From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9712" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 12:24 PM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:09:03 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Sci Wars in Science Here is the web version actual article from Chronicle of Higher Education Nov. 26, which I was unable to access or scan when I sent my post, in case I misrepresented the contents. It does say other factors including the Forman review of Gross, Levitt and Lewtis were involved in the review editors' departure. Editor Leaves Journal in Wake of Storm Over Review The science wars have left some scorched feelings at Science, one of the most prestigious journals in America, and have contributed to its book-review editor's leaving her job. In May, the journal published a scathing review of The Flight From Science and Reason (Johns Hopkins University Press), edited by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. The collection of essays, from a 1995 conference, lambasted the "onslaught" on science by cultural-studies outsiders, who attempt to place science into sociological perspective but are said not to know a quark from a quasar. The reviewer, Paul Forman, of the Smithsonian Institution, savaged the book. He accused the authors of closed-mindedness, of trying to put science "back on its pre-postmodern pedestal." A peeved Dr. Levitt, a mathematics professor at Rutgers University, then organized a letter-writing campaign. "I was mad as hell that such an irresponsible review had run in Science," he says. He also wrote a letter to the journal's editor in chief, Floyd E. Bloom, attacking "the sorry state of book reviews" in the journal. The journal also received a fusillade of phone calls. Six of the critical letters were published. Katherine Livingston, who had worked at Science for 33 years, including the past 23 as book editor, says that she was "chewed out" by Dr. Bloom and Monica M. Bradford, the journal's managing editor, for letting the review appear, and that she received a formal reprimand. She says she is disappointed that the journal was "so unwilling to stand up to an outside letter-writing campaign." Other factors as well led to her unplanned retirement. Book reviews are being folded into other parts of the journal, and Ms. Livingston was expected to start soliciting evaluations of CD-ROMs and other new-media items, changes to which she was cool. She also was led to believe that her salary was about to be frozen. "I had been put in a position where I felt I didn't have any other good course but to leave," she says. Despite the flare-up, she says, she left the journal with good feelings toward everyone there -- "except maybe Floyd Bloom." Both Dr. Bloom and Dr. Bradford declined to discuss the specifics of her departure, calling it a personnel matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright (c) 1997 by The Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com Date: 11/28/97 Section: Research & Publishing Page: A17 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:52:40 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GBRansom Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Sci Wars in Science Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 97-12-02 08:16:26 EST, Val wrote: << The reviewer, Paul Forman, of the Smithsonian Institution, >> Who is Paul Forman? What is his background? His philosophy of science? His politics? Did he have connection to the Enola Gay fiasco? Greg Ransom Dept of Social Science Mira Costa College gbransom@aol.com http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 16:03:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Science Wars in Science Mag. I was corrected off list on my post about Science Wars in Science on my having called physics historian Norton Wise, "Nathan Wise." Perhaps my slip was because I was also writing about Lessing's "Nathan the Wise" at that time. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:58:24 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 30 Nov 1997 to 2 Dec 1997 >Who is Paul Forman? What is his background? His philosophy >of science? His politics? >Did he have connection to the Enola Gay fiasco? >Greg Ransom A few things i know about him. He is most famous for his article on Quantum Mechanics and Weimar Culture, arguing that claims concerning indeterminism were widespread in the German Youth Movement (including Reichenbach before Heisenberg's principle) and that there was a widespread denunciation of the "mechanical and lifeless" In response to this a number of Weimar physicists claimed physics was not mechanistic. Forman argues that cultural factors influenced the enthusiastic reception of the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle. Gross and Levitt attack this thesis, but do so in attacking the earier target of Stanley Aronowitz's presentation of it, appearing to attribute the thesis to Aronowitz, who sometimes makes it sound as if uncertainty is just confusion. Forman, unlike Aronowitz, knows some QM. Forman has since published about quantum electronics in relation to the military in Hist. Studies in Physical Science series of Johns Hopkins. Forman also was able to publish very long review articles (longer than anyone else) in Science, dealing with social determination of science. I'm surpised you bring up the "Enola Gay fiasco." I wonder which aspect is to you the fiasco, the including coverage of the effects of the bomb on Japan, the campaign of selective quoting as as part of the "PC" myth fabrication campaign by the right wing foundations, to make it look like the exhibit was pro-Japan, or the veterans' organizations' campaign to modify or to censor the exhibit? Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:19:06 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Piotr Szybek Organization: Lund University Subject: boerhave In-Reply-To: <9712041503.AA27863@nomina.lu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT A story about Boerhave, the 18th century netherland naturalist comes to my mind in connection with the things told in recent mails in this list: When Boerhave first came to Leyden it was to study theology. One day he met some students of theology who criticized Spinoza. He asked them if they've read him, and was told off very rudely, as one who sides with Spinoza. After this Boerhave didnt want to study theology, but went for natural science. (The meaning seems to be, in natural science, things like this just camnnot happen) Has someone heard this story, too? Where does it come from? (Sounds like a kind of urban myth or so) Piotr Szybek Department of Education, Lund University Box 199, 221 00 Lund, Sweden tel +46462224732, fax +46462224538 email Piotr.Szybek@pedagog.lu.se ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:33:57 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gideon Lichfield Subject: more on paul forman X-To: sci-cult@SJUVM.stjohns.edu Can anyone confirm something I have been told about Paul Forman: that he is married to (or the partner of) Katherine Livingston, the erstwhile book-reviews editor of Science? If so, might this have been a factor in her censure for printing his review of "Flight from Science and Reason"? Gideon Lichfield science/tech correspondent --------------------- The Economist --------------------- 25 St. James's Street, London SW1A 1HG tel: +44 171 830 7066 fax: +44 171 839 2968 gideonlichfield@economist.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:01:05 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Conference announcement Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" First Announcement and Call for Papers THE 8th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN CHINA CHINA AND THE WEST August 23 - 28, 1988 Berlin Germany Introduction The 8th International Conference on the History of Science in China (ICHSC) will take place in Berlin, August 23-28, 1998, at the Berlin University of Technology. This University has played an exceptional role in the education of Chinese engineers since the 70s of the 19th c., and continues in this role today. Therefore we have found it appropriate to choose as the conference theme China and the West, and furthermore to place the main emphasis on technology. We hope that this will encourage new initiatives and more extensive studies in the field of the history of technology in China. Of course the conference will also offer a forum for those dealing with the history of science and the history of medicine. We wish in addition to stress that the 8th ICHSC should be regarded as a separate activity, limited to China, from the broader series of International Conferences on the History of Science in East Asia which are organized by the International Society for the history of East Asian Science, Technology and Medicine. A warm welcome to all at the 8th ICHSC in Berlin! Scope and Topics Main Theme: China and the West Symposium Sessions: * Transmission and Diffusion of Technology between China and the West * Cross-cultural Comparisons in Technology * Science and Bureaucracy * New Research Areas in the History of Chinese Science, Technology and Medicine * 2nd International Symposium on Ancient Chinese Books and Records on Science and Technology Conference language: English Call for Papers The 8th ICHSC calls for papers. If you wish to present a paper (25 min.) on the topics mentioned above please send one page abstract of the contributed paper, which should be typed single spaced on a A4-sized (21cm x 29.7 cm) white paper. The margin spacings should be 3.5 cm for top and bottom, and 2.5 cm for each side. Title should be capitalized (in bold). Skip one line and use capitals and lower case for the author and affiliations (in italic). * Please note that both the abtract and the full paper should be written in English with Chinese characters used for technical terms and proper names only. Please mail your abstract before 31 March 1998 to the above mentioned contact address. Announcements and Deadlines * Further details about program, accommo- dation, registration and payment will be given together with the 2nd announcement on 28 Feb. 1998 * Registration Form: 20 March 1998 * Abstract of your paper: 31 March 1998 * Full paper: 20 June 1998 International Advisory Board Chairman: Prof. Eberhard Knobloch (Berlin) Vice Chairman: Prof. Ho Peng-yoke (Cambridge, Griffith) Members: Prof. Karine Chemla (Paris) Prof. Joseph C.Y. Chen (San Diego) Prof. Huang Yi-long (Hsinchu) Prof. Jeon Sang-Woon (Seoul) Prof. Wolfgang Konig (Berlin) Prof. Michael Lackner (Gottingen) Prof. Lu Yongxiang (Beijing) Prof. Hans Poser (Berlin) Prof. Fabrizio Pregadio (Venice) Prof. Klaas Ruitenbeek (Toronto) Prof. Hans Ulrich Vogel (Tubingen) Dr. Donald B. Wagner (Copenhagen) Prof. Xi Zezong (Beijing) Prof. Chen Ning Yang (New York) Local Organizing Committee Wolfgang Konig Wenchao Li Hans Poser Welf H. Schnell Su Rongyu (all TU Berlin) Contact Address Welf H. Schnell Technische Universitat Berlin Institut fur Philosophie, Sekr: 14 - 7 Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7 10587 Berlin, GERMANY Tel.: +49 30 314 23786 Fax: +49 30 314 23296 or 25962 e-mail: 8thichsc@server.kgw.tu-berlin.de URL: http://station4.kgw.tu-berlin.de __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 18:33:04 -0500 Reply-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Keith Elis Subject: Transhumanism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I encourage all list subscribers who are interested in science/civilization relationship to explore the extraordinary vision of transhumanism. Transhumanism is a philosophy steeped in everyday humanism, with an added twist -- not only is humanity *capable* of self-transformation and progress in all directions, but humanity *should* grab the reins of evolution and control its own future. Transhumanism looks to new technologies (life-extension, molecular nanotechnology, cryonics, uploading, etc.) to turn humans into transhumans, with ultimate goal of becoming posthuman. A tight net-based community of transhumanists has been developing in recent years and I've witnessed the results of high I.Q.'s and enthusiasm coming together in extraordinary discussions of where we humans are headed, and how we humans can get there. For starters, go to http://www.aleph.se/Trans/ for a launching point to all sorts of other resources on transhumanism. If you have little capacity for intelligent thought, you probably need not bother. But for the modern intellect, transhumanism offers much food for thought. Whether or not you find that you have been a transhumanist all along, you will certainly be affected by the possibilities for human autoevolution. If you keep a rational-critical mind, I don't think anyone will find it uninteresting. Boat drinks, Keith Elis ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 23:29:36 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: Transhumanism X-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Keith Elis wrote: > Transhumanism >is a philosophy steeped in everyday humanism, with an added twist -- not only is >humanity *capable* of self-transformation and progress in all directions (*all* of them?) >but humanity *should* grab the reins of evolution and control its own future. >Transhumanism looks to new technologies (life-extension, molecular >nanotechnology, cryonics, uploading, etc.) to turn humans into transhumans, with >ultimate goal of becoming posthuman. A tight net-based community of >transhumanists has been developing in recent years and I've witnessed the results >of high I.Q.'s and enthusiasm coming together in extraordinary discussions of >where we humans are headed, and how we humans can get there. Thanks, but I'll stay behind. I rather like it here. > If you have little capacity for intelligent >thought, you probably need not bother. But for the modern intellect, >transhumanism offers much food for thought. . . . >If you keep a rational-critical mind, I'll certainly hang on to mine. Have a good trip. ~ Adrian Ivakhiv. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:57:56 -0500 Reply-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Keith Elis Subject: Re: Transhumanism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian Ivakhiv wrote: > Keith Elis wrote: > > > Transhumanism > >is a philosophy steeped in everyday humanism, with an added twist -- not > only is > >humanity *capable* of self-transformation and progress in all directions > > (*all* of them?) I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll try to explain what I was getting at. Humanism includes, inter alia, the notion that humanity is capable of "solving" its own problems without recourse to a Supreme Deity or some other such "outside" force. This is nice insofar as it recognizes that human beings have possibly limitless potential as sentient life. Transhumanism takes this one (two? ten?) steps further in saying that humanity *should* solve its own problems without recourse to a Supreme Deity or outside force. In fact, if we're not smart enough to deduce solutions to our problems, then we must make ourselves smarter. This is what I mean by "self-transformation." "Progress in all directions" can mean a bunch of things, I suppose, but I was using it in the sense of technological, and mental progress. > >but humanity *should* grab the reins of evolution and control its own future. > >Transhumanism looks to new technologies (life-extension, molecular > >nanotechnology, cryonics, uploading, etc.) to turn humans into transhumans, > with > >ultimate goal of becoming posthuman. A tight net-based community of > >transhumanists has been developing in recent years and I've witnessed the > results > >of high I.Q.'s and enthusiasm coming together in extraordinary discussions of > >where we humans are headed, and how we humans can get there. > > Thanks, but I'll stay behind. I rather like it here. > If you're familiar in the general sense with computers, you (probably) understand that computers are getting faster and more capable everyday (Moore's Law). If you think that such technological progress is "bad" then of course you'd want to stay behind as the rest of the world progresses. But, what I'm suggesting is that whether or not you believe progress to be a good thing, you *will* be affected by the progress that will inevitably occur. Of course, that's where Luddites and Unabombers come from. > > If you have little capacity for intelligent > >thought, you probably need not bother. But for the modern intellect, > >transhumanism offers much food for thought. > . . . > >If you keep a rational-critical mind, > > I'll certainly hang on to mine. Do you think your mind is good enough? Is it beyond capacity for improvement? Wouldn't it be helpful to at least have a better memory? I mean the use of mnemonics is a type of augmentation to your mind, is it not? Such tricks increase our capacities. Human beings can be smarter than they are, I think that's pretty clear. Just look a gaussian distribution of intelligence. Why not grab the reins and make ourselves smarter on purpose? > Have a good trip. > ~ Adrian Ivakhiv. -- ______________________________ Keith M. Elis A/K/A Hagbard (to the initiated) mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:43:28 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: valuable links Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit int.work-group on graffiti-research: Valuable links to verbal aggression(also in relation to graffiti)via: http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/ MALEDICTA:the international journal of verbal aggression R.A.AMAN,editor with more valuable links Axel Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://users.aol.com ARCHIVE1@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 11:12:25 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Walter Derzko Subject: Meeting Notice Creativity Consortium-Toronto MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Creativity Consortium Guests and Members The Annual Planning meeting for the 1998 season of the Creativity Consortium - the club for lateral thinkers will take place at the Design Exchange, 234 Bay St. Toronto, Thursday Dec. 11 at 6:30 pm till 7:30 pm Email or call (416) 588-1122 to confirm attendence. Walter Derzko Director Idea Lab wderzko@pathcom.com (416) 588-1122 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:13:19 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: publications Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable int.work-group on graffiti-research:=0AVolumes nos.28 and 29 of our perio= dical"Einf=FChrung/Introduction"now=0Adelivered,2x200 pages each.=0ANo 28= :Susan PHILLIPS:Graffiti-definition:the dictionary of art,Sarah=0AGILLER:= Graffiti:inscribing transgression on the urban landscape,Bob=0ABRYAN:Graf= fiti-verite documentation,Beat SUTER:Musik aus der=0ASpraydose,rap,Rhytmu= s und Rebellion,Alpine world magazine:zero-=0Atolerance,KLEINMAN/COHEN:Ps= ychiatry`s global challenge,HAASIS-=0ABERNER,A.St.Jodokus in Konstanz,Axe= l THIEL:Looking at graffiti with artistic=0Ainterest,some interview with = some graffiti-researcher(parts 5-6)vocabulary of=0Agraffiti-research,graf= fiti-questions and answers,graffiti-=0Asynonyma(3.draft)redndancy and per= mutation;scientific programming of scial=0Aknowledge,communication disabi= lities,basic books and articles=0Ainternational(no.10)German,a secure pla= ce to live,some basic informations=0Aconcerning tattoos,overview concerni= ng WWW graffiti-articles,on process of=0Avisualisation,the importance of = hand-and foot imprints in prehistory,local=0Apress material from Kassel(G= ermany)some addenda(correspondence etc.)=0Ano.29:=0AAxel THIEL:some inter= view with some graffiti-researcher(parts12-14)the=0Apsychological(unconsc= ious)structure of anti-graffiti motivation,the=0Apsychological(unconsciou= s)structure of writers,Armut von Kindern,Graffiti-=0AFanzines:eine kompar= ative =DCbersicht(previously published in a German book)=0AInternet-mater= ials,industrial(German)anti-graffiti documents,German press=0Adocuments o= n graffiti and related=0Amaterial,correspondence,addenda,informations.Ins= titut f=FCr Graffiti-=0AForschung(Austria).=0A=0AA.Thiel(coordination)=0A= Germany=0Ahttp://users.aol.com/archive1=0A ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 19:38:44 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: Transhumanism X-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Keith, Sorry for being a bit flippant in my remarks responding to your email. I don't really want to get into a polemic over the possibilities and/or limitations of "transhumanism" -- as a cultural observer, I find the topic interesting enough -- but your words sounded like those of a believer and proselytizer, and I am not interested in reading that type of material on this discussion list. I have nothing against progress (though I would define the term differently than you seem to; for instance, what you call "technological progress" I would call "change" -- progress, for me, is something whose overall effect, socially, culturally, ethically, etc., is positive, and I don't think that's necessarily true about an improvement in computational speed). Nor do I have anything against "self-transformation" or self-improvement; in fact, I'm all for it. I simply prefer to direct my "rational-critical mind" to the critical analysis of scientific and/or societal trends than to their uncritical acceptance and celebration. >Human beings can be smarter than they are, I think that's pretty >clear. Just look a gaussian distribution of intelligence. >Why not grab the reins >and make ourselves smarter on purpose? Good luck. Adrian Ivakhiv ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:45:59 -0500 Reply-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Keith Elis Subject: Re: Transhumanism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian Ivakhiv wrote: > > Keith, > > Sorry for being a bit flippant in my remarks responding to your email. I > don't really want to get into a polemic over the possibilities and/or > limitations of "transhumanism" -- as a cultural observer, I find the topic > interesting enough -- but your words sounded like those of a believer and > proselytizer, and I am not interested in reading that type of material on > this discussion list. Okay, I wasn't really trying to get into a debate on the merits. But what I do find interesting is the fact that your response is couched in religious terminology (e.g., "prosyletize" and "believer"). Let me weave a few ideas together... Idea 1 Culturally-speaking, religion is a powerful force. One of my interests (from a cultural-memetic standpoint), is the issue of how religions come about? How do these ideas replicate among people? It seems necessary that there must first be some authority behind the idea. One such means of authority that seems pretty common is the "text" handed down by some Supreme Being containing the supposed wisdom of God. Most of the larger religions share this characteristic, but even the more occult mysticisms work from "arcane wisdom" from the supposed "ancients." In this way, religious ideas are lent a powerful air of credence, that of truth from a higher being. Idea 2 Isaac Asmiov's _Foundation_ describes a group of technologically advanced galactic colonists who acquire power over the surrounding peoples by selling them high-tech gadgets and then establishing a group of their own scientists within each tribe as the "magicians" or "priests" who make the gadgets work, and keep them in repair. An elaborate system of rituals and hiearchies (much like the modern Catholic Church) develops and the colonists manage to acquire a choke-hold on all of the surrounding area. Idea 3 Now, in modern culture, where religion is less a force of cultural definition than it was, what is defining us culturally? In the Western World, I would argue that information-age technological revolution is affecting us culturally in a great many ways, especially pop culture. But behind these wonders of the modern world (the computer, the cellular phone, the CD player, microwaves, etc.) are extraordinarily intricate theoretical frameworks. Take, for instance, quantum mechanics. Without an understanding of wave/particle duality, no understanding of the photon would be possible, and hence lasers would not exist (there goes that CD player). Yet, understanding quantum mechanics to date is beyond the reach of many people. Indeed, to even break new ground requires a lifelong dedication to the subject, and even then you are not guaranteed to get anywhere. This leads me to a tentative conclusion (subject to criticism, indeed) -- scientific law and theory are the new "arcane wisdoms." Idea 4 Frank Tipler wrote a controversial book called _The Physics of Immortality_ in which he lays the groundwork for his theory of the "omega-point." At the risk of over-generalizing, the theory basically translates to three postulates: (1) Life never dies out; (2) There will be an infinite number of thoughts, experiences and events before the Big Crunch; and (3) More and more is learned, and things never repeat themselves. What has made his theory controversial is his claim that it is experimentally verifiable, that the beings near the Omega Point will resurrect anybody who has ever lived into a state close to classical descriptions of Paradise, and that the Omega Point itself corresponds to the religious notation of God. (from http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/index.html#Omega) Concluding... Is the line between science and religion beginning to blur in our culture? I mean, many of the things we see and do everyday would have seemed like magic to those alive not one hundred years ago. Perhaps fortunately, our culture has remained skeptical of magical powers, alien visitors, and divine intervention. But, who are the skeptics among us? The skeptics are the scientists themselves. Periodicals like _The Skeptical Inquirer_ and organizations like AAAS are adminstered by scientists. What happens when scientists cease publishing their skepticism? Imagine if the UFO controversey was merely a one-sided discussion among believers disagreeing only on the "finer" details, rather than the essential question of whether they exist or not. In assessing the validity of this train of thought, note also that scientists have their "heretics," those people who pose some theory in counterpoint to "accepted doctrine." Is there any validity to this? When does a system of thought become a religion? What would be the consequences of this transformation for our way of life? I posted about transhumanism (well, for a number of reasons), but one of the main reasons was to generate discussion on just this point. [clambering down from a shaky soapbox...] > I have nothing against progress (though I would > define the term differently than you seem to; for instance, what you call > "technological progress" I would call "change" -- progress, for me, is > something whose overall effect, socially, culturally, ethically, etc., is > positive, and I don't think that's necessarily true about an improvement in > computational speed). That seems like a reasonable definition, but one with which I tend to disagree. I hesitate to assign subjective normative values to any "change," since any such assessment leans toward prematurity. I say this because it seems that one must assess both the short-term and the long-term ramifications of an event before making any such determination. "Let history be the judge," etc. Progress, by my own definition, is movement outward, rather than inward or stagnation, in terms of human capability. The limits of human capability can be represented as a spherical bubble expanding outward with every new discovery (the ideosphere). These discoveries need not be strictly scientific. They may represent a new form of art, a new philosophy, a new application of an old philosophy, a new connection between Foucault and Joyce's _Ulysses_, etc. Computational speed is "progress" by this definition since human capability has increased. > Nor do I have anything against "self-transformation" > or self-improvement; in fact, I'm all for it. I simply prefer to direct my > "rational-critical mind" to the critical analysis of scientific and/or > societal trends But remember, in order to engage in truly rational inquiry, this preference of yours must necessarily also be subject to the same criticality. > than to their uncritical acceptance and celebration. > For the record, I hope this post has dispelled some your above implications about my "acceptance and celebration" of scientific trends. > >Human beings can be smarter than they are, I think that's pretty > >clear. Just look a gaussian distribution of intelligence. > A gaussian distribution is a bell curve. > >Why not grab the reins > >and make ourselves smarter on purpose? > > Good luck. Thanks. > > Adrian Ivakhiv -- ______________________________ Keith M. Elis AKA Hagbard (to the initiated) mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:51:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: Transhumanism X-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Keith, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on these matters; I've enjoyed reading them. Here's a couple of brief thoughts in response... I certainly agree that Asimov's literary vision of a technocratic future combines science and religion -- personally, I find the vision rather disagreeable. The ideas you ascribe to Frank Tipler don't sound very new to me -- they sound like a reworking of Teilhard de Chardin's "Cosmic Christ" and "Omega Point" theories (de Chardin was an influential, in his time, Jesuit paleontologist who wrote *The Phenomenon of Man* and *The Future of Man*). But I do tend to agree that there is a lot of mixing of scientific and religious ideas going on within popular culture these days. (The semi-popular journal *21C (The Magazine of Culture, Technology, and Science)* is one of my favourite places to read about these.) A book that highlights some interesting connections between science and religion is historian David Noble's most recent effort, the title of which I can't remember at the moment. Noble's thesis is that certain kinds of science (including the NASA space program, genetic engineering, and nuclear weapons reasearch) have been thoroughly infused with a particular evangelical Christian worldview, one whose mission is to restore humanity's place "before the Fall" by means of technological "progress" -- in fact, by the same sort of "grabbing the reins" that you yourself advocate. Noble's thesis sounds rather overdrawn, but he does substantiate it with some very interesting (and up to now not readily available) archival material (e.g. from NASA). The problem I have with both the techno-scientific anthropocentrism Noble describes and your own "transhumanism" is that, to me, both seem to be perpetuating the denial of those things we share with other organisms (bodies, flesh, procreation, hunger and thirst, sociality and mutual responsibility, compassion for others, biological limits such as death, etc.) in favour of an arrogant assumption that humans are destined to be gods and controllers of the universe. In the case of high-tech transhumanism, I am led to wonder whose agenda such hubris might serve. >But, who are the skeptics among us? > >The skeptics are the scientists themselves. Periodicals like _The >Skeptical Inquirer_ and organizations like AAAS are adminstered by >scientists. I would caution you from generalizing here. It's true that the so-called "scientific skeptics" include scientists among them, but they also include stage magicians (like James Randi), journalists, and others. A close reading of their literature shows it to share much more with religious literature than they would care to admit. The views of the international community of scientists are much more varied than the ones portrayed in that "skeptical" literature. >Progress, by my own definition, is movement outward, rather than inward >or stagnation, in terms of human capability. The limits of human >capability can be represented as a spherical bubble expanding outward >with every new discovery (the ideosphere). [snip] >Computational speed is >"progress" by this definition since human capability has increased. *Whose* capability do you mean? And capability to do *what*? Do all humans share in this "progress"? C. S. Lewis's words come to mind here: "what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men [sic] over other men [sic] with Nature as its instrument." All the best, ~ Adrian Ivakhiv (Iwachiw), Ph.D., Faculty of Environmental Studies / Dept. of Science & Technology Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada ===================================== ai@yorku.ca ~ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3112 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 15:19:30 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Walter Derzko Subject: Basic thinking skills beind all training missing /ignored X-To: List ODCNET X-cc: List ID Forum , List LDRSHP , List Learning Org , List CPSI-L , List Brkthr MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Excuse the cross-posting but I feel that this is a basic topic that deserves wide debate. Carol czulauf@acad.suffolk.edu sent me a copy of the top 10 HRD trends, according to the respondents to the July 1997 National HRD Executive Survey. They are: CURRENTLY 1. Computer skills training 2. Teamwork training 3. Shift from training to performance 4. Decision-making and problem-solving training 5. Rapid deployment and deployment of training 6. Systems-thinking training 7. Demonstrating training outcomes 8. Measuring