802139-4-2; Dfl(dutch guilders) 69,-, 256 pages with index The fifteen chapters of this volume are the concerted attempt of internationally distinguished authors from Europe, the United States and Japan to map promises and perils in the emerging social and political landscape of modern biotechnolo- gy. The limits of risk assessment in relation to the delibera- te release of genetically modified organisms are addressed with regard to the `Scientific Backgrounds' (Part I), the `Regulatory Practice' (Part II), and the `Political Conditi- ons' (Part III). Contributions among others by: Philip Regal - Sheldon Krimsky - Christine von Weizs=E4cker - Les Levidow The Social Management of Biotechnology: Workshop Proceedings Edited by Peter Wheale Dfl(dutch guilders) 29,- This volume of collected papers is designed to inform, stimulate and engage all those interested in the emerging biotechnological age. Topics covered in the text include the ethical questions raised by the creation of transgenic farm animals, the morality of genetic experimentation on animals, the controversy surrounding the patenting of genetic material and of the transgenic animals themselves, and the ethical implications of engineering transgenic animals for the sole purpose of transplanting their organs into humans (xenograf- ting). Also considered are the environmental hazards, public policy issues, and the political implications of modern bio- technology and genetic engineering. ORDER INFORMATION Mail your order with a cheque or money order payable to ICHPA to (or transfer to Postbank account 4307323): INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR HUMAN AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS (ICHPA) Pastoor Smitsstraat 25 5014 RH Tilburg Phone/Fax +31-13-5360751 The Netherlands email: R.vonSchomberg@kub.nl ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:32:06 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Re: myths :: archetypes :: genetic encoding :: semiotics :: language :: Right Brain Cs > This discussion of Science & Religion has recapitulated the process at > the heart of the clash of the two cultures going on within people today. > We have the opportunity here to reach a gestaalt with the knowledge we > have of science & culture on this list. The following is the explanation > Jung gave of his application of the scientific method to "the underlying > structure of the Psyche" [defined as the totality of Consciousness, > conscious & unconscious]. We can *know scientifically* consciousness, > just at we can matter. We all have a direct experience of our culture, > but to reach collectively a higher level of understanding about it, we > need to be informed of Jung's discovery, just as we need to be of > Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So I would like to offer this > excerpt to come to a consensus on the scientific definition of myths > and of "the religious function of consciousness" as products of the > right hemisphere of the brain (second-order consciousness language, > which have lost their meaning to our scientific culture) to those who > have not read Jung. I have put a few words into editorial brackets to > clarify usage. Substitute please for the word "archetype" the term > which has come into our scientific culture through the work of Watson > & Crick since Jung's death in 1961, "genetic encoding." > An additional concept that is necessary to understand this crucial > aspect of human consciousness: the interface (unity) between body and > consciousness is Jung's "psychoid unconscious" which may be what Jesper > Hoffmeyer is telling us about: "Biological information should be seen > as something very different from physical information. . . . Molecules > are basic to life, but they are basic because they are signs, and signs > have to be interpreted. Organisms are semiotic creatures." > > My hope is that, as Marvin Bolt said, this discussion can "continue to > clarify" and once again avoid, "bogging down in the usual diatribe." > The trend that I would like to catalyze (as Arie Dirkzwager said) in > looking forward to a fruitful discussion -- is that at the frontier of > science we are perceiving on the horizon the unity of consciousness & > matter AND the relationship is *reciprocal.* This is the crux of the > debate between theists and non-theists. Is the Universe intelligent > DEFINITION: "a higher order complexity" which obviates the boredom of > eternity by being so far ahead of the quantum of intelligence we have, > that we the lesser of finite intelligence (though holographic in > relationship to it!) can never comprehend the greater? > I shall send this important piece of Jung's scientific work on > consciousness by separate posting following immediately; the choice > is yours therefore whether to read such a lengthy posting. If we now > need teams of scientists to make the next discoveries, this applies too > with respect to our culture: DEFINITION "the Collective Consciousness." > The way it has *evolved in history* has unfortunately (referring to > Santayana's so oft-quoted "if we do not learn from history we are > condemned to repeat it," that it has become cliche and accordingly > ignored!) sunk into the Collective Unconsciousness. > Michelle Christides ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:32:52 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Scientific Method Applied to "products" of Collective Consciousness > >From The Psychology of the Unconscious, by C. G. Jung: > > The Psychological Meaning of the Collective Unconscious > > Medical psychology, growing as it did out of professional practice > insists on the personal nature of the psyche. By this I mean the views > of Freud and Adler. It is a psychology of the person, and its > aetiological or causal factors are regarded almost wholly as personal in > nature. Nonetheless, even this psychology is based on the sexual > instinct or on the urge for self-assertion, which are by no means merely > personal peculiarities. It is forced to do this because it lays claim to > being an explanatory science. Neither of these views would deny the > existence of a priori instincts common to man and animals alike or that > they have a significant influence on personal psychology. Yet instincts > are impersonal, universally distributed, hereditary factors of a dynamic > or motivating character, which very often fail so completely to reach > consciousness that modern psychotherapy is faced with the task of > helping the patient to become conscious of them. Moreover, the instincts > are not vague and indefinite by nature, but are specifically formed > motive forces which, long before there is any consciousness, and in > spite of any degree of consciousness later on, pursue their inherent > goals. Consequently they form very close analogies to the archetypes, so > close, in fact, that there is good reason for supposing that the > archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves, in > other words, that they are patterns of instinctual behavior. > > The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more > daring than to assume there are instincts. One admits readily that human > activity is influenced to a high degree by instincts, quite apart from > the rational motivations of the conscious mind. So if the assertion is > made that our imagination, perception, and thinking are likewise > influenced by inborn and universally present formal elements, it seems > to me that a normally functioning intelligence can discover in this idea > just as much or just as little mysticism as in the theory of instincts. > Although this reproach of mysticism has frequently been leveled at my > concept, I must emphasize yet again that the concept of the collective > unconscious is neither a speculative nor philosophical but an empirical > matter. The question is simply this: are there or are there not > unconscious, universal forms of this kind? If they exist, then there is > a region of the psyche which one can call the collective unconscious. It > is true that the diagnosis of the collective unconscious is not always > an easy task. It is not sufficient to point > out the often obviously archetypal nature of unconscious products, for > they can just as well be derived from acquisition through language and > education. Cryptomnesia should always also be ruled out, which it is > almost impossible to do in certain cases. In spite of all these > difficulties, there remains enough individual instances showing the > autochthonous revival of mythological motifs to put the matter beyond > any reasonable doubt. But if such an unconscious exists at all, > psychological explanation must take account of it and > submit certain alleged personal aetiologies to sharper criticism. > > What I mean can perhaps best be made clear by a concrete example. You > have probably read > Freud's discussion of a certain picture by Leonardo da Vinci: St. Anne > with the Virgin Mary and the Christ-child. Freud interprets this > remarkable picture in terms of the fact that Leonardo himself had two > mothers. This causality is personal. We shall not linger over the minor > inaccuracy that St. Anne happens to be the grandmother of Christ and > not, as required by Freud's interpretations, the mother, but shall > simply point out that interwoven with the apparently personal psychology > there is an impersonal motif well known to us from other fields. This is > the motif of the dual mother, an archetype to be found in many variants > in the field of mythology and comparative religion and > forming the basis of numerous "representations collectives." I might > mention, for instance, the motif of the dual descent, that is descent > from human and divine parents, as in the case of Heracles, who received > immortality through being unwittingly adopted by Hera. What was a myth > in Greece was actually a ritual in Egypt: Pharaoh was both human and > divine by nature. In the birth chambers of the Egyptian temples > Pharaoh's second, divine conception and birth is depicted on the walls; > he is "twice born." It is an idea that underlies all rebirth mysteries, > Christianity included. Christ himself is > "twice-born": through his baptism in the Jordan he was regenerated and > reborn from water and spirit. Consequently, in Roman liturgy the font is > designated the "uterus ecclesiae," and, as you can read in the > "benediction of the font" on Holy Saturday before Easter. Further, > according to an early Christian-Gnostic idea, the spirit which appeared > in the form of a dove was interpreted as Sophia-Sapientia-Wisdom and the > Mother of Christ. Thanks to this motif of the dual birth, children > today, instead of having good and evil fairies who magically "adopt" > them at birth with blessings or > curses, are given sponsors - a "godfather" and a "godmother." > > The ideas of a second birth is found at all times and in all places. In > the earliest beginnings of medicine it was a magical means of healing; > in many religions it is the central mystical experience; it is the key > in medieval, occult philosophy, and, last but not least, it is an > infantile fantasy occurring in the numberless children, large and small, > who believe that their parents are not their real parents but merely > foster-parents to whom they were handed over. Benvenuto Cellini also has > this idea, as he himself relates in his autobiography. > > Now it is absolutely out of the question that all the individuals who > believe in a dual descent have in reality always had two mothers, or > conversely that those few who shared Leonardo's fate have infected the > rest of humanity with their complex. Rather, one cannot avoid the > assumption that the universal occurrence of the dual-birth motif > together with the fantasy of the two mothers answers an omnipresent > human need which is reflected in these motifs. If Leonardo da Vinci did > in fact portray his two mothers in St. Anne and Mary - which I doubt - > he nonetheless was only expressing something which countless millions of > people before and after him have believed. . . . > > [Virgin Birth symbolizes the human being's *second* birth of "spirit" > a.k.a. *second-order consciousness*] . . . Athene, who sprang, > unbegotten, directly from the head of Zeus, was a virgin, and knew only > spiritual motherhood. All this is really an allusion to Mary and the > rebirth motif. There is not a shadow of evidence that Leonardo meant > anything else by his picture. Even if it is correct to assume that he > identified himself with the Christ-child, he was in all probability > representing the mythological dual-mother motif and by no means his own > personal prehistory. And what about all the other artists who painted > the same theme? Surely not all of them has two mothers? > > Let us now transpose Leonardo's case to the field of the neuroses, and > assume that a patient with a mother complex is suffering from the > delusion that the cause of his neurosis lies in having really had two > mothers. The personal interpretation would have to admit that he is > right - and yet it would be quite wrong. For in reality the cause of his > neurosis would lie in the reacitivation of the dual mother archetype, > quite regardless of whether he had one mother or two mothers, because, > as we have > seen, this archetype functions individually and historically without any > reference to the relatively rare occurrence of dual motherhood. > > In such a case, it is of course tempting to presuppose so simple and > personal a cause, yet the hypothesis is not only inexact but totally > false. It is admittedly difficult to understand how a dual-mother > motif-unknown to a physician trained only in medicine-could have so > great a determining power as to produce the effect of a traumatic > condition. But if we consider the tremendous powers that lie hidden in > the mythological and religious sphere in man, the aetiological > significance of the archetype appears less fantastic. In numerous cases > of neurosis the cause of the disturbance lies in the very fact that the > psychic life of the patient lacks the co-operation of these *motive > forces.* Nevertheless a purely personalistic psychology, by reducing > everything to personal > causes, tries its level best to deny the existence of archetypal motifs > and even seeks to destroy them by personal analysis. I consider this a > rather dangerous procedure which cannot be justified medically. > > Today you can judge better than you could twenty years ago the nature of > the forces > involved. Can we not see how a whole nation is reviving an archaic > symbol, yes, even archaic religious forms, and how this mass emotion is > influencing and revolutionizing the life of the individual in a > catastrophic manner? The man of the past is alive in us today to a > degree undreamt of before the war [WWI] and in the last analysis what is > the fate of Great nations but a summation of the psychic changes in > individuals? > > So far as a neurosis is really only a private affair, having its roots > exclusively in personal causes, archetypes play no role at all. But if > it is a question of a general incompatibility or an otherwise injurious > condition productive of neuroses in relatively large numbers of > individuals, then we must assume the presence of *constellated > archetypes.* [read: "genetic-encodings" "constellated" = unconscious > projections of meaning] Since neuroses are in most cases not just > privat concerns, but social phenomena, we must assume that archetypes > are constellated in these cases too. > > The archetype corresponding to the situation is activated, and as a > result those explosive and dangerous forces hidden in the archetype come > into action, frequently with unpredictable consequences. There is no > lunacy people, under the domination of an archetype, will not fall a > prey to. If thirty years ago anyone had dared to predict that our > psychological development was tending towards a revival of the medieval > persecutions of the Jews, that Europe would again tremble before the > Roman fasces and the tramp of legions, that people would once more give > the Roman salute, as two thousand years ago, and that instead of the > Christian Cross an archaic swastika would lure onward millions of > warriors ready for death -- why, that man would have been hooted at as > a mystical fool. And today? Surprising as it may seem, all this > absurdity is a horrible reality. Private life, private aetiologies, > and private neuroses have become almost a fiction in the world of today. > The man of the past who lived in a world of archaic "representations > collectives" has risen again into very visible and painfully real life, > and this not only in a few unbalanced individuals but in many millions > of people. > > There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life. > Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic > constitution, not in the form of images filled with content, but at > first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility > of a certain type of perception [scientific: sensory datum] and action. > When a situation occurs which corresponds to a given archetype, that > archetype > becomes activated and a compulsiveness appears, which, like an > instinctual drive, gains its way against all reason and will, or else > produces a conflict of pathological dimensions, that is to say, a > neurosis. > > Method of Proof > > We must now turn to the question of how the existence of archetypes can > be proved. Since > archetypes are supposed to produce certain psychic forms, we must > discuss how and where one can get hold of the material demonstrating > these forms. The main source, then, is dreams, which have the advantage > of being involuntary, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche and > are therefore pure products of nature not falsified by any conscious > purpose. By questioning the individual one can ascertain which of the > motifs appearing in the dream are known to him. From those which are > unknown to him we must naturally exclude all motifs which might be known > to him, as for instance- to revert to the case of Leonardo-the vulture > symbol. We are not sure whether Leonardo took this symbol from Horapollo > or not, although it would have been perfectly possible for an educated > person of that time, because in those days artists were distinguished > for their wide knowledge of the humanities. Therefore, although the > bird-motif is an archetype par excellence, its existence in Leonardo's > fantasy would still prove nothing. Consequently, we must look for motifs > which could not possibly be known to the dreamer and yet behave > functionally in his dream in such a manner as to coincide with the > functioning of the archetype known from historical sources. > > Another source for the material we need is to be found in "active > imagination." By this I mean a sequence of fantasies produced by > deliberate concentration. I have found that the existence of unrealized, > unconscious fantasies increases the frequency and intensity of dreams, > and that when these fantasies are made conscious the dreams change their > character and become weaker and less frequent. From this I have drawn > the conclusion that dreams often contain fantasies which "want" to > become conscious. The sources of dreams are often repressed instincts > which have a natural tendency to influence the conscious mind. In cases > of this sort, the patient is simply given the task of > contemplating any one fragment of fantasy that seems significant to > him-a chance idea, perhaps, or something he has become conscious of in a > dream -- until its context becomes visible, that is to say, the relevant > associative material in which it is embedded. It is *not* a question of > the "free association" recommended by Freud for the purpose of > dream-analysis, but of elaborating the fantasy by observing the further > fantasy material that adds itself to the fragment in a natural manner. > > This is not the place to enter upon a technical discussion of the > method. Suffice it to say that the resultant sequence of fantasies > relieves the unconscious and produces material rich in archetypal images > and associations. Obviously, this is a method that can only be used in > certain carefully selected cases. The method is not entirely without > danger, because it may carry the patient too far away from reality. A > warning against thoughtless application is therefore in place. > > Finally, very interesting sources of archetypal material are to be found > in the delusions of paranoiacs; the fantasies observed in trance-states; > and the dreams of early childhood, from the third to the fifth year. > Such material is available in profusion, but it is valueless unless one > can adduce convincing mythological parallels. It does not, of course, > suffice simply to connect a dream about a snake with the mythological > occurrence of snakes, for who is to guarantee that the functional > meaning of the snake in the dream is the same as in the mythological > setting? In order to draw a valid parallel, it is necessary to know the > functional meaning of the individual symbol, and then to find out > whether the apparently parallel mythological symbol has a similar > context and therefore the same functional meaning. Establishing such > facts not only requires length and wearisome researches, but is also an > ungrateful subject for demonstration. As the symbols must not be torn > out of their context, one has to > launch forth into exhaustive descriptions, personal as well as > symbological, and this is practically impossible in the framework of a > lecture. I have repeatedly tried it at the risk of sending one half of > my audience to sleep. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:08:02 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: David Meyer Subject: Re: Jung I read Michelle Christides' posts from and about Jung with great interest, my "knowledge" about Jung being derived mainly from fiction (Robertson Davies, Gordon R. Dickson). They seem a particularly relevant addition to the ongoing thread on religion and science. I have two (as I just explained, uninformed) comments. First, Michelle writes: > Substitute please for the word "archetype" the term > which has come into our scientific culture through the > work of Watson & Crick since Jung's death in 1961, > "genetic encoding." If this is really what Jung meant, there might be, shall we say, more precise ways of testing for their existence than Jung's "Method of Proof": > Since > archetypes are supposed to produce certain psychic forms, we must > discuss how and where one can get hold of the material demonstrating > these forms. The main source, then, is dreams, which have the advantage > of being involuntary, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche and > are therefore pure products of nature not falsified by any conscious > purpose. By questioning the individual one can ascertain which of the > motifs appearing in the dream are known to him. From those which are > unknown to him we must naturally exclude all motifs which might be known > to him ... Since the main example given is that of the "dual mother archetype", and even the youngest child has both the concepts "mother" and "two", it is difficult to see how one is to "exclude all motifs which might be known to him". My modest suggestion is, if archetypes really be genetically encoded, to look for common genetic markers in the DNA of patients "suffering from the delusion that the cause of his [or her] neurosis lies in having really had two mothers". I know of studies already underway to do such searches in children with high SAT scores. (Of course, I don't expect them to be successful either.) Second, I find it interesting that "collective" in "collective unconscious" is to be taken to mean "universally present". This is, of course, not what it connotes to the average English speaker, with its usual meaning of "aggregate", its historical association with socialism/communism, and its consequent undertones of "jointly shared". David Meyer ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 16:34:38 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Serge Conein Subject: Re: Myths In a message dated 11/09/96 20:58:27, you write: > > You can't test if your loved one loves you by any "scientific" >means. In the same way no crucial religious fact can be tested >scientifically. Sorry for that, but I accept obvious truths "even" when they >cannot be tested scientifically. > >Arie > > This is the problem of the atheistoscientist, he uses lack of proof to cover his lack of intelligence, he forgets that at the basis of his formulas there were axioms... Or obvious truth, that have to be accepted though cant be proven. ! Mal. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:40:33 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? At 18:45 11-09-96 -0700, Mihai Christodorescu wrote: >P.S. Does not the concept of man as "living soul" implies that the "soul" is >better than the "flesh" (and therefore it "decided" to "come down and exist" as >"flesh")? Isn't this the same thing as the philosophy of the dichotomized >Reality? It is and I think such philosophy is wrong and leads to big problems: where in the whole of Reality should we draw the dichotomizing line? What is the relation between the two (the "upper" one and the "lower" one). etc. But that starts an ontological-philosophical discussion. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:48:48 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ruby Rohrlich Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? X-To: Mihai Christodorescu In-Reply-To: <199609120516.BAA29066@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Haven't any of you philosophers, with your concentration on pure abstractions,heard that the word "man" is no longer the preferred word when dealing with people in general, any more than "woman" is the word to be used. There are so man synonyms; try thinking of the inclusive ones, rather than the exclusive "man". Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:11:40 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jan and Garnet Subject: Re: Archives on the WWW ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBA0CE.FEAD54A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Affirmative, Ian. Jan Atkinson-Grosjean ---------- From: Ian Pitchford[SMTP:I_Pitchford@MSN.COM] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 1996 4:43 AM To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Subject: Archives on the WWW I would like to ascertain whether members of this forum would like to see the Science-as-Culture archives available in hypertext format with email links back to the original authors, and whether any of you would be interested in submitting lengthier pieces outlining your views on issues of interest to members. Please send your replies to Ian Pitchford Thanks Ian ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBA0CE.FEAD54A0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiUAAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AGABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAF8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABTY2ktQ3VsdCAgU2NpZW5jZS1hcy1DdWx0dXJlAFNNVFAAU0NJRU5DRS1BUy1DVUxU VVJFQFNKVVZNLlNUSk9ITlMuRURVAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAJQAAAFND SUVOQ0UtQVMtQ1VMVFVSRUBTSlVWTS5TVEpPSE5TLkVEVQAAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgAB MAEAAAAfAAAAJ1NjaS1DdWx0ICBTY2llbmNlLWFzLUN1bHR1cmUnAAACAQswAQAAACoAAABTTVRQ OlNDSUVOQ0UtQVMtQ1VMVFVSRUBTSlVWTS5TVEpPSE5TLkVEVQAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAC AfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAD1UIBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEA GAAAAFJFOiBBcmNoaXZlcyBvbiB0aGUgV1dXAKkHAQWAAwAOAAAAzAcJAAwAEQALACgABAAwAQEg gAMADgAAAMwHCQAMABEACwARAAQAGQEBCYABACEAAAAwOUMzOERGRUJEMENEMDExOEU0RjQ0NDU1 MzU0MDAwMAAOBwEDkAYAZAQAABIAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAA OQAARC0jCKG7AR4AcAABAAAAGAAAAFJFOiBBcmNoaXZlcyBvbiB0aGUgV1dXAAIBcQABAAAAFgAA AAG7oQgjLf6NwwoMvRHQjk9ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAASAAAA amFuYWdAd2hpZGJleS5jb20AAAADAAYQNbLCwQMABxAAAgAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAAQUZGSVJNQVRJ VkUsSUFOSkFOQVRLSU5TT04tR1JPU0pFQU4tLS0tLS0tLS0tRlJPTTpJQU5QSVRDSEZPUkRTTVRQ OklQSVRDSEZPUkRATVNOQ09NU0VOVDpUSFVSU0RBWSxTRQAAAAACAQkQAQAAAOoCAADmAgAAQAUA AExaRnV3SNRi/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0 ZW0CgzO3AuQHEwKDNBLMFMV9CoCLCM8J2TsXnzI1NQKABwqBDbELYG5nMTAz7xRQCwoVYgwBYwBA FLAN0ARpcgDAdGl2ZSxEIEkAcC4gSgORQZR0awuAcwIgLUcDYDhzamUAcAqFCotsaQgxODAC0Wkt MTSeNA3wDNAg0wtZMTYKoOsDYBPQYwVALSL3Cochq+sMMCJ2RgNhOiP+InYMguEdQiBQaXQRcAIQ CyAAW1NNVFA6SV8FJ/dABeBOLkNPTX5dI58krQZgAjAl3ybrVMJoCHBzZGF5HTAGYIsFMBPgYgSQ IDEyHTAAMTk5NiA0OjSaMxSwTSovJK1UbyxvMSbrTXVsHPALUGUgPRegYwUgCJACMAQgb2YOICAw E8AGAENJRU4AQ0UtQVMtQ1VgTFRVUkUwjys+df5iHrAiwDKvJusHEBFwHQHTNaEDoHRoNPBXPLAe /3kgAzM2IXcUUQvyInZJpCB3CGBsZDXhazTw8HRvIGEE8ASQAZALgP8/8DyAPHEFwAeALzI1ozxw 5QQAIChBdW0KhUAMEbC7QJE8gVM1MAnwQQAtQOB/NuA0kQhwNPAKwDvUCoVhXnYLcAtgAmA08CBB UWjkeXBBEWV4BUAoQRzRcz/wKABoIBPgR2E14W7qawQgYgDQa0CiPHEKhbkFsGlnC4AHQEDQdTxw fQWwcx0wAHBAQEGGAHB5/TWyeQhgP/UvQEfhE9AXoNcTwUBAQVFzOXBtKAAc8P8aoAqFNOAaoEKx L1E1UUEAvzWhTABJ4U/RTaIFwHYIkP53PCMEAQpQNaNOhkCiQgX6LjzsUDTgQOA08BGwTJH/UiMX oAtQCJAEIECwPOwnu2QgPCjqbXMdcAWgbf4+POwuQABwShBXfzzsPV9fIXcb1SJ2CoUWwQBg8AAA AwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzBg6GMVCKG7AUAACDBg6GMVCKG7AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAA AAAAT0A= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBA0CE.FEAD54A0-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:55:19 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mihai Christodorescu Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? In-Reply-To: <199609122318.QAA05930@acme.sb.west.net> On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote: >Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:48:48 -0400 >From: Ruby Rohrlich >Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture >To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE >Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? > >Haven't any of you philosophers, with your concentration on pure >abstractions,heard that the word "man" is no longer the preferred word >when dealing with people in general, any more than "woman" is the word to >be used. There are so man synonyms; try thinking of the inclusive ones, >rather than the exclusive "man". Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu > > Mihai Christodorescu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA 93012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 19:08:55 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mihai Christodorescu Subject: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' X-To: Ruby Rohrlich In-Reply-To: <199609122318.QAA05930@acme.sb.west.net> On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Ruby Rohrlich wrote: >Haven't any of you philosophers, with your concentration on pure >abstractions,heard that the word "man" is no longer the preferred word >when dealing with people in general, any more than "woman" is the word to >be used. There are so man synonyms; try thinking of the inclusive ones, >rather than the exclusive "man". Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu I don't know about the other subscribers, but I will continue to use the word "man" wherever I think its meaning is clear enough to transmit the idea I want. If you think that I (and maybe others) used the word "man" in their messages and discriminated by exclusion the women, than you have not understood what I meant, and you have no appreciation of any kind for women. Mihai P.S. In English (as in most languages) most of the words have varous meanings. There are very few words with only one meaning. "Man" does not mean ONLY the male representative of the human race! Mihai Christodorescu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA 93012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:19:22 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ruby Rohrlich Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' X-To: Mihai Christodorescu In-Reply-To: No, "man" does not mean a male member of the human race; in a world which is male-dominated it is natural that its meaning has been extended to mean THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. In attempting to eradicate male domination we attempt to change androcentric language, among other things. Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:58:58 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Noel Gough Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' Mihai Christodorescu writes: >I don't know about the other subscribers, but I will continue to use the word >"man" wherever I think its meaning is clear enough to transmit the idea I want. >If you think that I (and maybe others) used the word "man" in their messages >and discriminated by exclusion the women, than you have not understood what I >meant, and you have no appreciation of any kind for women. > >Mihai > >P.S. In English (as in most languages) most of the words have varous meanings. >There are very few words with only one meaning. "Man" does not mean ONLY the >male representative of the human race! I can't speak for other subscribers either, but that little outburst appears to me to be astonishingly arrogant, (semiotically) ignorant, and insensitive, and will be sufficient motivation for me to delete further messages from Mihai unread. Hard to have a conversation if no one is listening... Noel Gough Associate Professor Faculty of Education Deakin University 662 Blackburn Road Clayton Victoria 3168 Australia +61 (0)3 9244 7368 (office) +61 (0)3 9244 7286 (secretary) +61 (0)3 9836 8241 (home) +61 (0)3 9562 8808 (fax) noelg@deakin.edu.au http://www.deakin.edu.au/edu/cec/members/Gough.html ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 03:27:50 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Serge Conein Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? To Ruby Baby. Haven't any of you philosophers, with your concentration on pure abstractions,heard that the word "man" is no longer the preferred word when dealing with people in general, any more than "woman" is the word to be used. There are so man synonyms; try thinking of the inclusive ones, rather than the exclusive "man". Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu A man is a man , a woman a woman , and and cow is a cow. This is what the philosopher has to say to you. But if you have nothing else to do , try to re write the Bible using synonymms. It will make you think like a translator and do you good. Love from Mal. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:53:00 PDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brown, Alex" Subject: re. evolutionary ecology and information >From Alex Brown:browna@tp.ac.sg Date: 13th September 1996 Steven K. Wyman of Syracuse Uni . poses some really interesting questions some of which I would like answered as well. But, my first brief ideas on his posting from a cultural systems point of view: Information? 1. As a measure of organization/probability (in open/complex systems at least). Cannot be separated from the material which it IN-FORMS. That is, it is immanent to the particular material which it characterizes (organizes). Information is NOT a thing, therefore it has no 'essence'. Information is the relation between things in terms of their similarities or difference/probabilities or improbabilities. We can only sense the 'presence' of information by identifying regularities within systems. Ie. patterns of sounds, material forms, concepts, words, etc etc. That is, whatever the material which defines the system. Information, ultimately is derived from human activity of selection and combination of patterns within particular types of material. One can link the evolutionary connection here with information in terms of this alogarithmic activity producing or reproducing sets or patterns or regularities of form in the particular material of the system. Patterns (or behavioural sets) which within an environment defined by other systems, are continuously transformed, evolve, survive, produce metasystems, fragment into sub-groups or whatever in the history of the system. Information (or organization) is continuously 'injected' into the system by human combinatory action. 2. The link between information and meaning lies in the area of probability where the 'meaning' of an object or form is its probability relative to other objects or forms of the same kind (or related set). That is: does the form produce associations? If an object is highly unusual in form, (ie. unfamiliar) it has less meaning. Familiarity is a definition of higher probability (again in terms of a set of related forms). 3. I am still trying to work out how information which is written out in the material of one system can be transmitted across boundaries into and a completely different system producing an analogous order. The 'content' of each system is different but there must be a metaphorical process which can travel between systems. Last word. For Information, there is no 'essence' only pattern. Regards from Singapore Alex Brown ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:42:07 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' At 16:58 13-09-96 +1000, Noel Gough wrote: >Mihai Christodorescu writes: > >>I don't know about the other subscribers, but I will continue to use the word >>"man" wherever I think its meaning is clear enough to transmit the idea I want. >>If you think that I (and maybe others) used the word "man" in their messages >>and discriminated by exclusion the women, than you have not understood what I >>meant, and you have no appreciation of any kind for women. >> >>Mihai >> >>P.S. In English (as in most languages) most of the words have varous meanings. >>There are very few words with only one meaning. "Man" does not mean ONLY the >>male representative of the human race! > >I can't speak for other subscribers either, but that little outburst >appears to me to be astonishingly arrogant, (semiotically) ignorant, and >insensitive, and will be sufficient motivation for me to delete further >messages from Mihai unread. Hard to have a conversation if no one is >listening... > >Noel Gough >Associate Professor Dear person, I don't know wether you are male or female but (although I'm not a native English speaking person) I think you should look up "man" in your dictionary and not devaluate professorship by threatening to leave messages unread from some person who uses common language to formulate very sensible comments. Arie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:37:42 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? >At 18:45 11-09-96 -0700, Mihai Christodorescu wrote: > >>P.S. Does not the concept of man as "living soul" implies that the "soul" is >>better than the "flesh" (and therefore it "decided" to "come down and >>exist" as >>"flesh")? Isn't this the same thing as the philosophy of the dichotomized >>Reality? > > It is and I think such philosophy is wrong and leads to big >problems: where in the whole of Reality should we draw the dichotomizing >line? What is the relation between the two (the "upper" one and the "lower" >one). etc. But that starts an ontological-philosophical discussion. > >Arie I am agnostic. I don't distinguish the "soul" from the "flesh", but I *do* distinguish the *spirit* (persons' thoughtful, critical, articulate, reflective, self-accountable... life) from all the things "human beings" do by rote, social conditioning, unthinking habit, etc. I consider only the first to be really human, and the rest to be sub-human ("ethnic" as opposed to "universal"), or better: a caricature of human existence ("they have ears but hear not, and eyes that do not see..."). I draw the dichotomizing line at each moment of my existence and those other persons whose existence intersects with mine: Are we trying to be self-accountable, or are we unwittingly reproducing some semiotic virus we happened to have been infected with? As the Inquisitor (who was one of the most erudite men of his time, and I propose, not a naive "believer") says at the end of the film "The Return of Martin Guerre": "For the spirit alone lives; all else dies." Or, to quote Edmund Husserl (again, not a naive "believer"): "For the spirit alone is immortal" * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:43:28 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? >Haven't any of you philosophers, with your concentration on pure >abstractions,heard that the word "man" is no longer the preferred word >when dealing with people in general, any more than "woman" is the word to >be used. There are so man synonyms; try thinking of the inclusive ones, >rather than the exclusive "man". Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu I've heard that man doesn't exist any more, and that all philosophy of consciousness is no good any more, and a lot of other things that don't make sense to me. Actually, to address the gender issue, I like the word "person", and also: "persons", which addresses another issue in which the flock of the philosophically fashionable seem to have less interest: differentiating a plurality of self-accountable individuals from a mass of bipeds of a certain species ("people"). * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:15:58 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ruby Rohrlich Subject: Re: Science ___ Religion: AND or VERSUS? X-To: Serge Conein In-Reply-To: <199609131231.IAA18529@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> your disrespectful salutation fits in with your views on the subject. Ruby Rohrlich ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 14:45:00 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Info Sheet for marxism-and-sciences X-cc: for HPSST GUIDE MARXISM-AND-SCIENCES EMAIL FORUM This is the marxism-and-sciences list info sheet. 1 List Purpose 2 Technical Info 3 Archives 1. Marxism-and-Sciences [M+S] is brought to you by the Spoon Collective, a group of Net citizens providing volunteer technical support for philosophical lists which allow new opportunities for creative discussion. By subbing to this list, you will also receive ANNOUNCEMENTS deemed by Spoon to be of general interest to Spoon lists from time to time. The new M+S list is intended to foster useful discussion about the intersection of marxism and the various sciences. Developments within the sciences have implications for our understanding of marxism. Marxism has influenced the development of some sciences, such as anthropology and the social sciences. A marxian approach is also helpful in understanding developments within natural science, and we need to understand, learn from and use science in the attempt to consciously design human ecology, i.e. our relations with the world around us. How far do these inter-relations of marxism and the sciences go, what form do they take and what can we learn from it? These are some of the questions that this list is intended to address. Science [like marxism] is a human-produced method of generating knowledge, which does not need to be perfect nor to be held above examination in order to be useful. It's own ideals include rigorous examination of itself, at least in some respects, so it is in the spirit of both science and marxism that we should conduct a "ruthless critique" of all things. This list is intended to allow the crossing of any boundaries of mystification about "Science" and "Marxism" alike, and to trample the line between "intellectuals" and "workers". Our hope is to create an atmosphere in which everyone can learn. "Science" and "Marxism" are not platonic, pre-existing ideas, they emerge from the complex interaction of many factors which do not fit neatly into typical definitions of either category. A marked feature of this list will be its interdisciplinary approach to such topics as Marxism's relationship to anthropology, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It will use approaches or ways of thinking from a number of disciplines, including philosophy, science and the history of science. An important area of discussion will concern marxian approaches to the development and shape of scientific thought (e.g., the "dialectics" of population genetics), as well as the impact of new developments in science on the development of Marxist thought. "M+S" will seek to animate thoughtful, even passionate debate on a number of important theories and scientists, both explicitly marxist and those only periphally associated with the Marxian project. Indeed, it is our belief that there is much to be learned from those whose own scientific efforts are indifferent, or even hostile to what is generally thought of as the "Marxist/ian approach" to scientific inquiry. Whether or not an author intended it, we will examine the compatibility of explicitly marxian thought with other developments in the science. This is NOT an anti-science list. Critiques are expected to be substantive and specific. Debate and discussion will be conducted within the norms of reasoned discourse and always with an appropriate respect for divergent theories and opinions. No academic or activist "credentials" are required. Being a "marxist" is not required. All posts are distributed to the list without the contents being reviewed or approved by anyone, i.e. there is no editor. However, there are moderators who set policy for the list. They will consider input from list-members as they feel appropriate, and make decisions intended to assist the list in achieving its purpose. 2. Technical Info and Contact People To post a message to the list, address it to marxism-and-sciences@lists.village.virginia.edu To sub, unsub or otherwise command Majordomo [the software] to do something for you, you must address your command to: majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu The body of the message must contain only the command, [the subject line is irrelevant.] Basic commands that you will need: subscribe marxism-and-sciences unsubscribe marxism-and-sciences To get a list of commands, use the command: help If you have questions that are not part of the onlist discussion itself, address a message to one of the moderators: Louis Godena louisgodena@ids.net Lisa Rogers lrogers@burgoyne.com You may also send enquiries to the Spoon Collective account: spoons@jefferson.village.virginia.edu 3 Archives Posts are permanently archived, available through the WWW page of the Spoon Collective, which has links to pages and archives for all the Spoon lists. http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons There are several marxism related papers also available there. Robert Maxwell Young robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ, England. tel +44 171 607 8306. fax +44 171 609 4837. Home page: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/index.html Citizen: 'What are you rebelling against?' Brando: 'Whadda ya got?' ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:49:29 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Don Maroc Subject: meaning of words Mihai, you are certainly free to use words, and ideas and concepts, in any way you like. But if you believe, as you wrote, "Man" does not mean ONLY the male representative of the human race, then you must have been locked up in a cave for the past several years. Be that as it may I will staunchly defend your right to put your foot in your mouth as often as you please. Don Maroc maroc@islandnet.