performance outcomes 9. Shift from training to learning 10 Making a business case for training interventions NEXT THREE YEARS 1. Shift from training to performance 2. Computer skills training 3. Shift from training to learning 4. Virtual organizations 5. Demonstrating training outcomes 6. Measuring performance outcomes 7. Delivering training to meet specific needs 8. Emphasis on knowledge management 9. Rapid deployment and deployment of training 10. Teamwork training ---------------------------------------------------------- My question to the list is: Is the training in the underlying thinking skills that we need to do and apply all of the above training (ie. demonstrate outcomes) missing in all our corporate training programs ? As managers and trainers, all we tell our staff is "think out of the box", yet we never explain what this is or how to do it. The Conference Board tells us that "thinking skills" are the new core competency for all staff in the 1990's, not just in traditional area for SR VP's in marketing, new product development and strategy. Japan's MITI has stated that using IT, creativity and innovation is the new focus for education in Japan over the next 5 years. I propose however that most North American employees or their bosses have never thought about how they think and what effective thinking actually is Stand back and consider: thinking skills are the key denominators of effectiveness for all the training above. Here I have in mind both critical (logical, judgmental, convergent) cognitive thinking skills needed for most computer operations, general decision-making, the convergence in problem-solving and system-thinking and the creative (lateral, exploratory, divergent) thinking skills needed for strategic competitive thinking, learning how to learn, pattern recognition, opportunity spotting and opportunity creation, assumption challenges, and creative problem-solving etc. Teaching thinking is ignored by most corporations and most schools. Each feels the other has responsibility for it and consequently it never gets done. We used to teach thinking skills in most gifted programs, but with budget cuts, that's become a dispensable luxury in some cases. Consider the paradox: We expect students and staff to be math-literate. So what do we do? Back in grade 1 and 2 we teach everyone the operacy skills behind math...the plus, subtract, multiple and divide. Once we master those basic math-related thinking operations we go on to higher order applications. Most students master this without much difficulty. Yet when we switch domains from numbers over to fact, ideas, concepts, values, assumptions and notions ( the content for all other subject areas in school and later at work) we totally ignore the thinking operations needed to explore or create new ideas. If we are all good natural thinkers, then why would we need to train all our staff the 10 training program areas above? Shouldn't we be good at it without any training ? I'd be interested in knowing what corporations are doing in this area and how effective it is? What does your company rate or measure? Walter Derzko Director Idea Lab wderzko@pathcom.com (416) 588-1122 ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:34:55 -0500 Reply-To: hagbard@ix.netcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Keith Elis Subject: Science and religion (was re: Transhumanism) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, Adrian. Adrian Ivakhiv wrote: > I certainly agree that Asimov's literary vision of a technocratic future > combines science and religion -- personally, I find the vision rather > disagreeable. I think Asimov's portrayal of the character Salvor Hardin offers some insight into what Asimov himself thought of this blending of science of religion. Hardin is a cunning Machiavel known to have said, "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what is right." It is important to note here that the _Foundation_ trilogy describes the emergence of a new galactic civilization (the "Foundation"), an inherently political entity. The goal is political power, and Hardin was one of the Foundation's early leaders; early enough for political cunning to be worth more than diplomatic ability. Juxtapose the Hardin attribution above with this line from Chapter 15 of _The Prince_, "For it is so far from how one lives to how one should live, that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his self-preservation." What I find so damn interesting about the whole story is the way Asimov expands (disconcertingly so) on Machiavelli. From Chapter 18 of _The Prince_, "[The Prince] should appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, all religion. And nothing is more necessary to appear to have than this last quality." The character Hardin utilized religion (as I described in my last post) in order to maintain a grip on not only the economics of the region, but also the collective hearts and minds of its citizens. While _The Prince_ makes it clear that religion can be useful for the political leader, Asimov expands this notion and makes it clear that the same goes for science, especially if the line between the two can be effectively blurred. In a technological age, where religion may have lost some of the political utility it once had, what does the modern Machiavel do? The utility of religion that Machiavelli speaks about is, I think, merely shorthand for a more general, blanket political rule. That is, any system of thought, if accepted by enough people *WITH FERVOR*, can be politically useful. How many more similarities between religion and science are necessary before someone figures this out? Will Salvor Hardin run for office in the year 2000? > The ideas you ascribe to Frank Tipler don't sound very new to > me -- they sound like a reworking of Teilhard de Chardin's "Cosmic Christ" > and "Omega Point" theories (de Chardin was an influential, in his time, > Jesuit paleontologist who wrote *The Phenomenon of Man* and *The Future of > Man*). First, Teilhard de Chardin has little to offer in the way of falsifiable scientific theory. _The Phenomenon of Man_, which is the only one of his works I'm familar with, is metaphysics pure and simple. I say this in order to emphasize the fact that Tipler is a theoretical physicist of repute. His work, like most physics, is heavily based on mathematics, and is experimentally falsifiable. The short of it is, Tipler has suggested a physical model of the universe in which a god might be physically possible, and if the materialist view of consciousness pans out, a model in which human beings can theoretically become such gods. This is why he's so controversial. But his predictions are looking pretty good as of this date, and there is as yet no reason to suspect that we will be unable to eventually prove him wrong or right. Teilhard de Chardin may have been an influence on Tipler, but their work is night and day due to the rigorous nature of Tipler's mathematical proofs. > But I do tend to agree that there is a lot of mixing of scientific > and religious ideas going on within popular culture these days. (The > semi-popular journal *21C (The Magazine of Culture, Technology, and > Science)* is one of my favourite places to read about these.) Hmm. I'd like to hear more about this journal. > A book that highlights some interesting connections between science and > religion is historian David Noble's most recent effort, the title of which I > can't remember at the moment. Noble's thesis is that certain kinds of > science (including the NASA space program, genetic engineering, and nuclear > weapons reasearch) have been thoroughly infused with a particular > evangelical Christian worldview, one whose mission is to restore humanity's > place "before the Fall" by means of technological "progress" -- in fact, by > the same sort of "grabbing the reins" that you yourself advocate. Noble's > thesis sounds rather overdrawn, but he does substantiate it with some very > interesting (and up to now not readily available) archival material (e.g. > from NASA). Hmm. It is easy for transhumanists, especially those who are non-scientists (like myself, BTW) to develop a utopian world view. In many technophile circles, there is a concept called the "singularity" a concept proposed by author Vernor Vinge. The consensus seems to be that the singularity is a point in the future where technological changes occur so rapidly that it becomes impossible to predict what will happen afterwards. Many researchers believe that this will be the result of artificial intelligence "awakening" into goal-driven consciousness, or nanotechnology reducing diminishing returns to nil. I bring this up to make the point that among transhumanists and scientists, there is a condition that sometimes occurs termed "the rapture of the future." As the name suggests, the rapture of the future is the prediction that all our problems will be solved after the singularity. Since the singularity is defined as the point in time where the future becomes impossible (not just improbable) to predict, this is not a prediction, but a belief based on nothing but faith. While the atheist viewpoint seems to have grown for the most part out of the scientific method, scientists exhibiting the rapture of the future have merely traded one god for another. This may be evidence of an internal human need for something greater than itself, a need that, for some, science can fulfill as a kind of "religion." > The problem I have with both the techno-scientific > anthropocentrism Noble describes and your own "transhumanism" is that, to > me, both seem to be perpetuating the denial of those things we share with > other organisms (bodies, flesh, procreation, hunger and thirst, sociality > and mutual responsibility, compassion for others, biological limits such as > death, etc.) in favour of an arrogant assumption that humans are destined to > be gods and controllers of the universe. Though I tried to avoid a trial on the merits, I hope you don't mind if I respond to this characterization: First, I agree the above is an assumption. However, there are, as yet, no proven limits to human capability beyond those set by physical law. As one example, according to Tipler, the laws of physics as we now know them do not offer any limit to the ideosphere -- that is, the ideosphere has no theoretical bound. Tipler may be wrong, but we have to *prove* him wrong. Given this, to assume that there *is* a theoretical bound is to assume facts not in evidence -- the antithesis of rational inquiry. Until all models of an unlimited ideosphere are falsified, assuming limitations on human capability is invalid. Second, I agree also that by some definition, the same assumption is also arrogant. However, there is, as yet, no reason to believe arrogance is any less a human trait than the ones you've listed above. Additionally, it seems there is equal proof on both sides as to whether arrogance is a force for positive change, or a force for negative change (i.e., it depends on the goals of the arrogant individual and an objective historical judge's opinion). So I don't think the arrogant assumption you take issue with is per se invalid. As to perpetuating denial of those things humans share with other organisms, you choose to emphasize the contrapositive. Transhumanism is a denial of unproven limits. This is not to say that every transhumanist *wants* all of the things you suggest for him or herself. But every transhumanist believes that this choice is a choice that no one can make for another. If it becomes possible to add a memory chip to your brain, you can do it, or not. Before you die, you can choose to be cryonically frozen upon death or not. My point is that you have the choice. IMO, freedom is a measure of the number of options you have. The more options, the more freedom. (See the bottom of this post for a short discussion of how personal resources may problematize this). I'm not convinced that other organisms have "compassion" as you suggest. Evolution has ingrained a pretty strict rule of self-preservation even in human beings. Of course, our intelligence can often override this rule (and there is some debate as to whether compassion merely serves an individual's interest anyway). But, most organisms seem, at the most basic level, to be concerned first and foremost with their own survival. In this sense, transhumanism is more a celebration of those things that make us different from other organisms. Namely, the complexity of our brains and the extra intelligence we have as a result. Of course, this assumes a particular ethic that intelligence is better than not-intelligence. Some transhumanists even advocate "uplifting" non-sentient species to the status of intelligent life because if intelligence is good for us who are we to corner the market? Why not uplift other organisms to the point where they can decide if they want to be intelligent or not? So, my fundamental point is that you need not be concerned that transhumanists as a group are trying to change us all into something we don't want to be. Transhumanism is the logical outgrowth of the assumptions we have to make about the universe. Until those assumptions are falsified, Lucifer's option is still available, but I share your concern that many will make the choice "to be as God" without ever stopping to ask, "Should I?" > In the case of high-tech > transhumanism, I am led to wonder whose agenda such hubris might serve. That is indeed a very good question. Shall we try to answer it? :-) > I would caution you from generalizing here. It's true that the so-called > "scientific skeptics" include scientists among them, but they also include > stage magicians (like James Randi), journalists, and others. A close reading > of their literature shows it to share much more with religious literature > than they would care to admit. The views of the international community of > scientists are much more varied than the ones portrayed in that "skeptical" > literature. Right on! I think it lends credence to the notion that a religious flavor is seeping into the scientific establishment. If not every scientist is a skeptic, then we must ask, are the skeptics among them gaining or losing numbers? To help in the consideration of such a question, consider this: John Archibald Wheeler, a big name physicist and avowed skeptic, invented an explanation of quantum theory (with Everett and Graham) that says in non mathematical terms, that whenever a particle must "decide" between states (spin-up or spin-down), both states occur, and the existing universe splits into two separate universes, one where the particle is in spin-up, and one in which the particle is in spin-down. The short of it is, everything that can happen, *does* happen. This is a skeptic? There are an infinite number of universes? Somewhere I'm not writing this post? Somewhere I was never born? etc. The truth of quantum theory as it stands today is that these explanations *are* intuitive, and the universe really is a stranger place than Newton thought. In this light, some of the "pseudo-science" floating around out there seems tame. Reality may be be weirder than we could ever imagine at this point. So, given some these canonical descriptions of the universe in which we live, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that modern science may be becoming inured to wacko theories, and "heresy" of the sort Galileo was excommunicated for. And this *might* mean the skeptical viewpoint is losing ground, which *may* result in an increased scientific dogmatism. > *Whose* capability do you mean? And capability to do *what*? Do all humans > share in this "progress"? C. S. Lewis's words come to mind here: "what we > call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men > [sic] over other men [sic] with Nature as its instrument." When I say "human capability," I'm speaking in the vaguest of general theoretical terms. Your concern seems to be two fold: (a) actualizing a capability requires resources; and (b) resources are not evenly distributed. I guess the question must first be asked whether there exists a technological imperative. That is, if something can be done, is it true that humans will eventually do it? I see only one thing that keeps us from trying everything, and that is an ethical framework. I can speak only for myself when I say that my own ethic *absolutely includes* the belief that *all* individual intelligent life is an irreplaceable commodity. The information contained in the manifold perspectives of human beings on this planet is astronomical. I don't care how much, or how little an individual *uses* his or her brain. The point is that every person views the world through a different perceptual filter. These differing perceptual filters yield differing subjective experiences. And it is these subjective experiences that make every person of priceless value to the universe. I say all of this to make the point that everyone *should* be able to live forever by this ethic. Live forever, and continually experience the universe, sharing these experiences with every other individual. If the technology exists someday to realize the transhumanist vision, and we have to vote for the proper President (or Prime Minister in your case) for the job of administrating it all, I am sure I would vote for the candidate who would guarantee that each individual person could choose his or her destiny. (Government sponsored intelligence augmentation? Perhaps.) In conclusion, current research into molecular manufacturing offers the possbility that economic scarcity as we know it would be eradicated (this sounds like the rapture of the future, doesn't it :-). But the possibility still exists and I firmly believe that slowing down the research is *not* the best option, since people are dying of starvation and poverty in the meantime. > ~ Adrian Ivakhiv (Iwachiw), Ph.D., > Faculty of Environmental Studies / > Dept. of Science & Technology Studies, > York University, Toronto, Canada Aha! So you are a professor! I had a feeling, your tone is very patient. I am but an impetuous youth, a student to be precise. Thanks for taking some time out of your (I'm certain) busy schedule to humor me. ;-) High regards, Keith M. Elis mailto:hagbard@ix.netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:44:45 -0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Philip Dore Subject: Skepticism All of a sudden, I'm beginning to get the feeling that I'm not the only person around here who finds the kind of 'skepticism' espoused by the likes of CSICOP and their journal The Skeptical Enquirer faintly disturbing. Reading 'skeptical' litereature, I tend to get the impression that what I'm listening to is the outpourings of a bunch of academic greybeards defending themselves against ideas they clearly dislike; aggrandising themselves by denigrating others. As I recall, CSICOP have been heavily criticised for refusing to accept the principle that if you insult somebody's ideas in print, you should at least give that person the right of reply. This suppression of free debate cuts right at the heart of CSICOP's claim to be more 'scientific' than the 'pseudo- scientists' they claim to be defending us all from. Some of the skeptics' arguments are just downright silly. As I recall, Richard Dawkins has gone on record as saying he thinks The X-Files TV series should be banned for encouraging 'superstitious' thinking. I must confess to being an avid reader of the Fortean Times, and I admire the Fortean Times' approach to fringe science and the paranormal, which is to strike a balance between an open mind and a healthy scepticism. Personally, I have no idea whether there is life after death or we are being visited by aliens; however, I'm more than willing to listen to the evidence, and weigh it up in a careful non-judgemental manner according to the principles of the scientific method. I consider this to be 'true skepticism' as opposed to the 'pseudo-skepticism' of CSICOP. Philip Dore ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:38:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: Skepticism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Philip Dore wrote: >All of a sudden, I'm beginning to get the feeling that I'm not the only >person around here who finds the kind of 'skepticism' espoused by the likes of >CSICOP and their journal The Skeptical Enquirer faintly disturbing. >Reading 'skeptical' litereature, I tend to get the impression that what I'm >listening to is the outpourings of a bunch of academic greybeards defending >themselves against ideas they clearly dislike; aggrandising themselves by >denigrating others. A very good, in-depth, scholarly critique of CSICOP appeared in *The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research* (George P. Hansen, "CSICOP and the Skeptics," *JASPR*, vol. 86, January 1992, pp. 19-51). Hansen analyzes the membership of CSICOP, their professional, philosophical and religious affiliations, formal organization, rhetoric and activities, and concludes that the organization involves itself in public relations rather than in scientific research, its activities displaying "more parallels with political campaigns than with scientific endeavors," and its effects including the inhibition of genuine scientific research on the topics it covers. Hansen's article is available on the World Wide Web (I can't remember where, but could look it up if anyone is interested and cannot do so themselves). An interesting exchange over some questionable fund-raising tactics by CSICOP has been made available by Dennis Stacy of *The Anomalist* (also on the Web). By the way, for those who find *The Skeptical Inquirer* a bit too tiringly dogmatic and closed-minded, *The Skeptic* seems a healthier read. ~ Adrian Ivakhiv. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 22:58:52 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Fang,Zaiqing" Subject: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair and the context of the superstition of science, in which source can man find it? Regards, Zaiqing Fang ---------------- Prof. Dr. Zaiqing Fang Institute of Science Technology & Society Director, Office for Science and Research School of Humanities and Social Sciences Tsinghua University Beijing, 100084 People's Republic of China Tel.: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);5743(O) Fax: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);4663(O) E-mail: fang@net.tsinghua.edu.cn ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 12:08:50 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Brigitte Gemme Organization: http://www.mlink.net/~gemme/ Subject: Re: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Fang,Zaiqing wrote: > > Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair and the context of > the superstition of science, in which source can man find it? > Regards, I am not sure if the book you are talking about, Superstition of Science, is Sokal's book. I guess it is not, because the French title is "Impstures intellectuelles" (Intellectual Abuses, or something like that. The word "Impostures" is a quite specefic one.) However, a few words about the Sokal affair, as far as I know, in short: Alan Sokal is a physicist at New York University, and admits by himself that he knows about nothing to social sciences and psychoanalysis. But he states to be surprised and irritated by the evolution of the American intellectual thinking, especially in universities, that is more and more influenced by what he calls the "postmodern" movement. So Sokal sent an article to the fashionable New England journal _Social Text_ to protest. Only he didn't do it openly: the article is a parody. The title is, in itself, funny: "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity". (Social Text is a publication of the Duke University Press.) What he wrote, heavily referenced by American authors, is in fact a joke and has no meaning. The article is stuffed with concepts and terminology imported from physics and mathematics, but voluntarily taken out of their real context and meaning. In short: it's an empty shell. I don't know if Sokal was surprised to be published, but he was certainly even more disappointed to see his article had been taken seriously enough to be published. So he "outed" the affair and that's where the storm started, especially in the French intellectual community where he was, half the time, received as a pure anti-French phenomenon, half the time as a relief, especially to students. For Sokal's message is partly directed to them: sometimes, if you don't understand a text that seems so "deep", it is maybe because it doesn't mean a thing. So the polemic rose and filled pages in the _Nouvel observateur_, a french weekly magazine, and also in many American, Britannic and French newspapers and journals. So finally Sokal and his collegue Jean Bricmont, physicist at the University of Louvain (France) published _Impostures intellectuelles_ at the beginning of October, at Les editions Odile Jacob. As far as I've been told, the book should come in English next Fall. The book is a clearer presentation of their complaints about the abuse of scientific terminology and theory, in the fields of physics and mathematics, by a certain number of French intellectuals they call "postmodernists". To each, a chapter is dedicated, with large quotes of their works and why it is NOT an acceptable use of science, again heavily referenced and explained so that the reader with no deep understanding of physics and mathematics may understand. (Maybe be so that the said "postmodern" authors themselves understand?) So the chapters go as follow: Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, an intermezzo on relativism, Luce Irigaray, Bruno Latour, an intermezzo on the Theory of Chaos and the "Postmodern Science", Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Paul Virilio, an intermezzo on the Godel theorem, and a capter on the links between science and philosophy. The article from _Social Text_ is also published in appendix to the book. I have seen Sokal at a conference he gave with professors Yves Gingras and Robert Nadeau at my university, University of Quebec at Montreal, just a week ago. Expressing himself in excellent French, he shows a bright personality and seems surprised by the size the affair has taken. The conference itself was interesting, but brings not many new elements to the book, which I started to read yesterday. That's the summary of the story, for now. I'm not sure Sokal should be SO surprised about it..... It's probably a significant even in our times. Sincerely, Brigitte -- Brigitte Gemme, Montréal, Québec. gemme@mlink.net STS Student Bridge: http://www.mlink.net/~gemme/sts/bridge/ Je me fis moins exigeant sur le chapitre du bonheur. En somme, j'avais vieilli prématurément. Olivier Rolin in Port-Soudan ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 23:05:40 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jean-Luc Gautero Subject: Re: the book: superstition of science, sokal affair In-Reply-To: <199712141504.QAA12313@naxos.unice.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Zaiqing Fang asked: >Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair. Look at: http://www.blarg.net/~jwalsh/sokal/ There you may read a lot of the papers about Sokal's affait. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:18:03 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Fang,Zaiqing" Subject: Re: the book: superstition of science, sokal affair Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Prof. Levitt Prof. Gemm Prof. Gautero, Thanks a lot all of you. What is the main ideas about Prof. Paul R. Gross' book: _ Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science"? Is there any connection between this book with Sokal affair? Where can find the source which gives a overview about this? What is the situations now? Regards, ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:46:05 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Patrick OBrien Subject: Re: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair In-Reply-To: <199712141500.PAA19970@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This topic is completely new to me. I try to keep a low profile around here, because I am in awe of some of the discussions. I am but a humble student at a humble school, but am very much intrigued with parody taken seriously. I think that it was about ten or fifteen years ago that a book "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" swept through the American male's sensitive ego. I am sorry to say that many "real men" in this country have surrendered their choices to a joke about their own cultural fog. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 20:47:02 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Patrick OBrien Subject: Re: Transhumanism In-Reply-To: <199712051805.SAA12679@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Adrian Ivakhiv Sir: You have brought up some interesting points that have taxed my own reserves of reasoning. Please forgive my ignorance, but this is a new topic for me. So please, try to afford me your patience. I have some thoughts on the subject that are kind of like questions. 1) I wonder that since we humans are on evolving species, that it would only seem reasonable for us to evolve into beings that participate in our own evolvement, and then of course, subsequent generations. 2) Is the purpose of evolution to be bigger, better, and quicker, or is it to be different. I find it hard to think of IBM building machines to sort punch cards faster or even more efficiently. As humans we seem to have a tendency to try to build new ideas out of old ideas. Copernicus did not have a lot of old thought to go on. He could not just simply go and look it up in Aristotle. In fact, he had to overcome the status quo. I was wondering, if our mental revolution is to gain a foothold, that we must first "unlearn" some of our collective beliefs. If there are things to unlearn, I can't be sure what they are. For I gauge the utility of an entity with the outmoded tools at hand. So, should we wipe the slate clean and purge our belief system as Descartes? Or did he really purge his belief structure? Does all this rambling jog the memory. Do we not already have the answers, and our evolvement is "reremembering"? Is that the instruction that Socrates gave Meno? Is this idea of super-humans so new? Didn't the Greeks have their male citezinry. Hey, I remember. Didn't that guy in the 30's get every riled up with the perfect human? Just musing here. I wouldn't want to start a controvery. But then again, any change that does come is from the anomolies seeking shelter in the periphery. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:42:28 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gideon Lichfield Subject: Re: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair >Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair and the context of >the superstition of science, in which source can man find it? ..... >What is the main ideas about Prof. Paul R. Gross' book: _ Higher >Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science"? Is >there any connection between this book with Sokal affair? Where can >find the source which gives a overview about this? What is the >situations now? >Regards, > >Zaiqing Fang I don't mean to blow my own trumpet, but... oh, hell, yes I do. The current issue (Dec. 13-19) of The Economist carries my 3-page overview article on the "science wars", including the Sokal affair, Higher Superstition and much besides. It's fairly broad and shallow, but some readers of the list may find it interesting. Unfortunately I can't provide it electronically; it is available to Economist subscribers (and maybe for a very brief period to non-subscribers) at www.economist.com. Any comments are welcome. Gideon Lichfield science/tech correspondent --------------------- The Economist --------------------- 25 St. James's Street, London SW1A 1HG tel: +44 171 830 7066 fax: +44 171 839 2968 gideonlichfield@economist.