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 18:59:00 GMT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jacques Melot Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' Chers abonnes au forum SCI-CULT, etant abonne a d'assez nombreux forums, je constate que la question du sexisme dans le langage revient tres souvent et degenere parfois -- sans doute inutilement -- en echanges agressifs. Je suis personnellement oppose a toute forme de discrimination, donc au sexisme en particulier. Cela dit, je pense qu'il y a peut-etre une autre maniere de traiter le probleme du langage en apparence sexiste, que celle qui consiste a tenter d'influer autoritairement sur le vocabulaire. Comme l'experience le montre amplement, on tombe facilement dans l'inquisition et la tyrannie lorsque l'on essaye d'imposer quoi que ce soit au nom de "la bonne cause". Dans une intervention sur le forum TAXACOM (30 janvier 1996, "Re: e.g., i.e., etc.") j'avais deja qualifie de "linguistic harassment" des modifications de l'usage linguistique que certains, croyant sans doute bien faire, voudraient imposer. Voici un extrait de cette intervention et d'une autre faite sur le meme forum le 16 juin 1996 (avec quelques modifications). L'exemple du mot "man". Une remarque preliminaire. Si l'on devait vraiment se passer des mots en "-man" ou "man-" et changer "mankind" en "the human race", "man-made" en "artificial" (or "synthetic"), "policeman" en "police officer", on pourrait alors logiquement se poser la question: en quoi faut-il donc changer "wo-man"??? Il me semble qu'il faut d'abord remarquer, une fois pour toutes, que dans les langues indo-europeennes, donc en anglais en particulier, le genre des noms est purement grammatical, NON sexuel. Le mot "man", a l'origine, ne s'applique pas a l'humain male exclusivement, mais COLLECTIVEMENT a l'humain male ET femelle, sans distinction. Ce terme bref signifie donc simplement "human being". (Cf., par exemple, Oxford English Dictionary: "Man [...] I. 1. A human being (irrespective of sex or age); = L. homo.".). Ce n'est que plus tard, que le mot "man" s'est applique a l'homme male par ellipse. En islandais, langue germanique proche du vieil anglo-saxon, le mot pour "man" est GRAMMATICALEMENT MASCULIN, mais s'applique aux etres humains males et femelles indistinctement. Il est donc SEXUELLEMENT NEUTRE. "Man" se dit "madhr" (acc. "mann", dat. "manni", genit. "manns", nomin. plur. "menn", etc.), "humain male" se dit "karlmadhr" et "humain femelle" se dit "kvenmadhr" (cf. le suedois "kvinna" (= woman), le norvegien "kvinne" (= id.), l'anglais "queen", le francais "gouine" (= lesbian), le grec "gyne" (= woman)). En anglais le "man" femelle est "wifmann" (ou "wimman", etc.; cf. "wife"), devenu "woman" en anglais moderne. Le "man" male est "wer-" ou "waepman" (et variantes) en vieil anglais, devenu, par ellipse, simplement "man" dans l'anglais moderne courant. La vieille racine indo-europeenne donnant "wer-", se retrouve en latin dans "vir", homme male, d'ou le francais "virago" (femme masculine), en anglais moderne dans "werewolf" (allemand "Werwolf", isl. "varulfr" ou "verulfr", c'est-a-dire "homme-loup", d'ou le francais "garou">garwalf>*wariwulf) et dans "world" (isl. "veroeld", neerlandais "wereld"), etc. Donc "she is a policeman" est parfaitement correct, et meme... "politically correct"! Idem pour "man-made", "mankind", etc. On peut ajouter aussi qu'en francais il existe un autre mot pour "man": le mot "personne", et que ce mot est... feminin! tout en designant aussi bien un homme qu'une femme. Alors, que faire si l'on parle d'un male et que l'on veut eviter un langage que l'on croit sexiste??? Toutes ces complications autour du pretendu sexisme dans l'emploi du mot "man" et autres mots, en plus d'une lourdeur manifeste, n'ont pas la moindre influence sur l'evolution de la condition de la femme, ne rendront pas feministes les anti-feministes et irritent les autres. Quand aux feministes militants, je suis persuade que cette gymnastique permanente et consciente leur pese, meme lorsqu'ils ne l'avouent pas. Je ne crois pas que l'on puisse aller (efficacement) contre l'usage linguistique, surtout lorsque cela se fait au nom d'une ideologie, quelle qu'elle soit. En realite, ces pratiques s'apparentent a ce qu'on appelle en medecine un traitement symptomatique: on s'efforce de supprimer les manifestations du sexisme en esperant que la disparition des symptomes entrainera la disparition du mal, ce qui, bien sur, est une pure illusion. Ce ne sont pas les mots qui importent mais ce qu'il y a derriere. J'espere que les non-sexistes qui ressentent les modifications que l'on voudrait faire subir a l'usage linguistique comme un fardeau, pourront trouver dans la presente contribution quelques arguments utiles qui les aideront a s'en passer definitivement. Bien cordialement a tous, Jacques Melot, Reykjavik melot@itn.is ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:15:11 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' Ruby Rohrlich wrote: > > No, "man" does not mean a male member of the human race; in a world which > is male-dominated it is natural that its meaning has been extended to mean > THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. In attempting to eradicate male domination we > attempt to change androcentric language, among other things. Some more language: When you see a guy Reach for stars in the sky You can bet that he's doing it For some doll. When a bum buys wine Like a bum can't afford It's a cinch that the bum Is under the thumb Of some little broad. When you see a gent Paying all kinds of rent For a flat that could flatten the Taj Mahal Call it dumb, call it clever Ah, but you can give odds forever That the guy's only doing it for some doll, some doll. The guy's only doing it for some doll. -- Guys and Dolls (Dredged from memory) Reprinted without permission by Howard Schwartz Sue me. Howard S. Schwartz Schwartz@Oakland.edu http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/Schwartz/Schwartz.htm "Nothing is hidden from the lover of shadows. Mystery remains." -- Anais Nin ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:32:01 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "John P. Rooney" Subject: "MAN" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This "Man" versus "Mankind" dichotomy is generally brought up by Americans who have not studied languages other than English. "What do you call someone who speaks three languages?" "Trilingual" "What do you call someone who speaks two languages?" "Bilingual" "What do you call someone who speaks only one language?" "American!" ______________________________________________________ Just take English's cousin language, German. A man is a man is "Mann", auf deutsch. (And a cow is "Kuh".) But if you want to discuss how people feel about the world ("Weltschmerz") you jump to the inclusive German word, "Mensch". There are cognates in other languages (Hola, hombre!), but, we, who speak English, are the poorer because the current trend to the simplification of English. Consider that news reporters hardly use the future tense these days. So, please, do not force a change in our language upon us, either out of ignorance of the language, or out of a desire to foster your own political outlook. The dominance in the world is not "male"; the dominance is that of the rich over the poor. Ask Margaret Thatcher or Mary Robinson if they consider themselves "male". Sincerely, John Peter Rooney ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:32:19 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Caroline Wagner Subject: Re: Guys and Dolls In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 13 Sep 96 15:15:11 D. <199609132029.NAA17879@rand.org> In New Jersey, we refer to everyone as "guys" -- regardless of gender. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:13:38 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Pettit, Erin" Subject: Re: "MAN" X-To: "John P. Rooney" The dominance in the world is not "male"; the dominance is that of the rich over the poor. Ask Margaret Thatcher or Mary Robinson if they consider themselves "male". Not too long ago there were NO women in high power positions in this = world. Thankfully there are now a few "up there". But as at least 95% = of the high power positions in this world (in politics as well as = business) are still held by men, it is ignorant to say that sexism no = longer exists in this world. Just as racism still exists despite the = few blacks that are in powerful positions. Yes, the rich dominate the = poor, but more than one type of domination exists in this world. An = example: too many women are beaten by their husbands or boyfriends = because the husband or boyfriend feels he much control her and dominate = her life. This is a male dominated world as well as a rich dominated = world and a white dominated world. As for the language one should use in discussion, I feel that it is = entirely up to the writer or speaker. It is to show respect for the = people one is discussing, however, that one uses specific words. Those = who respect blacks do not refer to them as "niggers", because most = blacks feel this term is derogatory. It is out of respect for women = than one uses "police officer" instead of "policeman" for similar = reasons. It is also out of respect for women that one might chose to = use "humankind" instead of "mankind". =20 By showing all the world's people equal respect hopefully we can = alleviate some of this domination. Peace, Erin Pettit pettit@aerovironment.com=20 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 19:37:31 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Baggott Subject: Mutter Museum in Danger? X-To: caduceus-l@beach.utmb.edu X-cc: archives@allegheny.edu, quique@ua.es, hmdref@nlm.nih.gov, baggott@shrsys.hslc.org, dgates@lonelyplanet.com, myra@wps.com, strghtup@well.com [I hope this will interest you. If you wish to privately reply to me, please take care not to accidentally cc your reply to other recipients, some of whom received this letter unsolicited. --M@] As many of you may know, the Mutter Museum of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia (founded in 1849 as a Museum of Pathological Anatomy) is a wonderful medical history museum. Its impressive collection includes hundreds of fluid-preserved anatomical and pathological specimens, dried cadavers stained to highlight anatomical fatures, antique medical instruments, reproductions of various pathologies in wax, paper mache, and plastic, portraits, and more. Because the collection is displayed in wood and glass cases and isn't brightly illuminated, the museum has a unique, almost 19th century, atmosphere. I find it hard to describe the rich and thought-provoking character of the museum. For me, encountering a glass case of 139 skulls --each labelled by some by-gone Viennese phrenologist with a terse (culturally-loaded) life summary and description-- provokes far more thoughts about the history and nature of medicine than most larger and better funded historical displays. Not only does the Mutter Museum compare favorably to more conventional history displays, but its atmosphere and displays seem to me appropriate for the nature of the collection. Martin R. Lipp, M.D., in _Medical Landmarks USA_ calls it "arguably America's finest medical pathological and historical museum" and you won't find me disagreeing. Although I do not fully understand the politics of the situation, there seems to be reason for concern about the Mutter Museum's future. Laura Lindgren, who had directed the production of the Mutter Museum Calendars, recently sent out a letter explaining that the calendar project had been cancelled and enclosed an article from Philadelphias _City Paper_ ("Not with my Mutter You Don't: is the Museum losing its edge?" by Margit Detweiler, _City Paper_ July 19 - 25, 1996) which provided some background explanation for this event. I find the calendar's cancellation disappointing. The award-winning calendar included the work of many excellent photographers (such as Rosamond Purcell and Olivia Parker) and was produced entirely on a volunteer basis (thus earning the College an estimated $10,000/yr). I first learned of the museum through the calendar (which I saw mentioned in _Whole Earth Review_) and it seems many others have as well. The year after the first calendar was published, museum attendence increased three-fold. The 1996 calendar features artfully executed photographs of specimens from the museums collection. Like the museum, the calendar is quirky, beautiful, and fascinating. I am saddened to see it go. However, the calendar's cancellation wouldn't be significant if it didn't signal other, more troubling, trends. Apparently there is a new administration at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia who feels that the calendar "is an outdated reflection of who we are," to quote the new Director of Public Affairs, Dick Levinson. Levinson (as quoted in the _City Paper_ article) explains by saying "If we're going to be coming to people and talking about [the College of Physicians] and getting them to focus on the important things we're doing, we can't simultaneously be involved in peddling a calendar which, to a lot of people, really smacks of the strange and bizarre." Since the calendar is essentially a set of photographs of the collection, this reflects a deeply negative attitude about the collection itself. Levinson's implication is clear: maintaining and displaying the Museum's collection isn't important to the new administration. It seems that the new administration wants to remake the College of Physicians into a source of modern healthcare information and therefore is trying to de-emphasize the 'dark' and unusual character of the Museum. Levinson, whose position was created for him, and Executive Director Mark Micozzi were both hired last fall. Previously both had worked at the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Washington, D.C., where Micozzi was founding director and Levinson was PR director. Together, they had apparently attempted to create something some critics called a sanitized and staid "HMO-like museum" out of what had been the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. In the conversion, "inanimate organs were replaced with high-tech displays about health and nutrition." However, Congress failed to approve the $17 - 20 million needed for the conversion, leading Micozzi and Levinson to move to the College of Physicians. Micozzi and Levinson apparently further justify their efforts to change the museums' characters by claiming that contemporary sensitivity to the display of human remains justifies their removal. However, the _City Paper_ article quotes Jane Bedno, the director of the graduate program in museum exhibit at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, who says the display of human remains is only unacceptable in museums when it is culturally or ethnically loaded. I don't think this is the case with most of the Mutter Museum's collection. It's not like these are sacred objects from other cultures; they're bladder stones from prominent statesmen and antique models for teaching medicine. Yes, there are preserved cadavers, but remains of the anonymous sit next to those of the rich and famous. The squeamish may not enjoy the museum, but no museum is for everyone. Much of history requires a 'strong stomach' and to make the museum "inoffensive" would destroy its greatness. So far, the new administration has added the C. Everett Koop Community Health Information Center (Koop CHIC) and new exhibit gallery adjacent to the Mutter Museum. The Koop CHIC seems to be an underutilized, but nice community resource and has a decent library of books, pamphlets, periodicals, and videos on health issues. The rather conventional "Say AHHH!" exhibit next to the Mutter Museum examined how Americans understand their risk of disease, the steps they take to prevent it, and the measures they believe will cure them. Both of these new features are reasonable and potentially valuable additions to the College of Physician's public resources. However, I strongly hope that these will be just that: additions to the Museum, not replacements. But given the obvious lack of respect and interest which the new adminstration shows towards the Mutter Museum's collection, I am not optimistic. I hope that all of you who share my interest in medical and scientific history will take the time to express concern over the changes taking place at the Museum. Unless we act fast, we are in danger of losing a unique and wonderful medical history resource. Please write to Dr. Albert Fishman, President of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 19 South 22nd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA. Marc Micozzi, the new Executive Director, may also be reached at the same address. Of course, anyone in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area is urged to visit and enjoy the Museum itself. It is a treasure which may not always be accessible. Please feel free to post or distribute this note to other appropriate forums. Thank you. Matt Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center, Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute, University of California, San Francisco ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 00:25:27 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Re: Empirical Knowledge & a priori structure of cognition (the Body-Mind Split!) David Meyer wrote: > > I read Michelle Christides' posts from and about Jung with great > interest, my "knowledge" about Jung being derived mainly from > fiction (Robertson Davies, Gordon R. Dickson). They seem a > particularly relevant addition to the ongoing thread on religion > and science. > > I have two (as I just explained, uninformed) comments. > > First, Michelle writes: > > > Substitute please for the word "archetype" the term > > which has come into our scientific culture through the > > work of Watson & Crick since Jung's death in 1961, > > "genetic encoding." > > If this is really what Jung meant, there might be, shall we say, > more precise ways of testing for their existence than Jung's > "Method of Proof": > > > Since > > archetypes are supposed to produce certain psychic forms, we must > > discuss how and where one can get hold of the material demonstrating > > these forms. The main source, then, is dreams, which have the advantage > > of being involuntary, spontaneous products of the unconscious psyche and > > are therefore pure products of nature not falsified by any conscious > > purpose. By questioning the individual one can ascertain which of the > > motifs appearing in the dream are known to him. From those which are > > unknown to him we must naturally exclude all motifs which might be known > > to him ... > > Since the main example given is that of the "dual mother archetype", > and even the youngest child has both the concepts "mother" and "two", > it is difficult to see how one is to "exclude all motifs which might > be known to him". My modest suggestion is, if archetypes really be > genetically encoded, to look for common genetic markers in the DNA of > patients "suffering from the delusion that the cause of his [or her] > neurosis lies in having really had two mothers". I know of studies > already underway to do such searches in children with high SAT scores. > (Of course, I don't expect them to be successful either.) > REPLY: Yes, thankyou, David, this is putting your finger right on the very evidence that is required to overcome the cultural dissociation of the Body-Mind split, which is causing us to wear "blinders" in all our investigations of our various fields of knowledge. I agree with your expectations for the results of the studies you refer to. They would depend upon our taking the personal content of the genetic encoding and seeing it in symbolic terms for its underlying form. To explain in language that may help to overcome the differences in usage -- as you pointed out with the word "collective" of which I was unconscious(!) I would like to borrow Alex Brown's precise language for his reply to the problem of meaning in information as so eloquently formulated by Steve Wyman, whose original posting "informs" my immediate description of "seeing in symbolic terms the underlying forms of the genetic encoding." I shall comment upon Steve's post another time, because of the length of these postings to get us through this epistemological problem of dissociation (as described in the Jung quotations) at this stage of our "collective" knowledge: In response to Steve Wyman, "Evolutionary Ecology & Information," Alex Brown wrote: The link between information and meaning lies in the area of probability where the 'meaning' of an object or form is its probability relative to other objects or forms of the same kind (or related set). That is: does the form produce associations? If an object is highly unusual in form, (ie. unfamiliar) it has less meaning. Familiarity is a definition of higher probability (again in terms of a set of related forms). Michelle: This is a precise explanation of what would need to be done to formulate David Meyer's suggestion of tracing genetic markers for certain psychic forms and material, such as individual neuroses, representing those forms. The way I approach this therapeutically is intuitive, as was Jung's practice of the art. However, it is what goes on in my sensate unconscious, as a former economic statistician! The method is to direct the associations of the analysand, supplying our knowledge of cultural associations, in myths particularly, in order to get to the underlying "primordial images" of consciousness. The objective is to see how the person has individually put together in "complexes" the neurotic defense system against the "deficiencies and trauma," that gave these archetypal patterns the "information." The essence or meaning is that -- we suffer from the illusion -- distorted complexes of associations constitute a large part of our identity and as a consequence cause the Ego to behave in patterns characteristic of neuroses. But when it comes to "working backwards" from the human being's meaning that represents the content of neuroses, to the underlying archetype, so that I can understand where the "deficiencies and trauma" have deformed the instincts (please! there's much more to it than this!) I have to be able to think symbolically, or metaphorically, as Alex said: Alex: 3. I am still trying to work out how information which is written out in the material of one system can be transmitted across boundaries into and a completely different system producing an analogous order. The 'content' of each system is different but there must be a metaphorical process which can travel between systems. Last word. For Information, there is no 'essence' only pattern. In Jung's practice of the art of psychiatric medicine, as a great "Doctor of the Soul," this was his gift to see, in such complex organisms as ourselves, the interface between our genetic encoding and the images, which are the forms in our consciousness, and then come up with the wisdom that heals. He was always consulted by the Burgholzli Clinic (Zurich) Psychiatrists for particularly difficult cases, because he was able to understand the processes of their "madness." I shall give brief(er!) quotations from Jung, because what we are talking about has to do with the body-mind split that has been going on for several millenia now and we are all groping to get beyond it to make the next leap in understanding. as Jung said [C.G.J., Vol 9, CW, The Archetypes & The Collective Unconscious]: Once again, in the age-old controversy over universals, . . . this change [the Idea relegated to the unverifiable realm of faith & superstition] was accompanied . . . by the marked rise of empiricism. Naturally, the new nominalism [I believe Jung is being ironic here about Scientific empiricism as a name, or Idea, given to a *belief-system*] promptly claimed universal validity for itself in spite of the fact that it, too, is based on a definite and limited thesis coloured by temperament. This thesis runs as follows: we accept as valid anything that comes from outside and can be verified. The ideal instance is verification by experiment. The antithesis is: we accept as valid anything that comes from inside and cannot be verified. The hopelessness of this position is obvious. [MICHELLE Again: This is where we have arrived in the recapitulation of the discussion of Science & Religion on this list, for which Ian and Arie were the most eloquent spokespersons for the contemporary *HUman* of our zeitgeist. However, thanks to such ideas as the Heisenberg Principle, scientists have understood that their discoveries and future advances are limited by cognition -- and this includes cultural "blinders."] JUNG: If it be true that there can be no metaphysics transcending human reason, it is no less true that there can be no empirical knowledge that is not already caught and limited by the a priori structure of cognition. During the century and a half that have elapsed since the appearance of the Critique of Pure Reason, the conviction has gradually gained ground that thinking, understanding and reasoning cannot be regarded as independent processes subject only to the eternal laws of logic, but that they are psychic functions co-ordinated with the personality and subordinate to it. . . . [I]n all fields of knowledge psychological premises exist which exert a decisive influence upon the choice of material, the method of investigation, the nature of the conclusions, and the formulation of hypotheses and theories. We have even come to believe that Kant's personality was a decisive conditioning factor of his Critique of Pure Reason. . . . [Jung proceeds to make relevant observations about, "heredity and instinctive actions in animals . . ."] We have not the slightest reason to suppose that there are certain human activities or functions that could be exempted from this rule. . . . Since everything psychic is preformed, this must also be true of the individual functions, especially those which derive directly from the *unconscious predisposition.