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:34:00 -0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dickson, David" Subject: Re: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair X-To: "Fang,Zaiqing" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain I'm reluctant to blow ours, too, but 'Nature' got there six months before the Economist with a five-page Briefing on the Science Wars (see Vol 387, pp 331-335, 22 May 1997). We wrote earlier about European reactions to Sokal (see issue of 30 January, accessible through www.nature.com). David Dickson ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair Author: Fang,Zaiqing [SMTP:fang@NET.TSINGHUA.EDU.CN] at uk.magazines Date: 14/12/97 14:58 Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair and the context of the superstition of science, in which source can man find it? Regards, Zaiqing Fang ---------------- Prof. Dr. Zaiqing Fang Institute of Science Technology & Society Director, Office for Science and Research School of Humanities and Social Sciences Tsinghua University Beijing, 100084 People's Republic of China Tel.: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);5743(O) Fax: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);4663(O) E-mail: fang@net.tsinghua.edu.cn ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:29:05 BST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon Agar Subject: conference: PMS Blackett: Science and Politics in 20th C Britain X-To: mersenne@mailbase.ac.uk, h-sci-med-tech@h-net.msu.edu, sts@cctr.umkc.edu British Society for the History of Science Royal Society Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine University of Manchester Operational Research Society PMS Blackett: Science and Politics in Twentieth Century Britain A conference to be held at Imperial College, London April 16-17 1998 Clore Theatre, Huxley Building The British physicist P.M.S. Blackett was born in 1897, and received the Nobel Prize in 1948. As well as making important contributions to particle physics and geo-physics, Blackett was an important figure in a number of British universities (including Manchester and Imperial College). He was also very well known for his singular contributions to operational research in the second world war, his opposition to a British nuclear programme, for his writings on military strategy, and his involvement in policy making in science and technology in the 1960s. This conference brings together not only scientists and politicians who worked with Blackett, but also historians of science and military strategy, to reflect on the place of Blackett not only in the history of British science, but in the history of British strategy and politics. Provisional Programme Thursday 16th 9.30-10.15 Registration. Outside the Clore Lecture Theatre, Huxley Building, Imperial College 10.15-12.00 Introduction and early years Sir Ronald Oxburgh, Rector of Imperial College 'Blackett: a personal view' David Edgerton 'PMS Blackett and the History of Twentieth Century British Science' Jeff Hughes 'The Cavendish Years: Blackett and the Politics of "pure Science' 2.30-4.00 Operational Research Jonathan Rosenhead 'Blackett's Circus: Patrick Blackett and the birth of Operational Research' Harry Elliott 'Blackett at RAF Coastal Command and some recollections of the immediate postwar years in Manchester' 4.30-6.00 Manchester Years Sir Arnold Wolfendale 'Blackett as Professor and Research Director: Manchester Days' Sir Bernard Lovell 'Blackett and the origin of Jodrell Bank' Evening - Reception and Banquet, Council Room, 170 Queen's Gate Friday 17 April 9.30-11.00 Magnetism Mary-Jo Nye 'Temptations of Theory, Strategies of Evidence: PMS Blackett and the Earth's Magnetism, 1945-1952' Ted Irving 'PMS Blackett, his Magnetometer, Continental Drift and Reversals of the Geomagnetic Field' 11.30-13.00 Strategy and Politics Sir Michael Howard 'Patrick Blackett and the Development of Nuclear Strategy' Tony Benn 'Pat Blackett: Science and Politics' 2.30-4.30 Sir Clifford Butler 'Recollections of Patrick Blackett, 1945-1970' Round Table or additional speaker (tba) ------------------8<--------------8<---------------------- Booking Form Registration Fee stlg15 _______ Lunch 16th April stlg10 _______ Lunch 17th April stlg10 _______ BANQUET *stlg30 _______ Accommodation 15th April stlg28 _______ Accommodation 16th April stlg28 _______ Accommodation 17th April stlg28 _______ Total stlg______ BSHS student members (half price) stlg______ *Numbers are limited, and places will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis Please note that Accommodation is standard student accommodation within Imperial College. I wish to register for the P.M.S. Blackett: Science and Politics in Twentieth Century Britain meeting. I enclose a cheque for stlg........... payable to BSHS Ltd. Or, please charge my VISA or MASTERCARD: Card No ......................................... Card expiry date ................ Signature ........................................ I do/do not require a receipt. Name: Address: Please post this application form, and your cheque to: Wg Cdr G. Bennett, BSHS Executive Secretary 31 High Street Stanford in the Vale Faringdon OXON SN7 8LH ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:41:35 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Essay on collision between civilization & sci/tech X-cc: h.g.davies@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" THE COLLISION BETWEEN WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND ADVANCED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY by Lary Hinds http://www.aloha.net/~mpc/ __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.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, 16 Dec 1997 18:06:18 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val dusek Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE Digest - 8 Dec 1997 to 14 Dec 1997 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 97-12-15 00:43:32 EST, Zaiqing Fang writes: > Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair and the context of > the superstition of science, in which source can man find it?> The latter book is Higher Superstition by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994 reissued in paperback with additions. Dozens of articles about the Sokal affair and links to scores of others are at the Sokal Web Site http://www.blarg.net/~jwalsh/sokal/ It is an excellent source, now, I am grateful, refurbished and updated. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:13:29 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val dusek Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: SCIENCE WARS IN THE ECONOMIST Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit IMHO Gideon Lichfield's article on the Science Wars in the Dec. 13 Economist is the most balanced overall treatment I've seen and the most sophisticated treatment of the epistemological issues in an article for the general reader. I'm glad he brought it to our attention. I got a xerox from an economist colleague who subscribes. I found that if one is not a subscriber one can access the main articles of the current issue but one cannot access the Science Wars article in the "Moreover" section. Could someone with a subscription or a scanner forward the article either by e-mail or fax to: Prof. Dr. Zaiqing Fang Institute of Science Technology & Society Director, Office for Science and Research School of Humanities and Social Sciences Tsinghua University Beijing, 100084 People's Republic of China Fax: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);4663(O) E-mail: fang@net.tsinghua.edu.cn Thanks. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:40:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: SCIENCE WARS IN THE ECONOMIST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Could someone with a subscription or a scanner forward the article either by >e-mail or fax to: > I would also appreciate a copy of the article, if that's a possibility. Thanks in advance to whomever can do this; otherwise I will look it up when I get the chance. ~ Adrian Iwachiw (Ivakhiv), Ph.D., Faculty of Environmental Studies / Dept. of Science & Technology Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada ===================================== ai@yorku.ca ~ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3112 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:44:43 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: graffiti-research Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello, Latest material just published at: http://www.graffiti.org/axel/axel_4.html A.Thiel(coordination) ARCHIVE1@aol.com http://users.aol.com/archive1 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:42:58 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Bio/Medical resources online X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >http://BioMedNet.com >The World Wide Club for the Biological and Medical Community >If you use the Internet for biological and medical research >you should take a look at http://BioMedNet.com > >BioMedNet has a full text library of nearly 200 journals and >databases. Its uniquely powerful and free Evaluated MEDLINE >facility puts an even more extensive body of research >literature at your fingertips. > >The best thing about BioMedNet isn't the journals, MEDLINE, >bookshop, daily research news or the 100s of jobs online. >The best thing about BioMedNet is that membership is FREE! > >BioMedNet takes only 3 minutes to join and will quickly >become an essential working resource. > >Go to http://BioMedNet.com now! You won't be disappointed. > >---------------------------------------------------------- >NB - If you prefer not to receive information about medical >or biological products, please return this message with the >word *Unsubscribe* in the subject line. >---------------------------------------------------------- __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.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: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:04:33 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jacques Melot Subject: Re: the book: superstitiopn of science, sokal affair X-cc: fang@net.tsinghua.edu.cn In-Reply-To: <199712141501.PAA21536@itn.is> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Le 14 déc.1997, à 14:58 +0000 T.U., nous recevions de Fang,Zaiqing : >Who can tell me the whole story of the sokal affair and the context of >the superstition of science, in which source can man find it? >Regards, > >Zaiqing Fang >---------------- >Prof. Dr. Zaiqing Fang >Institute of Science Technology & Society >Director, Office for Science and Research >School of Humanities and Social Sciences >Tsinghua University >Beijing, 100084 >People's Republic of China >Tel.: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);5743(O) >Fax: 0086-10-6278,1395(H);4663(O) >E-mail: fang@net.tsinghua.edu.cn Vous trouverez un gros dossier sur l'affaire Sokal au site du journal Libération, à l'adresse suivante : Libération - Affaire Sokal : http://www.liberation.fr/sokal/index.html http://www.liberation.fr/sokal/parody.html Libération - Sokal et les intellectuels : http://www.liberation.fr/forums/sokal/forumlist.html Les avis sont partagés. Il me semble que c'est un thème qui mériterait un débat et qui a sa place dans Science-as-culture. Salutations amicales, Jacques Melot, Reykjavik (Islande) melot@itn.is ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 18:26:08 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Season's Greetings to the forum and a wish for the future X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk, hraj@maelstrom.stjohns.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I want to wish Season's Greetings to all subscribers to this forum and express the hope that you will feel inclined to initiate and/or enter into substantive debates on the forum in the coming year. I founded them becaue I believe deeply that the issues with which they are concerned are important to the well-being and even the survival of humankind. Best wishes, Bob Young Forum Moderator __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.