* The most important of these is creative fantasy. In the *products* of fantasy the *primordial images* are made visible, and it is here that the concept of the archetype finds its specific application. I do not claim to have been the first to point out this fact. The honour belongs to Plato. . . . [Michelle: The *products of fantasy* come from the unconscious which has a personal sphere and a collective sphere, the latter would produce cultural myths -- including the assumptions by empiricism! He is about to distiguish between the content of personal experience and what we are born with as members of the human species, the form.] back to Jung again: If I have any share in these discoveries, it consists in my having shown that *archetypes are not disseminated only by tradition, language, and migration, but that they can rearise spontaneously, at any time, at any place, and without outside influence.* [cf.: the list-discussion between Ian and Arie of the origin of our "religious-traditions" in "myths" of the illiterate, though wise, historical figures -- which should be distinguished from the "religious function of the psyche." The word "religion" has been used to cover a lot of different concepts. The functioning of consciousness is precisely what Jung is about to describe as "archetypal":] The far-reaching implications of this statement must not be overlooked. For it means that there are present in every psyche, forms which are unconscious but nonetheless active -- living dispositions, ideas in the Platonic sense, that preform and continually influence our thoughts and feelings and actions. Again and again, I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined in regard to its content, in other words that it is a kind of unconscious idea (if such an expression be admissible). It is necessary to point out once more that archetypes are *not* determined as regards their content, *but only as regard their form* and then only to a very limited degree. A primordial image is determined as to its content only when it has become conscious and is therefore filled out with the material of conscious experience. Its form . . . might perhaps be compared to the axial system of a crystal . . . [which] determines only the stereometric structure but not the concrete form of the individual crystal. Michelle again: {P. S. re: "cultural blinders" content and form in Language & Cognition: As the 20-odd messages I just took off Sci-Cult debating whether language be sexist, reflecting our Mind-Set or some pre-existing development of language, is a perfect example. Our Science & Religion discussion is the mirror in our cognitive functions of the Body-Mind split, which came about psychologically through three millenia at least of repression of half the human species, or should I say the ILLUSION THAT WE ARE TWO SPECIES, THE FEMALE INFERIOR TO THE MALE, which is the Consciousness that has dictated the Reality of the degradation of our Natural environment. Note that English is the only European language that does *not* have gender for all nouns; and this may have more to do with English-mother-tongue women recognizing that usage reflects Mind-Set, than American women being monolingual, unconscious of etymology, or just plain misandrists -- does such a word exist in the dictionary?} ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:41:12 GMT+0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Dr John Williams Organization: Edith Cowan University - Education Subject: Re: Guys and Dolls > From: Caroline Wagner > In New Jersey, we refer to everyone as "guys" -- regardless of gender. > In Australia we have blokes and sheilas. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:26:32 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Lorna Nielsen Subject: "For those who are interested..." If the subject of this letter looks strange please read on. You'll soon see that there's a good reason for putting it this way. However, before I go to the subject matter let me introduce myself. My name is Lorna Nielsen. I'm a Registered Nurse working in the most gorgeous private hospital on the Gold Coast in Australia. It's a five-star establishment, more like a luxurious hotel than just an ordinary hospital. The service here is superb and the surrounding beautiful. The reason I've joined the list was that, as a part of my study, I'm interested in sociology. I study for my second BSc degree. The first was in agriculture (the things we do to get ourselves amused!). This one is going to be in Nursing Sciences. And now back to my subject matter. This story is in four parts. I'm submitting it to the list in response to the explicit request of Sherren Hobson Part 1 Sherren Hobson submitted to the list a letter (see Digest 10-11 September, Message-ID: <32366B3D.3036@sesam.it>), which I've read with some interest. Here is the essential extract of this letter: "John Polkinghorne, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics, is President of Queens' College, Cambridge. Ordained a priest in 1982, he is a member of the General Synod of the Church of England." I point it out to you because I remember JP with great respect and gratitude, since he introduced me to quantum mechanics at Cambridge in such an enthusiastic and gripping way. We also invited him to "take tea" with some of us in rooms at Queens' (he wasn't President then), and chat with us about his reconciliation of mathematical physics and Christianity. He had the same twinkle in his eye on that occasion, as when we also invited him to hold an impromptu seminar explaining the significance of the just-discovered intermediate vector boson (and that dates us ...) For those who are more interested in the "forward" option: I'll submit another brief posting, under a different subject. End of the letter by Sharren Hobson. Please notice the last sentence in this extract. Part 2 Assuming that "For those who are more interested" measn "for those who are more interested" and assuming that Sherren Hobson wanted to know who is "more interested" and then to decide whether he should or should not tell what he wanted to tell to "those who are more interested" I've sent him the following letter: In your letter to Science-as-Culture you write: "John Polkinghorne, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics, is President of Queens' College,..." in Science-as- Culture You end it with: " For those who are more interested in the "forward" option: I'll submit another brief posting, under a different subject." I am interested. End of my letter to Sherren Hobson Part 3 In reply to my letter Sherren Hobson has sent me the following missive: I appreciate those last 3 little words: would that one heard them more often! Unfortunately, I'm not clear about whether you are interested in knowing more about JP, (subject of your posting), or whether you were interested to receive my follow-up posting. I hope you will have received it along with other Sci Cult postings, by now: I put it (same day) under "science virus" because I was quoting from a recent contribution to that thread. Anyway, I'd be happy to follow up on your interest: why not share it on the forum? If you spell out your particular interests, you might get more response: I, for one, am not too keen on switching from the public forum to behind-the-scenes individual exchanges - unless they are obviously of no interest to anyone else ... even if that means we all have to sift through a lot of rhetoric and stuff we're not interested in ... End of Sherren Hobson's letter to me. Part 4 This is becoming really interesting. I don't know, Sherren, what interesting things you wanted to tell to "those who are more interested" but if you have something interesting to say -- say it. I just wanted to let you know that I'm at least interested to listed. However, I cannot tell you what you wanted to tell. I suppose it's something about '"forward" option'. So it's now up to you to spell it out. It sounds that you might have something interesting to say, and I'm still interested to hear it. So how is that for a deal? If you want to say it only to me -- fine. If you want to say it to all members of the list, I certainly can't guarantee that all of them will fit your requirement "For those who are more interested..." Regards Lorna ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 22:46:24 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: "MAN" At 17:32 13-09-96 -0400, you wrote: >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >This "Man" versus "Mankind" dichotomy is generally brought >up by Americans who have not studied languages other than >English. > Just take English's cousin language, German. >A man is a man is "Mann", auf deutsch. (And a cow is >"Kuh".) > >But if you want to discuss how people feel about the world >("Weltschmerz") you jump to the inclusive German word, >"Mensch". There are cognates in other languages (Hola, >hombre!), but, we, who speak English, are the poorer >because the current trend to the simplification of >English. Consider that news reporters hardly use the >future tense these days. Also in Dutch: we have "de mens" (man or woman), "de man" (male) and "de vrouw" (female) In the dutch language (like in German) words have a "gender": male, female or neutral. "De mens" (male) is "mankind", "Het mens" (neutral) is allways a woman! Don't mix up grammatical "gender" with biological gender! Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:38:01 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Archives on the WWW >I would like to ascertain whether members of this forum >would like to see the Science-as-Culture archives >available in hypertext format with email links back to the >original authors, Yes. and whether any of you would be interested in submitting >lengthier pieces outlining your views on issues of interest to members. I do. I do! > >Please send your replies to > >Ian Pitchford > >Thanks > >Ian __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. 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/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:45:45 ARG Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' In-Reply-To: ; from Jacques Melot at Sep 13, 96 03:59 PM Hello, everybody: Let me, first of all, introduce myself. I am a geographer with a Marxist background with special interest in the relationships between science as a human enterprise, on one side, and the host of conditions whereby this particular enterprise (so proudly self-asserted through a widely advertised process of self-testing) falls prey, as all human enterprises, of the general conditions of human existence and creation. This is why I have subscribed the list. I write from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Any other Argentine out there? Now, on the current dispute over the usage of "man" or "woman". I believe that linguistic discrimination exists. But I think that it is absolutely excessive to equate people who speak of "men" with people who speak of "niggers". A black person can be justly offended when a word is used to refer to her/him that means "black" ("nigger" comes from Latin roots, I don't know if from French "negre" or from Spanish "negro") but "black" as it would have been thought of at the slave market (where a lingua franca mixed Latin and English words during the bartering process involved in trade). "Man" has none of this derogatory sense or origin when used by people who, like Mihai, think it conveys its full meaning of "pertaining to the human genre" within the appropiate context. The fact that the whole of humanity has to accept (in some languages, I don't know if in all of them) to be equated with one of the two halves, however, is striking enough not to let it pass unnoticed. In Spanish, queer things happen. If 20 women and one man gather, all of them should say "Nosotros estamos juntos" (we /masculine/ are together). It may be also true, then, that at lest when male domination was imposed (and it is a long time ago) language may have been used to spritually impose domination itself. Personally, being a male, I prefer to resort to the word "person", which in Spanish is femenine (with no consequences of male people called "persona" shouting at me). At any rate, I believe sexist domination is fully linked with domination of the poor by the rich, and definitely shaped by the latter. I support all claims for sexual equality, which are in themselves claims against general human inequality. But I'm afraid that trying to impose equality on the linguistic area (and this, necessarilly, reduced to small circles) is a side struggle. I'm certain that sometime in the future there will be no more linguistic discriminations against women, but I also believe that our central task today is to build the conditions that will enable and make it natural to look at this discrimination the same way we look today at Aristotle preaching human unequality, for "someone had to spin while others had to create philosophy". Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky nestor@sisurb.filo.uba.ar ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 10:42:34 +1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jennifer Tannoch-Bland Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' In-Reply-To: <199609130522.PAA12720@griffin.itc.gu.edu.au> An open reply to Mihai Christodorescu et al I have been away from the list due to ill health, but I am so upset by the intransigence displayed in some of the responses to Ruby Rohrlichs reasonable suggestion that philosophers on the list might pay attention to the false universalisation of the masculine gender that I must, despite extreme fatigue, attempt to communicate. Perhaps, Mihai, you feel that for a woman to take exception to this use of the term man is defensive hairsplitting? Perhaps just another instance of females going over the top, responding emotionally instead of rationally? The following role-reveral is an invitation to awareness in which you are asked to enter, and stay with, your feelings about the use of generic woman. 1. Think of the future of Woman, which, of course, includes both women and men. 2. Think of your history: remember that your early ancestral relatives were Cro-Magnon Woman, Java Woman, Neanderthal Woman, Peking Woman - which includes man of course. Recall that Early Woman invented fire and discovered the use of stone tools near the beginning of the Ice Age. Remember that what separates Woman from other species is that she can think. 3. Recall that everything you have ever read all your life uses only female pronouns - she, her - meaning both girls and boys, both women and men. Recall that most of the voices on radio and most of the faces on TV are womens - when important events are covered. 4. Remember that women are the leaders, the power-centers, the primemovers. Man, whose natural role is husband and father, fulfills himself through nurturing children and making the home a refuge for woman. This is only natural to balance the biological role of woman who devotes her entire body to the race during pregnancy. 5. The feel further into the obvious biological explanation for woman as the ideal. By design, the female reproductive center is compact and internal, protected by her body. The male is so exposed that he must be protected from outside attack to assure the perpetuation of the race. Thus by nature, males are more passive than females. 6. If the male denies these feelings, he is unconsciously rejecting his masculinity. Therapy is thus indicated to help him adjust to his own nature. Of course, therapy is administered by a woman, who has the education and wisdom to facilitate openness leading to the amles self growth and actualization. 7. To help him feel into his defensive emotionality, he is invited to get in touch with the child in him. He remembers his sister could run, climb, and ride horseback unencumbered. Obviously, since she is free to move, she is encouraged to develop her body and mind in preparation for the active responsibilities of adult womanhood. Male vulnerability needs female protection, so he is taught the less active, but caring virtues of homemaking. 8. He is encouraged to keep his body lean and dream of getting married, to hear the magic words I now pronounce you Woman and Husband. He waits for the time of fulfillment: when his woman gives him a girl-child to carry on her family name. He knows that if it is a boy-child he has failed somehow - but they can try again. With apoplogies to Theodora Wells (1972). Jenny Tannoch-Bland ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:21:10 GMT+1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rob Greig Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' What a wonderful response by Jennifer Tulloch-Bland. Perhaps now we can see that the debate should not even be a debate at all. Gender specific language is just not acceptable and is offensive to a significant proportion of the population (male and female). I continually get the age old excuse here that the English language is at fault - not the user of the language. Let's face it. The use of all encompassing words such as "person", "people", "humankind" etc may seem strange at first but, surprise yourself guys (used in a non-gender specific manner of course), once you get used to regularly using these words, the use of the word "man" in reference to the human population or human condition will rapidly faze into obscurity. By the way people, let's not sink to the level of personal abuse that seems so prevalent in some of the previous communications; let's not blame the English language anymore (it's a little boring and a very convenient scapegoat); and, let's not throw up that old "furphy" of translating the Bible into non-sexist language. Rob Greig School of Science University of Ballarat Ballarat, VIC 3353,Australia E-mail: rig@fs3.ballarat.edu.au Telephone: 61-53-279249 Fax: 61-53-279240 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:52:56 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mihai Christodorescu Subject: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? In-Reply-To: <199609160043.RAA17635@acme.sb.west.net> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Jennifer Tannoch-Bland wrote: >The following role-reveral is an invitation to awareness in which you are >asked to enter, and stay with, your feelings about the use of generic woman. > >1. Think of the future of Woman, which, of course, includes both women >and men. > >2. Think of your history: remember that your early ancestral relatives >were Cro-Magnon Woman, Java Woman, Neanderthal Woman, Peking Woman - >which includes man of course. Recall that Early Woman invented fire and >discovered the use of stone tools near the beginning of the Ice Age. >Remember that what separates Woman from other species is that she can think. Attitude problems cannot be solved through restrictions on language. Thought creates language and shapes words, not vice-versa. I don't say the status of women in this society is unfair, I just say the way that was chosen to fight back for equality and dignity is at least inefficient. My 2 cents, Mihai P.S. The problem is not words, but meanings. If you put away "man", you agree that "woman" has defamatory meanings. We must the words, not avoid them! Mihai Christodorescu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA 93012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:32:09 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ruby Rohrlich Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' X-To: Jennifer Tannoch-Bland In-Reply-To: <199609160044.UAA14884@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Dear Jennifer Tannoch-Bland. Many thanks for your message. We were fighting the language battle 25 years ago, and to keep finding it on a list called Science-as-Culture is very disappointing. Reversing the linguistic roles is very apt, to be resisted only by a deep-down misogyny. Let's keep in touch. Best wishes. Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Jennifer Tannoch-Bland wrote: > An open reply to Mihai Christodorescu et al > > I have been away from the list due to ill health, but I am so upset by > the intransigence displayed in some of the responses to Ruby Rohrlichs > reasonable suggestion that philosophers on the list might pay attention > to the false universalisation of the masculine gender that I must, > despite extreme fatigue, attempt to communicate. > > Perhaps, Mihai, you feel that for a woman to take exception to this use > of the term man is defensive hairsplitting? Perhaps just another > instance of females going over the top, responding emotionally instead of > rationally? > > The following role-reveral is an invitation to awareness in which you are > asked to enter, and stay with, your feelings about the use of generic woman. > > 1. Think of the future of Woman, which, of course, includes both women > and men. > > 2. Think of your history: remember that your early ancestral relatives > were Cro-Magnon Woman, Java Woman, Neanderthal Woman, Peking Woman - > which includes man of course. Recall that Early Woman invented fire and > discovered the use of stone tools near the beginning of the Ice Age. > Remember that what separates Woman from other species is that she can think. > > 3. Recall that everything you have ever read all your life uses only > female pronouns - she, her - meaning both girls and boys, both women and > men. Recall that most of the voices on radio and most of the faces on TV > are womens - when important events are covered. > > 4. Remember that women are the leaders, the power-centers, the > primemovers. Man, whose natural role is husband and father, fulfills > himself through nurturing children and making the home a refuge for > woman. This is only natural to balance the biological role of woman who > devotes her entire body to the race during pregnancy. > > 5. The feel further into the obvious biological explanation for woman as > the ideal. By design, the female reproductive center is compact and > internal, protected by her body. The male is so exposed that he must be > protected from outside attack to assure the perpetuation of the race. > Thus by nature, males are more passive than females. > > 6. If the male denies these feelings, he is unconsciously rejecting his > masculinity. Therapy is thus indicated to help him adjust to his own > nature. Of course, therapy is administered by a woman, who has the > education and wisdom to facilitate openness leading to the amles self > growth and actualization. > > 7. To help him feel into his defensive emotionality, he is invited to get > in touch with the child in him. He remembers his sister could run, > climb, and ride horseback unencumbered. Obviously, since she is free to > move, she is encouraged to develop her body and mind in preparation for > the active responsibilities of adult womanhood. Male vulnerability needs > female protection, so he is taught the less active, but caring virtues of > homemaking. > > 8. He is encouraged to keep his body lean and dream of getting married, > to hear the magic words I now pronounce you Woman and Husband. He waits > for the time of fulfillment: when his woman gives him a girl-child to > carry on her family name. He knows that if it is a boy-child he has > failed somehow - but they can try again. > > With apoplogies to Theodora Wells (1972). > > Jenny Tannoch-Bland > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 22:35:33 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ruby Rohrlich Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' X-To: Rob Greig In-Reply-To: <199609160119.VAA04090@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> This is your second very positive response, Rob Greig. Good for you, and many thanks. Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Rob Greig wrote: > What a wonderful response by Jennifer Tulloch-Bland. Perhaps now > we can see that the debate should not even be a debate at all. > Gender specific language is just not acceptable and is offensive to a > significant proportion of the population (male and female). > I continually get the age old excuse here that the English language is at > fault - not the user of the language. Let's face it. The use of all > encompassing words such as "person", "people", "humankind" etc > may seem strange at first but, surprise yourself guys (used in a non-gender > specific manner of course), once you get used to regularly using these > words, the use of the word "man" in reference to the human > population or human condition will rapidly faze into obscurity. > > By the way people, let's not sink to the level of personal abuse that > seems so prevalent in some of the previous communications; let's not > blame the English language anymore (it's a little boring and a very > convenient scapegoat); and, let's not throw up that old "furphy" of > translating the Bible into non-sexist language. > Rob Greig > School of Science > University of Ballarat > Ballarat, VIC 3353,Australia > E-mail: rig@fs3.ballarat.edu.au > Telephone: 61-53-279249 > Fax: 61-53-279240 > ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:25:56 -1000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donald Wessels Subject: Re: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? X-To: Mihai Christodorescu In-Reply-To: <96Sep15.155428hwt.370676(10)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Mihai Christodorescu wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Jennifer Tannoch-Bland wrote: > > >The following role-reveral is an invitation to awareness in which you are > >asked to enter, and stay with, your feelings about the use of generic woman. > > > >1. Think of the future of Woman, which, of course, includes both women > >and men. > > > >2. Think of your history: remember that your early ancestral relatives > >were Cro-Magnon Woman, Java Woman, Neanderthal Woman, Peking Woman - > >which includes man of course. Recall that Early Woman invented fire and > >discovered the use of stone tools near the beginning of the Ice Age. > >Remember that what separates Woman from other species is that she can think. > > Attitude problems cannot be solved through restrictions on language. Thought > creates language and shapes words, not vice-versa. I don't say the status > of women in this society is unfair, I just say the way that was chosen to fight > back for equality and dignity is at least inefficient. > > My 2 cents, > > Mihai > > P.S. The problem is not words, but meanings. If you put away "man", you agree > that "woman" has defamatory meanings. We must the words, not avoid > them! > > Mihai Christodorescu > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA93012 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always > helps if you know the answer. > I disagree the words that you speak or write reflect your attitude. If you use only male gender specific terms, when more inclusive gender neutral terms could be used, reflects an attitude that says woman are not worth including. We need to express more precisely what we mean, especially as scientists. If we mean all human beings we should use words that say just that. We can not rewrite words such as Java man but the use of humankind vs. mankind is a much more inclusive it isn't just more politcally correct, it is more correct. Words have a powerful infuence on us. The repetition of words or phases are often used to get people believing certain ideas even if they are not true. Politician and advertisers are well aware of this fact and use it when ever possible. Inclusive terms promoted inclusive ways of thinking which can lead to more inclusive ways acting. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. | Religion is answers that may never be questioned. | --J.J. Hahn --------------------------------------------------- + -------------------- For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care. | Donald F.Wessels,Jr -A.E. Housman | wessels@hawaii.edu xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 00:01:59 ARG Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Subject: Re: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? In-Reply-To: ; from Mihai Christodorescu at Sep 15, 96 08:52 AM Mihai's and Jenny's (well, that *was* a reply!) controversy, however adequate, seems at the same time a little pointless. Jenny's notes seem to point to the core of the situation: while women are actively kept behind men (and, of course, it is not only on the grounds she so keenly pointed out that they are, not at least in Third World countries, which seem to fall out of the scope of the whole debate) who can honestly blame a single woman for getting angry when she is called a "man"? On Third World (and my country is far away from the worse ones): Did you guys (and this is specially directed at males) ever hear "well, poor girl, she was raped, but her skirt was so short...". I did. The day things like these aren't even thought of, maybe we shall begin to have a slight right to tell females not to be so supercillious on language usage. This should be the starting point: everyday social and personal practice. Personally, I will continue using "persona", but it is true that, as Mihai says, it is not words themselves that rule the world. In my country, for instance, the word "negro" may be a friendly way to call someone or an insult. It depends on circumstances and the general approach of the speaker. I believe that taking this into account may carry us to a more comprehensive common ground. --- Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky nestor@sisurb.filo.uba.ar ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:25:00 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Howard Schwartz Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' Think of man as your father, and as the origin of your deepest feelings about yourself. Think of this as the source of an emotional control so powerful that you are ready to change your very language because it doesn't tells him what he wants to hear about himself. Howard Schwartz ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 09:27:58 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Baggott Subject: Introduction In-Reply-To: <199608311716.KAA15767@itssrv1.ucsf.EDU> Having just sent a message to the list on Friday, perhaps I should introduce myself: I currently do research in psychopharmacology, mostly in areas relating to recreational drug use and drug abuse. However, my undergraduate training is in the field of philosophy. As an undergraduate at the University of Chicago (from '86 to '90), I was initially attracted to issues concerning how the mind and science both worked. As my philosophy studies progressed, I became more interested in history, sociology, and psychology which seemed equally important disciplines for exploring my interests in mind and science. Given my interest in science, I obtained a student job in a behavioral psychopharm. lab, where I continued to work for 2 years after graduation. Then I moved to California and eventually obtained my current job at UCSF's Drug Dependence Research Center. I am fascinated by how psychoactive drugs effect the mind and how this has been used and seen throughout history. I also try to keep up on the science studies literature in my spare time (_Primate Visions_ had a lot of impact on me --probably a common experience). In my non-laboratory pursuits, I am particulary interested in the history of the liqueur absinthe, which was popular at the turn-of-the-century but was later banned because it was believed to cause brain damage and 'degeneracy.' This interest had lead me into readings on the history of psychiatry, medicine, and insanity in 19th century France. Ultimately, I plan to continue interdisciplinary drug research in the context of a PhD/MD program, allowing my science studies interests to inform my other research. As an aside, I have set up a home page for my lab. I hope to make it a useful resource on drug issues for people from many different perspectives. One goal is to eventually give an interested-but-non- specialist netizen an idea of just what it is we do in the lab and why. When I have this goal more realized, I hope to solicit feedback from this list. Matthew J. Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center University of California, San Francisco Home Page: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~ddrc ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:26:30 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: The Unabomber as a product of technology On the CBS 60 Minutes (USA) TV program, Sunday, 15 Sep, there was a long segment in which the (accused) Unabomber's mother and brother and the brother's wife were interviewed. Near the start of the segment, the mother said a few sentences which immediately "clicked" for me, in connection with Rene Spitz's studies in the late 40s of infantile "hospitalism", and, indirectly, Sandor Ferenczi's poignant essay "The Unwanted Child and His Death Instinct".... The mother described how, as an infant, Ted (the accused...) was a very warm lively child who sought out physical contact and affection with her. Knowing that Ted is a "genius" (170 I.Q.), I would hypothesize that he was an unusually *sensative* infant, i.e., his afffectionateness expressed a more than a normative *need* for warmth and interaction. When Ted was about 9 months old, his mother continued, Ted had a severe case of hives which required his being in hospital for a week. At that time, parents were not allowed to stay with their children in the hospital, and Ted's mother described the toddler's reaching out his arms and wailing plaintively when she had to leave him. Spitz (et al) theory of hospitalism basically says that when the infant is taken away from the person to whom he or she is bonded, the infant is at first angry, but then gives up hope and withdraws. Ted's mother says that, when she took Ted home from the hospital, he was no longer the child she had known before. He was quiet and withdrawn, and he never recovered his previous affectionate self. Now, as Ted's mother pointed out, that was the way hospitals managed children in the late 40s. It was "scientific". Thus did the then currently fashionable medical technology (which includes management of the body, e.g., not letting the parents stay with the sick child, as well as medicines, surgical procedures, etc.) create one of its "discontents". But many children suffered similar experiences, and most of them turned out to be "normal". My response to that is twofold: (1) as Heinz Kohut noted, frequency, even ubiquity of occurrence does not connote normality let alone health (dental carries used to be almost ubiquitous, e.g.). And (2) some children, for whatever reason, are more resilient than others. Ted was *extremely bright*, and therefore, I speculate, *unusually sensitive* to such traumata. I believe it is well worth pondering, both from a humane perspective, and from the crassest economic point of view, that the "best" are not always the *strongest*, so that if humankind wants the "goodies" that only the most talented can invent, it may need to treat at least some of them gently. Did that week in the hospital guarantee that Ted K. (I forget how to spell his last name, but the Kafka allusion is not a bad patch-up, IMO) would become a serial murderer? I think not. But I do think it *predisposed* him to react aversively to many things which otherwise might have "rolled off his back", or perhaps have elicited a *compassionate* response. Ted hated technology because technology had destroyed the implicit pack with which the infant comes into the world: that he or she will be *welcomed* and *cherished*, etc. (Kohut speaks of the mother whose face lights up at the sight of her child....) Under different later circumstances, Ted might have pursued a life where he would not have run afoul of the law (I feel that is my own case, and I have sadly seen the 2 manifestos I have written on technology, one in 1972 and the other in 1994, as Ted would observe, receive far less attention than his, which people still do not read, but at least *notice* because it comes with a threat). (Ted's manifesto is a lot more intelligent than some of the diatribes people have barked out against it....) I really felt sad listening to Ted's mother's story about her helpless child's traumatization in the name of advanced technology. (Compare Frederick Leboyer's "Birth Without Violence".) I feel this matter is high apposite to a mailing list on "Science as Culture", for it documents an important case of that. Science, IMO, must expand to understand the expressive life of persons, for instance, Leboyer's observation that, as an obstretician, he delivered thousands of babies according to the criterion that a screaming newborn was a healthy delivery -- and then one day, he wondered if that screaming was a protest against the way the infant was being brought into the world -- in consequence of which observation, Leboyer changed his method of delivery to make it less traumatic for the baby. This is clearly science in the sense of rigorous, reflective learning from experience and questioning received opinion, but I would note that it did not involve statstical methods.... Science, in the full sense, as Husserl urged, is not merely the exact analysis of the object-world, but the disciplined interpretive study of human being-in-the-world, of which *one* form is "quantatively analyzing an object in the world", and another is an infant wailing at his mother's going away "forever" (and if one responds that the infant's measuring stick is wrong there, remember that it wasn't so long ago that astronomers didn't know about galaxies being more distant than stars...). While I am waxing poetic, why not conclude with a thought derived from Emmanuel Levinas: that the things we make may serve, in the end, not just as objects of use, but as *gifts* for us to give to one another. *That* points to a technology not just for the banausoi (the "techies"), but worthy of the invlovement of the free citizens of the polis (see Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition"...). * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:40:29 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Subject: Re: Introduction >Having just sent a message to the list on Friday, perhaps I should >introduce myself: > >I currently do research in psychopharmacology, >As an aside, I have set up a home page for my lab. I hope to >make it a useful resource on drug issues for people from many different >perspectives. One goal is to eventually give an interested-but-non- >specialist netizen an idea of just what it is we do in the lab and why. >When I have this goal more realized, I hope to solicit feedback from this >list. > [snip] >Matthew J. Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu >Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center >University of California, San Francisco >Home Page: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~ddrc I, for one, will be interested to learn what you have found out about absinthe, since one of my few college memories was studying Manet's "Absinthe Drinker" and the professor lecturing how absinthe rotted the drinker's brain. * * * x\ * |"xx * * |==xxx * * * *|""xx"| ...[T]hey came upon a plain... and settled |"""xxx there. And they said to one another... * |=======| "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and |"""""""| * a tower with its top in the heavens, and |"""""""| let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise /\ |=========| we shall be scattered abroad upon the face |""| |"""""""""| of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:2-4) |""| |"""""||""| |||| ----//==\\-------------------------------------------------------- Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 13:38:32 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: stricker@SABLE.ADELPHI.EDU Subject: Re: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? There is a long and important literature in both psychology and linguistics that suggests that language shapes and constrains thought, rather than the opposite. If this is the case, the use of gender-laden language is not simply a triviality, but an important determinant of the way we come to view the world. George Stricker In a message received on 16 Sep 1996, 03:27 SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@sjuvm.stjohns.edu wrote to: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE >On Sun, 15 Sep 1996, Mihai Christodorescu wrote: > >> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Jennifer Tannoch-Bland wrote: >> >> >The following role-reveral is an invitation to awareness in which you are >> >asked to enter, and stay with, your feelings about the use of generic woman. >> > >> >1. Think of the future of Woman, which, of course, includes both women >> >and men. >> > >> >2. Think of your history: remember that your early ancestral relatives >> >were Cro-Magnon Woman, Java Woman, Neanderthal Woman, Peking Woman - >> >which includes man of course. Recall that Early Woman invented fire and >> >discovered the use of stone tools near the beginning of the Ice Age. >> >Remember that what separates Woman from other species is that she can think. >> >> Attitude problems cannot be solved through restrictions on language. Thought >> creates language and shapes words, not vice-versa. I don't say the status >> of women in this society is unfair, I just say the way that was chosen to > fight >> back for equality and dignity is at least inefficient. >> >> My 2 cents, >> >> Mihai >> >> P.S. The problem is not words, but meanings. If you put away "man", you agree >> that "woman" has defamatory meanings. We must the words, not avoid >> them! >> >> Mihai Christodorescu >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA93012 >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it > always >> helps if you know the answer. >> > > I disagree the words that you speak or write reflect your >attitude. If you use only male gender specific terms, when more inclusive >gender neutral terms could be used, reflects an attitude that says woman >are not worth including. We need to express more precisely what we mean, >especially as scientists. If we mean all human beings we should use words >that say just that. We can not rewrite words such as Java man but the use >of humankind vs. mankind is a much more inclusive it isn't just more >politcally correct, it is more correct. > Words have a powerful infuence on us. The repetition of words or >phases are often used to get people believing certain ideas even if they >are not true. Politician and advertisers are well aware of this fact and >use it when ever possible. Inclusive terms promoted inclusive ways of >thinking which can lead to more inclusive ways acting. > > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. | >Religion is answers that may never be questioned. | > --J.J. Hahn >--------------------------------------------------- + -------------------- >For Nature, heartless, witless Nature >Will neither know nor care. | Donald F.Wessels,Jr > -A.E. Housman | wessels@hawaii.edu >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >================== RFC 822 Headers ================== >Return-Path: owner-science-as-culture@sjuvm.stjohns.edu >Received: by sable.adelphi.edu (UCX V4.1-12, OpenVMS V6.2 Alpha); > Mon, 16 Sep 1996 03:27:41 -0400 >Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu by maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9767BDAD ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 3:28:28 -1300 >Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:25:56 -1000 >Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture > >Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture > >From: Donald Wessels >Subject: Re: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? >X-To: Mihai Christodorescu >To: Multiple recipients of list SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE > >In-Reply-To: <96Sep15.155428hwt.370676(10)@relay2.Hawaii.Edu> ******************************************************************************* George Stricker Internet address (STRICKER@SABLE.ADELPHI.EDU) Telephone (516) 877-4803 Fax (516) 877-4805 ******************************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:47:23 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Miguel Jeronimo Subject: informations request to everybody, i'm doing a thesis about the relations between the cultural sphere ,namely focused on the literary field, and the political one, essentially concentrated on nationalistic ideology and practices.i would like to receive any suggestion, biblioghrapy, and web sites directly (or not) related to this general topic. best regards, miguel jeronimo ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:04:51 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Serge Conein Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' In a message dated 16/09/96 13:28:19, you write: > > Think of man as your father, and as the origin of your deepest feelings >about yourself. Think of this as the source of an emotional control so >powerful that you are ready to change your very language because it doesn't >tells him what he wants to hear about himself. > >Howard Schwartz Do NOT think of man as your father ! And if Howard's Dad is the origin of his deepest feelings...Wow! One needs a shrink ! And fast ! Mal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:51:52 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Serge Conein Subject: Re: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? In a message dated 16/09/96 02:06:20, you write: >We must the words, not avoid >them! > >Mihai Christodorescu No ! we must clean our mind ! Mal. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:55:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Frank E. Durham" Subject: Re: The Unabomber as a product of technology Dear Science-as-Culture listees, At 01:26 PM 9/16/96 -0400, Bradford McCormick wrote: >On the CBS 60 Minutes (USA) TV program, Sunday, 15 Sep, there >was a long segment in which the (accused) Unabomber's mother >and brother and the brother's wife were interviewed. > >Near the start of the segment, the mother said a few >sentences which immediately "clicked" for me, in >connection with Rene Spitz's studies in the late 40s >of infantile "hospitalism", and, indirectly, Sandor >Ferenczi's poignant essay "The Unwanted Child and His >Death Instinct".... > >The mother described how, as an infant, Ted (the accused...) >was a very warm lively child who sought out physical >contact and affection with her. ... When Ted was about 9 months old, his mother >continued, Ted had a severe case of hives which required his >being in hospital for a week. At that time, parents were not >allowed to stay with their children in the hospital, and >Ted's mother described the toddler's reaching out his arms >and wailing plaintively when she had to leave him. > >Spitz (et al) theory of hospitalism basically says that >when the infant is taken away from the person to whom he or she is >bonded, the infant is at first angry, but then gives up >hope and withdraws. Ted's mother says that, when she took >Ted home from the hospital, he was no longer the child she >had known before. He was quiet and withdrawn, and he never >recovered his previous affectionate self. >... [McCormick continues, commenting at length, and eloquently, on issues relating to "scientific" infant and child care and the outcomes for individuals.] _________ This posting reminds me of the historically famous and much disputed case of Isaac Newton, who by all accounts founded mathematical natural philosophy so firmly that it grew into what we call modern science--with implications that have not yet played out, implications for world population in particular. Newton, as many of you know, was a posthumous child whose mother remarried not long after his birth. Isaac was not welcomed into his stepfather's household. Newton grew up to be a difficult, suspicious, and distant person, largely incapable of sustaining personal relationships. Frank Manuel's slightly psychoanalytical biography _A Portrait of Isaac Newton_ (1968) is back in print. Manuel's emphasis on the loss of the mother's affection as motivating life choices for the exceptionally quick and math-adept person--and by extension for many others of us, perhaps, and for other life factors--has made some physicists angry when they chanced to hear about it. I will be discussing issues that draw on Newton's life in a literary way, in a paper at the Society for Literature and Science conference in Atlanta (October 10-12). Perhaps I will see some of you there. Frank Durham Tulane University USA ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 14:51:09 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Mihai Christodorescu Subject: Re: Word Reversal or Attitude Reversal? X-To: Serge Conein In-Reply-To: <199609162052.NAA06060@acme.sb.west.net> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Serge Conein wrote: >>We must the words, not avoid >>them! >No ! we must clean our mind ! >Mal. I meant: "clean the meanings the words in our minds". Mihai Christodorescu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 221 Estancia Place, Camarillo, CA 93012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule of Accuracy: When working towards the solution of a problem, it always helps if you know the answer. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 15:01:04 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "David A.V. Moody" Subject: Re: The Suspected Unabomber as a product of isolation In-Reply-To: <199609162044.NAA23047@castle.ktb.net> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Frank E. Durham wrote: > [McCormick continues, commenting at length, and eloquently, on issues > relating to "scientific" infant and child care and the outcomes for > individuals.] > _________ > > This posting reminds me of the historically famous and much disputed case of > Isaac Newton, who by all accounts founded mathematical natural philosophy so > firmly that it grew into what we call modern science--with implications that > have not yet played out, implications for world population in particular. I have a feeling that isolation (whether by parents, public policy, or peers) as a means of concentrating the child's mind wonderfully on a specific field of study produces more negative genius than positive. Dave Moody ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 18:44:11 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Newton In-Reply-To: <199609162044.QAA18917@math.rutgers.edu> (fed@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU) In response to F. Durham's comment: Newton was not a notable mathematical prodigy in his youth (unlike, say, Gauss, Pascal, Galois, or some of my personal friends). He went up to Cambridge around 1659 as a provincial farmboy whose clergyman uncle was just well-connected enough to get him in. He started to study geometry with Barrow, but got nowhere for a couple of months because he couldn't understand the books he was given; Barrow thought him rather a hopeless case. Then Barrow gave him Wallis's geometry book, which was exceptionally clearly written. Of course, within a couple of months Newton was the most prominent mathematician in Europe. Go figure. In any event, a rather blunt instrument like psychoanalysis might (or might not) help you figure out why Newton was a humorless, spiteful, nasty prig and all-around sonovabitrch. It won't help you worth a damn if you're trying to figure out what happened in the summer of 1665. Some things still elude analysis. N. Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:14:57 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: guerout@BIUS.JUSSIEU.FR Subject: CYBERSYMPOSIUM : PIERRE AND MARIE CURIE For technical reasons, the symposium initially programmed in Paris for November 1996 will be held virtually as a : TRANSDISCIPLINARY CYBER SYMPOSIUM : "PIERRE CURIE AND MARIE SKLODOWSKA-CURIE, 1896-1996 : THE FIRST CENTURY OF THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN KNOWLEDGE" Please address notes, messages and contributions for subsequent publication to : DR. Z.W. WOLKOWSKI Email : ctpmc@ccr.jussieu.fr (deadline June 1, 1997) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 10:38:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Frank E. Durham" Subject: Re: Newton Dear Science-as-Culture listees, Norman Levitt wrote, in part, >In response to F. Durham's comment: > ... >Of course, within a couple of months Newton was the most prominent >mathematician in Europe. > >Go figure. > >In any event, a rather blunt instrument like psychoanalysis might (or >might not) help you figure out why Newton was a humorless, spiteful, >nasty prig and all-around sonovabitrch. > >It won't help you worth a damn if you're trying to figure out what >happened in the summer of 1665. Some things still elude analysis. > >N. Levitt __________ Goodness knows I don't want to invite attention from the historians of science, but within a few of months of transcending his texts Newton was still a complete unknown. Richard S. Westfall, sadly missed just now, writes that "The fact that he was unknown [in 1666 ] does not alter the other fact that the young man not yet twenty-four, without benefit of formal instruction, had become the leading mathematician of Europe." I am almost but not quite quibbling here, about the difference between "prominent" and "leading," but only in the interest of accuracy on a public forum. I am more interested in the way that authorities are quasi-cited these days, in such speculative biographical discussions as these (Bradford McCormick's post on stress in infancy started us talking). The turn has been from traditional psychoanalytical inferences, toward judgments that mix in sociobiological language and genetic determinism, and also appeals to epidemiological/behavioral studies. Some things always will elude analysis; I believe that with all my heart. But the analytical bent has more tools these days. Maybe it matters, for the individual, whether "Go figure" is heard as a call for analysis, or as a request for silence. Best wishes, Frank Durham Tulane University USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 14:58:26 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Newton In-Reply-To: <199609171623.MAA08415@math.rutgers.edu> (fed@MAILHOST.TCS.TULANE.EDU) To F. Durham: First: An apology: I misspoke. "Prominent" is altogether wrong. "Leading" is better, or perhaps simply "most gifted." In Cambridge however, Newton's extraordinary talents were well known, especially to Barrow, himself a first-rate mathematician (Barrow, recall, handed the Lucasian chair over to Newton in 1669) The trajectory of Newton's mathematical reputation would be interesting to trace. When, precisely, did Europe get to "Know the lion by its paw?" Nonetheless, on the central question of whether "psychoanalysis" or any related (pseudo)-discipline will help you understand the roots of mathematical creativity, I remain highly skeptical. I know hundreds of mathematicians, including some of the first rank. So far as I can discern, there are no accurate generalizations one can make about personality type on any level. To put it another way, would anything you might conjecture about Newton's presumptive neurotic conflicts and his creativity apply to, say, Euler, a famously amiable and generous man who wrote his (thousands of ) papers while holding his children and grandchildren on his lap? Would they apply to GAuss? Galois? Riemann? Ramanujan? Noether? Godel? One must be prepared to take seriously the possibility that mathematical talent is rather sui generis and doesn't correlate well with any other trait in the psychological constellation. I thought the genetic fallacy had been put to rest, more or less. Why resurrect it in the context of Newton's creativity? On any case, as a pilot project, why don't you hang out with the math nerds at Tulane, just to see whether anything shows up suggesting a common root experience or prevalent personality quirk( aside from getting interested in math when young). My guess is that nothing terribly interesting will turn up--just a bunch of guys staring off into space and scribbling on a blackboard once in a while. Methodologically speaking, it's usually best to start off with the null hypothesis. Norm Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:50:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Frank E. Durham" Subject: Re: Newton Dear Listees, Norman Levitt wrote in part (addressing me personally, but the questions are of "sci-cult" interest): > . . . >One must be prepared to take seriously the possibility that >mathematical talent is rather sui generis and doesn't correlate >well with any other trait in the psychological constellation. >I thought the genetic fallacy had been put to rest, more or less. Why >resurrect it in the context of Newton's creativity? __________ Resurrect the genetic fallacy: did I do that? I didn't do that. I did say that Newton has been discussed, and that biodeterminism is in the air these days. Said the one thing because it is true, the other because I take "Science-as-Culture" as the subject. Norman Levitt continues: >On any case, as a pilot project, why don't you hang out with the math >nerds at Tulane, just to see whether anything shows up suggesting a >common root experience or prevalent personality quirk( >aside from getting interested in math when >young). My guess is that nothing terribly interesting will turn >up--just a bunch of guys staring off into space and scribbling on a >blackboard once in a while. __________ Thanks for the suggestion, which however, comes a little late for me. In December, after 36.3 years as a professor of physics, and with no shortage of math-adept associates (understandably I don't find "nerd" a helpful stereotype), I will move on to a new life: hanging out, sort of. Norman Levitt concludes with this aphorism: >Methodologically speaking, it's usually best to start off with the >null hypothesis. __________ I will remember that, and try not to make assumptions about people I don't know. I hope that I don't detect, in Norman Levitt's style, a glimmer of flame. This list has been active for a while now, after a longish pause, and discourtesy finally stifles discourse. Maybe this suggestion would help: Quote the person whose position you disagree with. Best wishes, and I really mean it, Frank Durham Tulane University USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:33:05 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: richard nash Subject: Re: Newton In-Reply-To: <199609171951.OAA29826@obslave.ucs.indiana.edu> On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Norman Levitt wrote: > To F. Durham: > > First: An apology: I misspoke. "Prominent" is altogether wrong. > "Leading" is better, or perhaps simply "most gifted." These terms do become slippery. "Leading" would seem best; in the original context, "most gifted" would contradict the original claim being made, for certainly the very idea of "mathematical giftedness" presupposes that Newton possessed such "gifts" well before they became manifest. This is, of course, the troubling realm of Thomas Gray's "mute inglorious Miltons" three-quarters of a century later. > The trajectory of Newton's mathematical reputation would be > interesting to trace. When, precisely, did Europe get to "Know the > lion by its paw?" Again, the very nature of "reputation" runs counter to the "precision" requested. Significant voices in Europe sought to resist the "lionizing" that this form of the question assumes. Nonetheless, my own research in surrounding areas suggests that the reputation was already impressive by the 1680s, which when you think about the relative paucity of published material, raises the pertinent question of "on what was the early reputation based?" > Nonetheless, on the central question of whether "psychoanalysis" or > any related (pseudo)-discipline will help you understand the > roots of mathematical creativity, I remain highly skeptical. I know > hundreds of mathematicians, including some of the first rank. So far > as I can discern, there are no accurate generalizations one can make > about personality type on any level. To put it another way, would > anything you might conjecture about Newton's presumptive neurotic > conflicts and his creativity apply to, say, Euler, a famously amiable > and generous man who wrote his (thousands of ) papers while holding > his children and grandchildren on his lap? Would they apply to GAuss? > Galois? Riemann? Ramanujan? Noether? Godel? > > One must be prepared to take seriously the possibility that > mathematical talent is rather sui generis and doesn't correlate > well with any other trait in the psychological constellation. > I thought the genetic fallacy had been put to rest, more or less. Why > resurrect it in the context of Newton's creativity? > It seems to me that in this formulation, psychological study is being offhandedly dismissed, while at the same time the adjective "mathematical" is being mythologized. If for a moment, we substitute for "mathematical creativity" and "mathematical talent" the cognate terms "literary creativity" and "literary talent," this formulation reduces to the familiar placebo that creative genius, in all its forms, is mysterious and incomprehensible, at once supremely human and forever beyond human understanding. Yet surely, psychoanalytic approaches have much to offer. Not so much, perhaps, to diagnose the "root" of some pathologized notion of genius, but perhaps to better understand the distinctively personal style through which a creative genius finds expression. > > On any case, as a pilot project, why don't you hang out with the math > nerds at Tulane, just to see whether anything shows up suggesting a > common root experience or prevalent personality quirk( > aside from getting interested in math when > young). My guess is that nothing terribly interesting will turn > up--just a bunch of guys staring off into space and scribbling on a > blackboard once in a while. > To close on a lighter note, I might suggest that Norm's reference to "math nerds" may in fact belie his hunch that no common root experience or prevalent personality quirk will appear. Richard Nash ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 20:36:49 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Elizabeth A. Ten Dyke" Subject: Re: Introduction In-Reply-To: <01I9JPY4GUNM00331F@GAUDI.GC.CUNY.EDU> What do you think of Richard Rudgley's book _Essential Substances_? I am curious because I will be teaching the book for the first time in a Cultural Anthropology class this semester and it would be helpful to have a bit of a critical perspective from someone who knows more of these matters than I do. It occurs to me that your self-introduction suggests a line of research and interest that is somewhat different from the subject matter of this volume (the use of different mind/mood altering substances across time and space from medieval Europe to modern day New Guinea and the U.S. to pre-historic Siberia to ancient South Asia. You get my drift) but if you are not familiar with the book I imagine you would find it very interesting. Liz Ten Dyke etendyke@email.gc.cuny.edu On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Matthew Baggott wrote: > Having just sent a message to the list on Friday, perhaps I should > introduce myself: > > I currently do research in psychopharmacology, mostly in areas relating > to recreational drug use and drug abuse. However, my undergraduate > training is in the field of philosophy. As an undergraduate at the > University of Chicago (from '86 to '90), I was initially attracted to > issues concerning how the mind and science both worked. As my > philosophy studies progressed, I became more interested in history, > sociology, and psychology which seemed equally important disciplines > for exploring my interests in mind and science. Given my interest in > science, I obtained a student job in a behavioral psychopharm. lab, > where I continued to work for 2 years after graduation. Then I moved > to California and eventually obtained my current job at UCSF's > Drug Dependence Research Center. I am fascinated by how psychoactive > drugs effect the mind and how this has been used and seen throughout > history. I also try to keep up on the science studies literature in my > spare time (_Primate Visions_ had a lot of impact on me --probably a > common experience). In my non-laboratory pursuits, I am particulary > interested in the history of the liqueur absinthe, which was popular at > the turn-of-the-century but was later banned because it was believed to > cause brain damage and 'degeneracy.' This interest had lead me into > readings on the history of psychiatry, medicine, and insanity in 19th > century France. Ultimately, I plan to continue interdisciplinary drug > research in the context of a PhD/MD program, allowing my science studies > interests to inform my other research. > > As an aside, I have set up a home page for my lab. I hope to > make it a useful resource on drug issues for people from many different > perspectives. One goal is to eventually give an interested-but-non- > specialist netizen an idea of just what it is we do in the lab and why. > When I have this goal more realized, I hope to solicit feedback from this > list. > > Matthew J. Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu > Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center > University of California, San Francisco > Home Page: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~ddrc > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:17:04 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Baggott Subject: Science on Mothers, Infants, and Hospitals In-Reply-To: <199609161755.KAA49459@itssrv1.ucsf.EDU> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: > Spitz (et al) theory of hospitalism basically says that > when the infant is taken away from the person to whom he or she is > bonded, the infant is at first angry, but then gives up > hope and withdraws... > Bradford McCormick, Ed.D. > bradmcc@cloud9.net / (914)238-0788 > 27 Poillon Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA This sort of argument reminds me of an interesting book I read a while back: D. Eyer's _Mother-Infant Bonding: a Scientific Fiction_, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. Eyer traces the history of the notion of the mother-infant bond and related ideas (such as there being some window of opportunity during which the bond much occur). The evidence for many of these ideas is apparently far weaker than I would have assumed. Having been raised in a 'LaLeche League' family, many of Eyer's arguments seemed almost heretical to me (which is a good thing!). It was particularly interesting to read about the importance of the organization of the hospital (and the various professions within it) in bonding theory's general acceptance. Of course, I've forgotten all the specifics, otherwise I'd try to summarize it in more detail. Come to think of it, the book came to my attention because it was referenced in Gail Vines' _Raging Hormones: Do they rule our lives?_ (Berkeley and LA, CA: University of California Press, 1993), a lively and often convincing polemic on the limitations of hormone- based explanations of behavior. I enjoyed it alot, partially because it was so harmonious with my personal biases. After I get the PhD/MD, I'll have to re-read it and see what I think. I recommend both books to interested readers. Matt Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu Drug Dependence Research Center University of California, San Francisco DDRC Home Page: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~ddrc ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:38:50 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: SaC: THOM: maths research Re: RENE' THOM, (catastrophe theory). Sorry this is long: it's the beginning of D'ERAMO's interview with RENE' THOM, taken from the Italian communist daily, il manifesto 14 Sep., which you can find at: http://www.mir.it/mani/Quotidiano-archivio/14-Settembre-1996/art57.html I hope that URL arrives OK, and that some of you will be interested in following it up. I've translated (best I can) the first exchanges, to give an idea: I feel it may well be of interest to SaC, especially since we're discussing maths (Newton). I hope Norman will fill us in on the salient points of the THOM - PRIGOGINE debate ... Sorry the Italian characters got corrupted in my copying ... ================================================ THE SINGULARITY WHICH PRODUCES DISASTERS ================================================ La singolaritH che produce disastri Ho posto domande fuori dagli schemi e sono state interpretate come una forma di curiositH malsana MARCO D'ERAMO - PERUGIA M AGRO, 73 anni compiuti da pochi giorni, i capelli quasi bianchi tagliati corti, il naso affilato francese, RenE Thom - che abbiamo incontrato a margine di un convegno a cui I stato invitato - siede sul divano della hall dell'albergo prima di cena e parla con voce stanca. Che ne pensa della ricerca scientifica oggi? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- D'ERAMO ASKS RENE' THOM: "WHAT'S YOUR OPINION OF CURRENT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- E' un'attivitH il cui coefficiente di rendimento diminuisce. Ho impressione che le cose si appiattiscano. Ma forse I perchE sto invecchiando. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THOM ANSWERS: "IT'S AN ACTIVITY WITH A DIMINISHING COEFFICIENT OF RETURN. I HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THINGS ARE FLATTENING OUT. BUT MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE I'M GETTING OLD." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forse perchE prima la ricerca della veritH naturale era artigianato, mentre ora I industria. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- D'ERAMO COMMENTS: "MAYBE BECAUSE THE SEARCH FOR NATURAL TRUTH USED TO BE ARTISAN, WHILE NOW IT IS AN INDUSTRY." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SY, mi pare una buona definizione, un'attivitH industriale. Mi ricorderJ sempre del primo centro di fisica che ho visitato negli Stati uniti: mi fece un'impressione incredibile, un senso di mestiere, di gente che stava facendo solo la propria professione. Era un lavoro. Non sembrava piK ricerca. Piuttosto sembrava un business. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THOM ANSWERS: "YES, THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD DEFINITION: AN INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. I'LL ALWAYS REMEMBER THE FIRST PHYSICS CENTRE I VISITED IN THE STATES: IT MADE AN INCREDIBLE IMPRESSION ON ME: A SENSE OF FOLLOWING A TRADE, OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ONLY CARRYING OUT THEIR PROFESSION. IT WAS A JOB. IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE RESEARCH ANY MORE. RATHER, IT SEEMED LIKE A BUSINESS." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Secondo lei, aumenta o diminuisce la distanza tra la cultura sociale e la matematica? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- D'ERAMO: "IN YOUR OPINION, IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN SOCIAL CULTURE AND MATHS INCREASING OR DECREASING?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tende ad aumentare perchE non si ritiene piK che fare matematica sia un'attivitH culturale. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- THOM: "IT TENDS TO INCREASE, BECAUSE ONE NO LONGER BELIEVES THAT DOING MATHEMATICS IS A CULTURAL ACTIVITY ... " ... and he goes on to elaborate on this ... and on his debate with Prigogine about scientific determinism, local / global, facts, etc. ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questo riguarda tutte le scienze dure. La matematica I una scienza dura, la fisica I una scienza dura, la chimica I una scienza dura, anche se ha una certa tendenza a diventare esplosiva. La biologia rimane una scienza tutto sommato assai molle, nonostante le sue pretese al rigore. La fisica per esempio I diventata una disciplina tremendamente tecnica e le sue soluzioni di principio, le impostazioni di base che valgono quel che valgono non hanno avuto un impatto sulla cultura generale e sui comportamenti sociali. Lei mi potrebbe citare l'informatica e i calcolatori. Tutto ciJ cambia un po' le prospettive ma non tocca fondamentalmente la cultura dell'individuo. Per di piK, un giovane futuro intellettuale si sente sempre meno attirato dalla ricerca: la cultura scientifica puJ dare sY una certa celebritH, ma questa poi si limita a una buona pensione. Dieci anni dopo la polemica contro Atlan, Morin e Prigogine - in cui lei difendeva il determinismo scientifico - come ne pensa oggi? Sul determinismo ho una posizione che molti trovano del tutto illogica perchE credo nella libertH umana e insieme al determinismo generale della natura. Non un determinismo totale, ma un determinismo che ha luogo quasi dappertutto, anche se ammette eccezioni. Si tratta sempre di un determinismo locale, perchE quello globale I molto difficile da definire. Bisognerebbe poter definire cosa I un fatto, ma non I facile. In realtH in quella polemica, ce l'avevo molto con Prigogine. PerchE era un uomo molto celebre e la sua era una celebritH mal riposta. Dal punto di vista umano c'era qualcosa di un po' dubbio, d'inquietante in lui. Ma adesso, in fin dei conti, bisogna riconoscere a Prigogine una certa forma di coraggio intellettuale nel mantenere le sue posizioni che erano considerate eterodosse dal mondo scientifico tradizionale. Il fatto I che presso gli scienziati la notorietH di Prigogine I quella di un filosofo, presso i filosofi di uno scienziato, presso i fisici di un chimico e presso i chimici di un fisico, un porsi sempre altrove. Mi si potrebbe fare lo stesso rimprovero. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:01:09 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: [njlevitt@haven.ios.com: Re: [hobson@SESAM.IT: SaC: THOM: maths research] (fwd)] Addendum: Sorry. I should have identified the "New Age huckster" as Rupert Sheldrake. NL ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:12:25 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: SaC: Newton, Kline, D'Eramo D'Eramo reviewed a new translation of Kline's _History of Mathematical Thought_ yesterday, in the Italian daily "il manifesto". You can find it at: http://www.mir.it/mani/Quotidiano-archivio/19-Settembre-1996/art_inserto9.html (If that URL doesn't arrive safely, type it in your "Location" field) The title is "MATHEMATICS: Infinitesimal calculus and national pride". I'll try to get back with brief translated excerpts, to give you an idea of why I believe at least some of you listees will be interested ... Unfortunately I have time+communication problems ... Ciao a presto Sherren Italy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:35:38 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: SaC: Newton, Kline, D'Eramo Back again. (See my previous SaC posting today, if you're interested) Excerpts from D'Eramo's review of Morris Kline's newly translated History of Mathematical Thought (Biblioteca Studio, Einaudi, pp 1,550 L.96,000). "Kline reminds us that the weight of national pride is often uderestimated in mathematics, as can be seen from the well known dispute about the infinitesimal calculus, between Newton and Leibniz, who fought for a long time over the paternity of the invention of this method..." "... But since all the English mathematicians sided with Newton for <>, the continental mathematicians adopted the Lebniz notation and mathematical exchanges between the two shores of the Channel ceased. This analytical protectionism isolated Great Britain from continental progress, so that <>. This is a case in which nationalism alters the course of pure science." D'Eramo refers then, in passing, to Kline's treatment of Poisson, Fourier, Kronecker, Cantor, Cauchy, Abel... He ends this brief review with a general note which ... "... regards the very nature of this kind of work. From the nineteenth century on, Kline's History becomes unreadable for anyone who does not have a mathematical background of at least university level. But anyone who knows mathematics at this level is not very interested in knowing its history, because if he is a mathematician he looks to his present (or his future), and if he is a physicist or a scientist from other fields he sees it as a research tool and not as a topic whose past evolution is to be studied. The risk is that mathematical histories are written for the use and consumption of mathematical historians only, who will write other histories ... Thus for non-mathematicians the book ceases to be easily consultible more or less from the eighteenth century, i.e. from when mathematics becomes bigger than that limited field which more or less every school-child studies ..." "... And this demonstrates the somewhat ambiguous relationship which exists between mathematics and general social culture: while society is becoming mathematicised (computers, communications digitalisation ...), social culture becomes increasingly mathematically illiterate. On the other hand, Kline had partly reflected on topics close to these in his "Mathematics in Western Culture (Feltrinelli, 1982)." The sexist bias of the language won't go un-noticed: it's in the original Italian: probably the term paternity will trigger another thread in SaC. I fully expect someone (Norman) to rage against the claim that nationalism alters the course of pure science. And what about the "protectionism" metaphor? And mathematical "evolution"?! And do/should mathematical historians merely talk among themselves? I'd like to see some delving into this infinitesimal calculus: language and notation. I've always considered the (metaphorical) terms "differentiation" and "integration" extremely suggestive. Especially having worked with them in quantum mechanics treated as "functional operators". Especially having worked in/with integrated factories. Someone (Norman) will remind me (rightly) I should really "learn the stuff" according to the Authorities ... but there it is, I'd still like to see some delving. EVEN by mathematical historians. Best wishes Sherren Italy ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:48:23 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: Sac: Newton, Levitt et al Re: Levitt's replies to Hobson's postings on ... D'Eramo's review of Kline's book, referring to Newton - and D'Eramo's interview with rene' Thom ... Apologies to the list for all the repetition: you'll have to delete the bits you've already received (or all of it, if of no interest, of course). I thank Norman Levitt for his lengthy and extremely informative reply, which I promise to study. Who knows: this could spur some of us lazy ex-mathematicians and non-mathematicians into making the time to actually read the stuff (and maybe to pretend to understand some of it). I expect we shall remain on opposite sides of the (political) forum, but a belief in constructive criticism is hard to die. I have to say I doubt Bob Young is censoring Norman's postings (just because we're paranoid doesn't mean we haven't got it in for each other, remember!): I'd put the communication problem down to "technical hitches" (maybe the characters in the long subject field). As for D'Eramo knowing Sokal and Levitt "generalizing the Thom transverslity theorem", all I can say is: "curiouser and curiouser ..." Sherren ============================================================================ > Dear Dr. Hobson; > Yes, that little squib about Sheldrake was an addendum to a longer > posting, which is given below (with the Sheldrake reference put back in > context. I posted this twice to sci-as-cult; neither time did it appear, > which at least suggests that I have been demoted by RM Young an associates > to "persona non grata" status. What, if anything, in the included > trigered that response, I'll leave it to you to surmise. So far as I can > see, it's probably just my sulfurous reputation!! > > But perhaps I'm paranoid. You might try re-posting this to SAC to > see what happens (just as an experiment). > > By the way, an additional piece of information. It turns out that > the interviewer, D'Eramo, is also a friend of Alan Sokal. Small world. > > Also by the way, in regard to your later posting, I disagree with > the thesis that mathematicians aren't interested in the history of > mathematics. They're extremely interested. The story of the > Newton-Leibniz quarrel is very well known within the trade, as is it's > subsequent effect on British mathematics. Newton's reticence in making > known his discoveriesconcerning calculus is one of the great mysteries. > The damage wa done both by his silence and by his eventual publication of > the"Fluxions" book. One has the sense that Newton regarded calculus as a > "trade secret", a method for him to make discoveries, which was to be kept > under wraps as much as possible. That "Fluxions" is a mysterious, > difficult, book is puzzling unless one assumes that the obscurity was > deliberate. Various comments attributed to Newton suggest that he > understood the principles of calculus far better than Leibniz, who was > burdened with the idee fixe that the "differentials" dx and dy that appear > in the expresssion dy/dx were real "infinitesimal" quantities, whose ratio > yielded the derivative. Newton seems to have understood that things > should be defined as limits, though he never discussed limits formally in > his book. I've a feeling that, if pressed, he would have given a > definition of limit exxentially equivalent to the modern > (Cauchy-Weierstrass) one. > > Of course, contemporary mathematicians use the notations dx, dy > etc. all the time, but here the notion has shifted to that of a > "differential form," i.e., a section of a cotangent bundle (to be pedantic > about it). Also, Leibniz's "infinitesimals" can be resurrected via > sophisticated set-theory techniques whereby "non-standard" arithmetics are > constructed. The newest wrinkle on this is John Conway's Surreal Numbers. > > BTW, the relative backwardness of British mathematics, which > lasted into the 19th cent., is often ascribed to the association of > mathematics degrees with the clergy of the Church of England; somehow, the > maths degree was the standard prerequisite for curates--who knows why? > Also involved was the "tripos" examination system, which emphasized early > mathematics and excluded contemporary developments. > > A final thought; I don't think one can understand even 17th cent. > math history without a very good training in undrgraduate, and possibly > some graduate, math. Newton, Huyghens, Wallis, & the Bernoulli's weren't > exactly primitives. > > Norm Levitt > Rutgers, Math > ---------------------------------- > > Thanks for the posting and the invitation to reply. First some > background: > > Thom is one of the most distinguished mathematicians of the century. His > greatest work occured in the '50's, when he proved the celebrated Thom > transversality theorem, used it to reduce the question of computing smooth > bordism groups (oriented and unoriented) to that of computing the homotopy > groups of the "Thom space" of a universal bundle, and then proceeded to > compute those homotopy groups, thereby showing that the bordism type of a > manifold is completely characterized by Stiefel-Whitney numbers > (unoriented case) or Stiefel Whitney plus Pontrjagin numbers (oriented > case). For this work he received the Fields medal in 1958. Other > important results of his include the definition of rational Pontrjagin > classes for combinatorial manifolds. > > [Let me declare an interest here. When I was younger and smarter I had > some partial success in generalizing the Thom transverslity theorem to the > case of spherical fibrations (rather than vector or PL bundles), with a > view to computing bordism for Poincare duality spaces. I also worked on > another conjecture of Thom's viz; that the rational Pontrjagin classes of > a triangulated PL manifold arise from a local combinatorial formula. > Colin Rourke and I were able to show, rather easily, that such a formula > must exist. Giving an explicit algorithm, however, is a vastly more > difficult problem. > > So, in any case, I have reason to look on Thom as a personal > source of inspiration.] > > Thom is best known to the greater public, however, for his advocacy of > "applied catastrophe theory" as a way of making novel and powerful > mathematical models of physical, biological (and social) phenomena. This > was based on some very lovely mathematics (including the famous "7 > Catastrophes Theorem, classsifying low-dimensional singularities). A > related program was to develop "qualitative" models for morphogenesis, in > order to make rigorous certain intuitive ideas of biologists lilke d'Arcy > Thompson. App. Cat. Th. enjoyed a brief vogue in the '70's. However it > rapidly faded, because it was greatly oversold. Some stinging criticism > came from other mathematicians, among the most telling of which was an an > analysis of the shortcomings of ACT by my Rutgers colleagues Hector > Susssmann and Raphael Zahler. The point was not the > incorrectness of the mathematics, but the question of > applicability. Likewise, the morphogenesis > program also petered out; some developmental biologists tried > to make use of it, but found it very difficult to apply in a concrete > context. The morphogenetic work made use of the notion of "morphogenetic > field"--briefly, a dynamical system on a stratified infinite dimensional > fuction space, whose non-singular regimes are to be identified with > generic "forms." Little survives of this program, as such. However, the > notorious New Age huckster Rupert Sheldrake has purloined the term > "morphogenetic field", which probably debars it from any further serious > use. > > Thom's concern with the notion of idealized "forms" concretized in > specific phenomena reveals the emphatically Platonic and Goethean aspects > of his thought. Philosophically, he has been somewhat of a lone wolf. He > hasn't been active mathematically for about 25 years. > > I'll comment below on some of the cited remarks. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > D'ERAMO ASKS RENE' THOM: "WHAT'S YOUR OPINION OF CURRENT SCIENTIFIC > > RESEARCH?" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > THOM ANSWERS: "IT'S AN ACTIVITY WITH A DIMINISHING COEFFICIENT OF > > RETURN. I HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THINGS ARE FLATTENING OUT. BUT MAYBE > > THAT'S BECAUSE I'M GETTING OLD." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > D'ERAMO COMMENTS: "MAYBE BECAUSE THE SEARCH FOR NATURAL TRUTH USED TO > > BE ARTISAN, WHILE NOW IT IS AN INDUSTRY." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > THOM ANSWERS: "YES, THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD DEFINITION: AN INDUSTRIAL > > ACTIVITY. I'LL ALWAYS REMEMBER THE FIRST PHYSICS CENTRE I VISITED IN THE > > STATES: IT MADE AN INCREDIBLE IMPRESSION ON ME: A SENSE OF FOLLOWING A > > TRADE, OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ONLY CARRYING OUT THEIR PROFESSION. IT WAS A > > JOB. IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE RESEARCH ANY MORE. RATHER, IT SEEMED LIKE A > > BUSINESS." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Part of Thom's well known discontent with contemporary science is it's > intense concentration on the empirical and reductive. As stated, he's a > Platonist, and, to him contemplation of ideal forms should be part of the > scientific worldview. However, as stated, there has been no real success > in turning any of this into concrete scientific achievement. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > D'ERAMO: "IN YOUR OPINION, IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN SOCIAL CULTURE AND > > MATHS INCREASING OR DECREASING?" > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > THOM: "IT TENDS TO INCREASE, BECAUSE ONE NO LONGER BELIEVES THAT DOING > > MATHEMATICS IS A CULTURAL ACTIVITY ... " ... and he goes on to elaborate > > on this ... and on his debate with Prigogine about scientific > > determinism, local / global, facts, etc. ... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > On this point, I agree with Thom. See my essay "Mathematics as the > Stepchild of Western Culture" in "The Flight from Science and Reason" [NY > Academy of Sciences Annals, vol. 775, ed. Gross, Levitt, Lewis (to be > reprinted by Jphns Hopkins University Press, 1997)] > > > > It's fair to call Thom an eccentric, philosophically speaking; but it's > also fair to say that Prigogine has crossed the line into crankdom. For > an exhaustive analysis of some of Prigogine's fallacies regarding > determinism and "chaos", see "Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science" by the > mathematical physicist Jean Bricmont. This appears (French version) in > "Physica" and also (English version) in "The Flight from Science and > Reason." Warning: some mathematical background is necessary to read this > paper; in particular, elementary notions concerning dynamical systems, > measure theory, and so forth. However, large parts of the paper are > philosophical. > > Lest you think that Bricmont is some rearguard opponent of "chaos theory", > let me point out that one of his consultants while writing this paper was > David Ruelle, who, as much as anyone, may be said to have invented chaos > theory. > > > Also, Bricmont is the co-author of a forthcoming book (probably initially > in French) "The Scientific Abuses of (Post)-Modern Philosphers" > criticizing various pieces of pretentious nonsense to be found in Derrida, > Irrigaray, Lyotard, Lacan, et alia. The other author, you will be > delighted to learn, is Alan Sokal. > > Norm Levitt > Math, Rutgers ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 16:35:25 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Bibliography, was: Sac: Newton, Levitt et al At 15:48 20-09-96 +0200, you wrote: >Re: Levitt's replies to Hobson's postings on ... >D'Eramo's review of Kline's book, referring to Newton - >and D'Eramo's interview with rene' Thom ... etc. This all looks very interesting. I'm particularly interested in the (historical) relation between philosophy and maths. I feel I have some more reading to do. Can anyone suggest important articles/books on these issues that pesuppose not too detailed mathematical knowledge? I would be grateful if you would mail the references to my personal e-mail address. Thanks! Arie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 12:49:28 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Sokal Hoax Website URL & commentary Perhaps this URL has already been given on Science-as-Culture, but it bears repeating for those who, like myself, may have joined since: The SOKAL Hoax Website: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jwalsh/sokal/ It contains the complete text of the original article Prof. Sokal wrote to spoof post-modernism, as well as all the articles written in the subsequent approar to its publication in the respected academic journal, Social Text (Spring/Summer 1996) -- "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." Here are my thoughts, as a former (Assistant -- level IV) Professor of Western Civilization: 1. This reflects the sad state of affairs in Western Civilization brought about by the body-mind split in our culture. It "originated" in our epistemology with the positions of Plato and Aristotle, who were only summarizing what had already come about in their time (like Bach to the Baroque Period in Music). 2. The body-mind split is causing us to wear cultural "blinders." This will prevent us from making the quantum leap in our epistemology which is now required: to synthesize the knowledge of Science into the meaning of our Culture for the people and our survival in our eco-niche, (I don't like the words 'masses' and 'elite,' but this is what I mean here). As a teacher of career-adults, this was particularly evident to me in my experience -- I refer obliquely to the sad state of higher education in the United States, in particular. As an example, I had to fight to take courses in all the Sciences in my individually designed academic doctoral work in what I called "Western Civilization." The University wanted me to remain within the context of Intellectual History (a narrow department) with perhaps some venturing into the Philosophy Department. 3. The body-mind split originated at a cultural level when knowledge was transmitted orally -- that is before writing was invented four millenia ago. This is a short amount of time, compared to the origin of the human species (million-and-a-half years???), and the development of the brain at its present capacity (100,000 years ago???) a. It originated when men and women began to function in society as two different species instead of one. b. Our languages even were imbued with the awe of sex in the attribution of case-gender to ALL nouns. c. In my humble opinion, as a "monolingual" (opinion voiced on this list) American who has studied only six languages and a smattering of two others, English is the only modern European language that has no gender for nouns not directly referring to sexual life-forms. 4. Professor Sokal's paper is written as a parody of the abstruse language specialists use, "professional jargon," to wrap themselves up in the profundity of their thoughts, which too often bear no meaning to empower the people. This, if anything, should be the lesson we can learn from the Sokal Hoax in the endeavor to heal the split in our epistemology by this personality-weakness of the individual. 5. Two lively discussions on this list within the last two weeks reflect this split: Science-Religion and Sexuality-in-Language. They have summarized the current state-of-affairs, but have not gotten us to any gestaalt. The higher-order complexity thinking of the next discoveries in Science requires team-work, in which specialist pool their knowledge and arrive at a synthesis of understanding. 6. I have tried to give my expertise concerning the actual functioning of our cognition to this list and was acknowledged by only one member as on the right thread. The Religion/Science thread was nonetheless dropped, doubtless as "leading nowhere" and another one in the same vein was taken up. One member in a direct post courteously suggested I might join L-Women-in-Philosophy. It seems to me, these two lists must join each other. 7. I realize my posts are lengthy, but as the witty neurosurgeon said: "if the brain were simple enough for us to understand, we would be too simple-minded to understand it." I would like to add that we are blinded by wearing cultural blinders. Michelle Christides http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:02:23 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Re: typographical error for NON-ENGLISH Primary Language Members Michelle Christides wrote: > > Perhaps this URL has already been given on Science-as-Culture, but it > bears repeating for those who, like myself, may have joined since: > > The SOKAL Hoax Website: > > http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jwalsh/sokal/ > > It contains the complete text of the original article Prof. Sokal wrote > to spoof post-modernism, as well as all the articles written in the > subsequent approar Please note, this word is UPROAR -- my brain must have combined it with the word "approach" -- interesting synthesis in the unconscious? . . . to its publication in the respected academic journal, > Social Text (Spring/Summer 1996) -- "Transgressing the Boundaries: > Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." > > Michelle Christides > > http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 13:26:26 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 19 Sep 1996 to 20 Sep 1996 In a message dated 96-09-21 00:59:40 EDT, Norman Levitt writes: The morphogenetic work made use of the notion of "morphogenetic > field"--briefly, a dynamical system on a stratified infinite dimensional > fuction space, whose non-singular regimes are to be identified with > generic "forms." Little survives of this program, as such. However, the > notorious New Age huckster Rupert Sheldrake has purloined the term > "morphogenetic field", which probably debars it from any further serious > use. Certainly morphogenetic field (in its preformalized form) didn't start with Thom, but with Waddington, from whom Thom got some of his embryological ideas. Certainly this notion doesn't stand and fall (mostly fall) with Sheldrake, or even with Thom for that matter. << It's fair to call Thom an eccentric, philosophically speaking; but it's > also fair to say that Prigogine has crossed the line into crankdom. For > an exhaustive analysis of some of Prigogine's fallacies regarding > determinism and "chaos", see "Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science" by the > mathematical physicist Jean Bricmont. This appears (French version) in > "Physica" and also (English version) in "The Flight from Science and > Reason." Warning: some mathematical background is necessary to read this > paper; in particular, elementary notions concerning dynamical systems, > measure theory, and so forth. However, large parts of the paper are > philosophical. >> Certainly Bricmont makes very damaging (probably fatal) criticisms of Prigogine's claims as to a connection between irreversability and chaos. (I always thought that Prigogine's stuff about microscopic irreverability in particle physics was pretty kooky) But even totally, absolutely refuting Prigogine on this stuff doesn't refute claims by others about relations of non-linear mechanics and chaos theory to non-reductionist claims. Prigogine like Bohm actually uses the term "postmodern," so a lot of self-proclaimed post-modernists look to them for sustenance, not knowing where to look on their own within physics. But Prigogine is hardly the only one who draws non-standard conclusions from chaos theory (and his conclusions are mostly related to issues of time and irreverability not to reduction questions. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 14:04:38 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ruby Rohrlich Subject: Re: Sokal Hoax Website URL & commentary X-To: Michelle Christides In-Reply-To: <199609211652.MAA23781@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> Dear Michelle Christides: The human species originated about four million or more years ago, according to the dating of the earliest (so far discovered) of the Australopithicines (our earliest form). How widespread is the view that the mind-body split " originated when men and women began to function in society as two different species instead of one"? This is the basis of the refusal to accept the word "man," the word for the male sex, as meaning the whole of the human species. In this sense, the use of the word excludes women, and all we ask (to start with) is a word that includes both sexes. Why is that so difficult for some men to accept? Is that because unconsciously they do not want the mind-body split to heal and become One Entity? Because then man would no longeer be dominant? Ruby Rohrlich rohrlich@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 10:54:34 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Facsimilile edition of Samuel Tuke's _Description of the York Retreat_ In 1796, William Tuke and his fellow Quakers established The Retreat at York and thereby embarked on a revolution in the humane treatment of the mentally ill. In celebration of the bi-centennial of this enduring institution, The York Retreat and Process Press have published a facsimilie of the founding document of moral treatment of the mentally ill, written by Samuel Tuke's grandson, William Tuke, in 1813. DESCRIPTION OF THE RETREAT AN INSTITUTION NEAR YORK For Insane Persons of the SOCIETY OF FRIENDS CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS, The Modes of Treatment AND A STATEMENT OF CASES by Dr Samuel Tuke YORK, 1813 with extensive introductory material by Richard Hunter & Ida Macalpine (1964) and Kathleen Jones (new) ISBN 1-89920-904-2 Pp. xl + 228 L15.95 + L1.50 postage & packing (British pounds sterling) Available only from the publisher Process Press has also recently published _The Story of a Mental Hospital: Fulbourn, 1858-1983_ by David H. Clark 'Frank, modest and written with a wry sense of humour, David Clark's account of a career in Fulbourn is a rare document, fascinating to read and invaluable as historical evidence. It is a pleasure to see it in print.' - Roy Porter, Professor of the Social History of Medicine, Wellcome Institute David Clark's work was the subject of s BBC2 documentary in the 'Pioneers' series in September 1996. ISBN 1-899209-03-4 Pp. xiv+248 L19.95 plus L1.50 postage & packing Available from the publisher and bookstores Order by credit card or cheque in British pounds sterling to: Process Press Ltd., 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ or by email to pp@rmy1.demon.co.uk Further information about Process Press books and journals is available at: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/process.html __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. 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/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:27:41 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dr. Patrick W. Hamlett, MDS" Subject: Position Announcement X-To: HOPOS-L@lsv.uky.edu, htech-l%sivm.BITNET@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, PCST-L@cornell.edu, sts@cctr.umkc.edu, STEPS@LISTSERV.NCSU.EDU Interdisciplinary/Environmental Studies: One tenure-track position, at either the junior or senior level, in a department of interdisciplinary courses and concentrations. We seek a person with significant scientific background who can address, through teaching, research, and service, the broader societal issues central to environmental studies, e.g. policy, ethical, communication, management issues, as they relate to the scientific developments within this field. This person would administer the Environmental Science minor, teach the introductory course for this minor (_Humans and the Environment_), and develop new courses in this area. The candidate should also be prepared to teach introductory courses in Science, Technology & Society, and should be equipped to operate in an interdisciplinary environment and to contribute to other program areas within the department (e.g., Women's Studies, Arts Studies, our graduate Master of Arts in Liberal Studies program), within the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, and within the University as a whole. Proven teaching ability, a strong research record or potential, and a Ph.D. degree are required. Application deadline is November 13, 1996. Send application materials, including three letters of recommendation, to Dr. Patrick W. Hamlett, Division of Multidisciplinary Studies, Box 7107, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7107 USA. E-mail: phamlett@ncsu.edu. EOE/AA. Persons of color, women, and the physically challenged are encouraged to apply. Hamlett ==================================================== Dr. Patrick W. Hamlett, Assistant Head E-mail: PHAMLETT@NCSU.EDU Director: Program on Science, Technology, & Society Division of Multidisciplinary Studies Phone: 919/515-7999 Box 7107 Fax: 919/515-1828 North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695-7107 USA ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 02:12:26 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Web site for writings of Robert M. Young I have today added to my web site the text of a talk on 'Representations of Primitive Processes in the Cinema', prepared for the Third International Conference on 'Psychosis: Integrating the Inner and Outer Worlds', University of Essex, 22 Sept. 1996. Anyone wishing to read it but not having access to the web can ask me, and I will send it as an attachment or by ordinary email. I have not published quite a lot of what I have written, and much of my published work has appeared in places far from the mainstream. For some months, with the help of Ian Pitchford and Helen Davies, I have been placing my writings at a web site and will continue to do so. Recent writings are nearly all there, but earlier work (which wasn't in the computer) is being scanned in as other commitments allow. So far sixty documents are there, including the full text of _Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture_ (Cambridge, 1985) and a hitherto unpublished overview of the social studies of scientific knowledge, 'How Societies Constitute their Knowledge'. Facilities are available for viewing on-line or downloading. Comments very welcome. I can supply a list to anyone without access to the www http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/index.html __________________________________________ Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. 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/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:15:46 -0700 Reply-To: Matthew Baggott Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Baggott Subject: Rudgley's Essential Substances (fairly long posting) In-Reply-To: <199609180039.RAA32255@itssrv1.ucsf.EDU> [WARNING: FAIRLY LONG AND SCATTERED POSTING] On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Elizabeth A. Ten Dyke wrote: > What do you think of Richard Rudgley's book _Essential Substances_? I've skimmed it, decided I wasn't impressed, but I haven't fully read it (just by itself, this tells you something, since I'm a bit of a bookworm). Anyone who talks about the "drive to alter consciousness" loses points in my book. I think there is some truth behind this idea but it minimizes or ignores the importance of social and historical factors. Psychoactive substance use is a meaningful activity. I'd like to see more sophisticated discussion of this. As an easy example, people who use speed to stay up and study may be seeking different aspects of the 'high' and may have less of a chance of developing drug dependence than those who use it recreationally. Perhaps both groups share some 'drive to alter their consciousness,' but that's not a very useful observation. People talking about altered states of consciousness should be careful to discuss the psychoactive properties of food, the economics and historical significance of drug trade, the symbolic and ritualistic aspects of drug use in constructing social identity, and similar topics. If they don't, they risk making psychoactive substances seem like some sort of anomalous behavior which needs to be explained by a "fundamental drive." Rudgley's discussion of the haoma/soma dispute is just ok, for balance I would read the relevant passages in J. Ott's "Pharmacotheon." I was particularly disappointed by Rudgley's description of "a fairly typical example of the behavior of PCP users" (which he took from Ronald Siegel). It may be a typical example of a "violent disoriented PCP user who attracts police attention," but I doubt it is a typical example of a user. I have serious problems with Ron Siegel's writings in which he mixes colorful anecdotes with reasonable statements. He rarely provides references for his claims and sometimes seems to select unrepresentative anecdotes based on their entertainment value. With respect to PCP, a 1991 report to Congress summarized it like this: >There are reports of increased agressiveness and "super-human >strength" that develop in some people who take phencyclidine. >Recent studies, including those of men arrested for criminal >activity in Washington D.C. and New York City (Wish 1986) and evaluations >of published clinical reports of phencyclidine intoxication >(Brecher et al. 1988), indicate that if phencyclidine induces violent, >criminal behavior, it does so only extremely infrequently. >Although Wish (1986) noted that most men who had urines positive >for phencyclidine were younger than those who had taken no drugs >or other drugs, their crimes were more likely to be less aggressive >than the crimes of those who had not taken phencyclidine. Khajawall et >al. (1982) found no difference in the behavior of clients admitted >for phencyclidine detoxification and those admitted for opioid >detoxification. Thus, phencyclidine-induced aggression appears to >be a rare phenomenon, if it occurs at all. >(from "Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research: The third triennial >report to congress from the Scretary, Dept. of Health and Human >Services, 1991). >REFS CITED IN QUOTE: >Brecher, M; Wang, BW; Wong, H; and Morgan, JP (1988) "Phencyclidine >and violence: clinical and legal issues" _J Clin Psychopharmacology_ 8: >397-401. >Khajawall, AM; Erickson, TB; and Simpson GM (1982) "Chronic Phencyclidine >abuse and physical assault" _Am J Psychiatry_ 139:1604-1606. >Wish, ED (1986) "PCP and crime: just another illicit drug?" _NIDA >Monograph_ 64:174-189. (There is probably be more truth to reports of episodes of psychosis after PCP use in a small percentage of people. A similar phenomenon occurs with methamphetamine. This is not well understood.) I sometimes get real tired of the traditional-balanced vs. modern-dangerous drug use dichotomy. Although I don't have the ref handy, there is some literature on the role of media hysteria in spreading the practice of glue sniffing. Any account of contemporary drug use would do well to mention media studies, such as Reeves and Campbell's _Cracked Coverage: television news, the anti-cocaine crusade, and the Reagan legacy_. Two recent books also cover some of the same ground as _Essential Substances_, sometimes with more sophistication. _Consuming Habits: Drugs in history and anthropology_ (Jordan Goodman, Paul Lovejoy, and Andrew Sherratt, eds) has some nice work, especially by Goodman and Sherratt. Although I don't like it as much, _Drugs and Narcotics in History_ (Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich, eds) has its moments too. While he sometimes makes fascinating claims without fully arguing for them, I think Wolfgang Schivelbusch's _Tastes of Paradise: a social history of spices, stimulants, and intoxicants_ (New York: NY, Vintage Books, 1993) is a real gem. It is focused on European use beginning in medieval times. I liked his integration of 'spice' and 'drug' use and his use of paintings and images (often overlooked sources of data) to illuminate the social understanding and roles of drugs. Plus, it's a blast to read. Perhaps these other books could be used as supplemental reading for your class. Matthew Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center University of California, San Francisco Lab Home Page: http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~ddrc ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:16:43 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "GINA M. CAMODECA" Organization: University at Buffalo Subject: lit & science conference I'm looking for infor re: the lit & science conference in Atlanta(?) later this fall. I'd especially appreciate an email/internet contact site for getting info on attending the conference. Thanks to any who respond Gina Camodeca v391w9rn@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 13:50:49 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: richard nash Subject: Re: lit & science conference In-Reply-To: <199609241840.NAA26014@obslave.ucs.indiana.edu> This year's meeting of SLS will be at the Sheraton Colony Square Hotel in Atlanta, Oct. 10-13. Program and abstracts are available on the web at the following address: "http://www.gatech.edu/sls/sls-96" Richard Nash Indiana University On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, GINA M. CAMODECA wrote: > I'm looking for infor re: the lit & science conference in Atlanta(?) later this > fall. I'd especially appreciate an email/internet contact site for getting > info on attending the conference. > > Thanks to any who respond > Gina Camodeca > v391w9rn@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:37:03 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ENGROSEN@ACS.EKU.EDU Subject: Re: lit & science conference Hi Gina: The url for sls 96 oct 10-13 is: http://www.gatech.edu/sls/sls-96 I think. Let me know if you get it.....mer ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 12:20:49 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hobson Sherren Subject: SaC: R.M.Young: Cons I know you should never start to comment on a paper before finishing reading it, but I can't resist a light-hearted opener. Obviously I'm delighted to find Bob's "How Societies Constitute Their Knowledge" at his web site and hope it will re-launch debate in this forum on its central issues. I'd like to take up the concepts of "constitution", "conception" and "confidence" (these are words with a con in them this time) ... My light-hearted opener is this: my Italian dictionary gives the following definition of CONFIDENCE TRICK: "truffa all'americana" ... ie american-style swindle! Bob's second paragraph opens with ... <> ... and towards the end of the intro we find ... <> I congratulate Bob on this contribution, with which I conditionally concord, but (seriously) contest the use of the concept "confidence trick" - even in the context of "false consciousness" (see section on "FACTS: POSITIVISM AND SCIENTISM): I'm afraid it introduces an element of confusion, weakening the conclusions. Back to my reading, concentrating on the concept of "constitution" ... ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:51:01 -0400 Reply-To: jungsoul@vgernet.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Michelle Christides Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' Jacques Melot wrote: > > Chers abonnes au forum SCI-CULT, > > etant abonne a d'assez nombreux forums, je constate que la question du > sexisme dans le langage revient tres souvent et degenere parfois -- sans > doute inutilement -- en echanges agressifs. > > Je suis personnellement oppose a toute forme de discrimination, donc au > sexisme en particulier. Cela dit, je pense qu'il y a peut-etre une autre > maniere de traiter le probleme du langage en apparence sexiste, que celle > qui consiste a tenter d'influer autoritairement sur le vocabulaire. Comme > l'experience le montre amplement, on tombe facilement dans l'inquisition et > la tyrannie lorsque l'on essaye d'imposer quoi que ce soit au nom de "la > bonne cause". > > Dans une intervention sur le forum TAXACOM (30 janvier 1996, "Re: e.g., > i.e., etc.") j'avais deja qualifie de "linguistic harassment" des > modifications de l'usage linguistique que certains, croyant sans doute bien > faire, voudraient imposer. Voici un extrait de cette intervention et d'une > autre faite sur le meme forum le 16 juin 1996 (avec quelques > modifications). > > L'exemple du mot "man". > Une remarque preliminaire. > Si l'on devait vraiment se passer des mots en "-man" ou "man-" et changer > "mankind" en "the human race", "man-made" en "artificial" (or "synthetic"), > "policeman" en "police officer", on pourrait alors logiquement se poser la > question: en quoi faut-il donc changer "wo-man"??? > > Il me semble qu'il faut d'abord remarquer, une fois pour toutes, que dans > les langues indo-europeennes, donc en anglais en particulier, le genre des > noms est purement grammatical, NON sexuel. > > Le mot "man", a l'origine, ne s'applique pas a l'humain male exclusivement, > mais COLLECTIVEMENT a l'humain male ET femelle, sans distinction. Ce terme > bref signifie donc simplement "human being". (Cf., par exemple, Oxford > English Dictionary: "Man [...] I. 1. A human being (irrespective of sex or > age); = L. homo.".). Ce n'est que plus tard, que le mot "man" s'est > applique a l'homme male par ellipse. > > En islandais, langue germanique proche du vieil anglo-saxon, le mot pour > "man" est GRAMMATICALEMENT MASCULIN, mais s'applique aux etres humains > males et femelles indistinctement. Il est donc SEXUELLEMENT NEUTRE. "Man" > se dit "madhr" (acc. "mann", dat. "manni", genit. "manns", nomin. plur. > "menn", etc.), "humain male" se dit "karlmadhr" et "humain femelle" se dit > "kvenmadhr" (cf. le suedois "kvinna" (= woman), le norvegien "kvinne" (= > id.), l'anglais "queen", le francais "gouine" (= lesbian), le grec "gyne" > (= woman)). > > En anglais le "man" femelle est "wifmann" (ou "wimman", etc.; cf. "wife"), > devenu "woman" en anglais moderne. Le "man" male est "wer-" ou "waepman" > (et variantes) en vieil anglais, devenu, par ellipse, simplement "man" dans > l'anglais moderne courant. La vieille racine indo-europeenne donnant > "wer-", se retrouve en latin dans "vir", homme male, d'ou le francais > "virago" (femme masculine), en anglais moderne dans "werewolf" (allemand > "Werwolf", isl. "varulfr" ou "verulfr", c'est-a-dire "homme-loup", d'ou le > francais "garou">garwalf>*wariwulf) et dans "world" (isl. "veroeld", > neerlandais "wereld"), etc. > > Donc "she is a policeman" est parfaitement correct, et meme... "politically > correct"! Idem pour "man-made", "mankind", etc. > > On peut ajouter aussi qu'en francais il existe un autre mot pour "man": le > mot "personne", et que ce mot est... feminin! tout en designant aussi bien > un homme qu'une femme. Alors, que faire si l'on parle d'un male et que l'on > veut eviter un langage que l'on croit sexiste??? > > Toutes ces complications autour du pretendu sexisme dans l'emploi du mot > "man" et autres mots, en plus d'une lourdeur manifeste, n'ont pas la > moindre influence sur l'evolution de la condition de la femme, ne rendront > pas feministes les anti-feministes et irritent les autres. Quand aux > feministes militants, je suis persuade que cette gymnastique permanente et > consciente leur pese, meme lorsqu'ils ne l'avouent pas. > > Je ne crois pas que l'on puisse aller (efficacement) contre l'usage > linguistique, surtout lorsque cela se fait au nom d'une ideologie, quelle > qu'elle soit. > > En realite, ces pratiques s'apparentent a ce qu'on appelle en medecine un > traitement symptomatique: on s'efforce de supprimer les manifestations du > sexisme en esperant que la disparition des symptomes entrainera la > disparition du mal, ce qui, bien sur, est une pure illusion. Ce ne sont pas > les mots qui importent mais ce qu'il y a derriere. > > J'espere que les non-sexistes qui ressentent les modifications que l'on > voudrait faire subir a l'usage linguistique comme un fardeau, pourront > trouver dans la presente contribution quelques arguments utiles qui les > aideront a s'en passer definitivement. > > Bien cordialement a tous, > > Jacques Melot, Reykjavik > melot@itn.is Cher Jacques, Il me semble que votre argument, ci-dessus, depart de l'hypothese que l'evolution du langage predate la dissociation sexuelle de notre espece. Je suppose que cette dissociation se reflete dans l'evolution du langage, et que, celle-ci devrait etre reparee par un effort enorme de generations plus conscientes et liberees par la Science. Michelle Christides http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 15:01:06 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Donato Ottolenghi Subject: Re: "man", 'man', "woman", 'woman', "mankind", 'womankind' At 23.51 29/09/96 -0400, you wrote: >Jacques Melot wrote: ---- snip >> Jacques Melot, Reykjavik >> melot@itn.is > >Cher Jacques, > >Il me semble que votre argument, ci-dessus, depart de l'hypothese que >l'evolution du langage predate la dissociation sexuelle de notre >espece. Je suppose que cette dissociation se reflete dans l'evolution >du langage, et que, celle-ci devrait etre reparee par un effort enorme >de generations plus conscientes et liberees par la Science. > > >Michelle Christides > >http://www.vgernet.net/jungsoul/index.html > Should be egg or chicken first? Nevertheless, it seems to me a quite interesting subject: sex and language... As a psychoanalytic view, vocal emission was for instance related to sexual activity (see Groddeck, etc.). On the other hand, I guess what real meaning to attribute to concepts or ideas... Here are phylosophical cues that I cannot manage very well... It's obvious when talking of "man" or "woman", but of abstract ideas? Is "faith" a FEMININE concept? In what? Is "sun" a MALE object? Also in neolatin languages you may find as feminine in German, and so? I think that's all not simply a matter of political correctness (of course), but also not only - as Michelle told - an ethical or social matter. Could we start a discussion on this topic? Regards to all, Donato Ottolenghi Milano, Italia aneb8@micronet.it