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: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 23:36:18 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Patrick OBrien Subject: Mania and civilization In-Reply-To: <199712241838.SAA23467@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Tis the season to be merry, and best wishes to all of us. I have recently heard talk that bi-polar disorder has been linked to the 18th chromosome. If that is true, then is this affliction only attributable to genetics or does environment some how contribute. I am concerned, because if this disorder is a two-fold disease, then why has the primary treatment been originated only from the medical model. I would think that the genetics are nothing more than a predisposition for the disorder. Have drugs just been covering up the real problems? Any and all input will be gratefully accepted. Thank You Pat O'Brien student of mathematics Mesa State College Grand Junction, Co ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:59:23 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Mania and civilization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Patrick OBrien wrote: > > Tis the season to be merry, and best wishes to all of us. > > I have recently heard talk that bi-polar disorder has been linked to the > 18th chromosome. If that is true, then is this affliction only > attributable to genetics or does environment some how contribute. > > I am concerned, because if this disorder is a two-fold disease, then > why has the primary treatment been originated only from the > medical model. I would think that the genetics are nothing more > than a predisposition for the disorder. Have drugs just been > covering up the real problems? [snip] It does appear that "mania" (AKA bipolar disorder) often even if not always has a strong biological component. *However*, this does not rule out its *also* having a social component, in the sense that environmental factors can contribute to triggering onset of symptoms and, once the disorder has manifested itself, contribute to triggering and exascerbating episodes. Drugs can definitely be used to cover up real social problems, but there may also be cases where even the best social conditions would not *prevent* a person from having the disorder. On the other hand, and especially in relatively mild cases ("hypomania"), certain social conditions may even cause the disorder to appear as a positive personality attribute, e.g., in a person who is indefatiguable(sp?) in his or her work, and thus comes to be a "stellar performer" (e.g., an investment banking wiz). As to why the "medical model" is used as the primary treatment modality for "mental disorders" in general, surely this results from a confluence of many political, social and idelolgical factors. Medical insurers keep pressing for cheap treatments, and even where psychodynamic treatment of "mental disorders" is possible, it is generally far more expensive than drugs. The "normal" members of families and other social groups generally do not want to modify *their* ways of living and thinking. And our society generally has an objectivistic view of human existence, interpreting persons primarily as entities *in* the universe (which, like billiard balls, can be acted upon by physical forces), rather than as *perspectives on the world*, to be dealt with in the mutuality of dialog. Husserlean phenomenology and Gadamerean hermeneutics (etc.) are not as popular as brain physics, even among the social groups where most persons have advanced academic training. One may also ask wheher our new global economic order is a form of social mania. -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@cloud9.net (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:53:01 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: "Walter Derzko @ Idea Lab" X-To: List de Bono X-cc: List IDFORUM , List BRKTHR , List Complexity , List New Products MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This appeared in Science-Week Self organizing systems Walter Derzko Director Idea Lab wderzko@pathcom.com ============================================================== ARCHITECTURAL PRINCIPLES IN SELF-ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS In general, a self-assembly system is any system that spontaneously tends to organize itself in a specific manner, the organization essentially a movement of the system to a lower overall energy state. Liquid crystals, for example, are self-assembly systems. The term "tensegrity" refers to a system that stabilizes itself mechanically as a result of the distribution of tensional and compressive forces, and it is possible to study many varied structures with a focus on such distributions. The emphasis is thus on form rather than process, and in those systems where form (or architecture) is an important characteristic, such an emphasis can have heuristic value. D. Ingber (Harvard Univ., US), in a review of natural design principles in organic structures, suggests that tensegrity may be involved in a wide variety of self-assembly systems, including carbon atoms, water molecules, proteins, viruses, cells, tissues, and whole animals including humans. QY: Donald E. Ingber, Harvard Univ. Medical School, Dept. of Pathology 617-432-1550 (Scientific American January 1998) ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 10:32:18 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: On-line Classics in the History of Psychology X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" It is my pleasure to announce the opening of a new web site that I think may be of interest to you: Classics in the History of Psychology. This site currently contains the complete texts of 19 works of major historical importance, as well as seven introductions to, and commentaries on, those documents. The number texts will expand contunuously as more of them are scanned and edited by me and my group. I have copied the current index to the bottom of this message for your perusal. I invite you to have a look at the site. Please feel free to use it for your own purposes, and to direct your students to it. You can find it at: http://www.yorku.ca/dept/psych/classics/ I would very much like to recieve your comments on, and suggestions about, the site. Please forward them directly to me. Christopher D. Green office: (416) 736-2100 ext. 66164 Department of Psychology FAX: (416) 736-5814 York University North York, Ontario M3J 1P3 e-mail: christo@yorku.ca CANADA http://www.yorku.ca/faculty/academic/christo ============================= Index of Current Documents Aristotle. De anima (J. A. Smith, Trans.) Baldwin, J.M., Cattell, J.M., & Jastrow, J. (1898). Physical and mental tests. Psychological Review, 5, 172-179. Binet, Alfred. (1916). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. In E. S. Kite (Trans.), The development of intelligence in children. Vineland, NJ: Publications of the Training School at Vineland. (Originally published 1905 in L'Anne Psychologique, 12, 191-244.) Introduction to Binet (1905/1916) by Henry L. Minton. Commentary on Binet (1905/1916) and Terman (1916) by Henry L. Minton Cattell, J. McK. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 373-381. Darwin, Charles. (1871). The descent of man. Part One (ch. 1-7) [under construction] Dewey, John. (1896) The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, 3, 357-370. Freud, Sigmund. (1900). The interpretation of dreams (3rd ed.). (A. A. Brill, Trans.). Freud, Sigmund. (1910). The origin and development of psychoanalysis. American Journal of Psychology. Introduction to Freud (1910) by Raymond E. Fancher Commentary on Freud (1910) by Raymond E. Fancher. James, William. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9, 188-205. James, William. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. (under construction). James, William. (1892). The stream of consciousness. From Psychology (chapter XI). Cleveland & New York, World. James, William. (1904). Does consciousness exist? Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 1. James, William. (1904). A world of pure experience. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 1. Koffka, Kurt, (1922). Perception: An introduction to the Gestalt-theorie. Psychological Bulletin, 19, 531-585. Mead, George H. (1913). The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 10, 374- 380. Plato. (ca. 360 BC). Timaeus (B. Jowett, Trans.) Terman, Lewis M. (1916). The uses of intelligence tests. From The measurement of intelligence (chapter 1). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Introduction to Terman (1916) by Henry L. Minton. Commentary on Binet (1905/1916) and Terman (1916) by Henry L. Minton. Watson, John B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177 Introduction to Watson (1913) by Christopher D. Green Commentary on Watson (1913) by Robert H. Wozniak Watson, John B. & Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.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, 30 Dec 1997 14:12:29 -0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Sergio Santos MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20" ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Unsubscribe ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ih4OAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAbAEAAAEAAAAMAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAYwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAFNjaS1DdWx0ICBTY2ll bmNlLWFzLUN1bHR1cmUAU01UUABTQ0lFTkNFLUFTLUNVTFRVUkVATUFFTFNUUk9NLlNUSk9ITlMu RURVAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAKQAAAFNDSUVOQ0UtQVMtQ1VMVFVSRUBN QUVMU1RST00uU1RKT0hOUy5FRFUAAAAAAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHwAAACdTY2kt Q3VsdCAgU2NpZW5jZS1hcy1DdWx0dXJlJwAAAgELMAEAAAAuAAAAU01UUDpTQ0lFTkNFLUFTLUNV TFRVUkVATUFFTFNUUk9NLlNUSk9ITlMuRURVAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAA AAAAAAI8RgEEgAEAAQAAAAAAAAEFgAMADgAAAM0HDAAeAA4ADAAdAAIANwEBIIADAA4AAADNBwwA HgAOAAwACQACACMBAQmAAQAhAAAAMkJDRjUwMjQxRjgxRDExMUE1ODIwMDAwQjQzQUE2MDIA4gYB A5AGAJQBAAAUAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQAA yVj2LBW9AR4AcAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvRUs9lgkUM8sgR8R0aWCAAC0OqYC AAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEgAAAHNlcmdpb3NAbmVvc2lzLnB0AAAAAwAG EAoT6EMDAAcQCwAAAB4ACBABAAAADAAAAFVOU1VCU0NSSUJFAAIBCRABAAAAfwAAAHsAAADzAAAA TFpGdROpt3P/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMDVAIAY2gKwHNldO4yBgAGwwKDMgPGBxMCg/ozEw19 CoAIzwnZAoAKgdMNsQtgbmcB0DcN8AsKkxQiAdAgVQCAdWIE8lxiZQtGEvIMAXADYHQvBZAFQAqF FSEAHCAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzDgZWXqLBW9AUAACDDgZWXqLBW9AR4APQABAAAAAQAA AAAAAAADAA00/TcAAB9L ------ =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 16:43:42 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young In-Reply-To: <883491550.0918401.0@maelstrom.stjohns.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To unsbscribe from science-as-culture send a message to listserv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu Body of message:: unsubscribe science-as-culture >------ =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Unsubscribe >------ =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20 >Content-Type: application/ms-tnef >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > >eJ8+Ih4OAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy >b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAbAEAAAEAAAAMAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL >AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAAYwAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAFNjaS1DdWx0ICBTY2ll >bmNlLWFzLUN1bHR1cmUAU01UUABTQ0lFTkNFLUFTLUNVTFRVUkVATUFFTFNUUk9NLlNUSk9ITlMu >RURVAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AAzABAAAAKQAAAFNDSUVOQ0UtQVMtQ1VMVFVSRUBN >QUVMU1RST00uU1RKT0hOUy5FRFUAAAAAAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAHwAAACdTY2kt >Q3VsdCAgU2NpZW5jZS1hcy1DdWx0dXJlJwAAAgELMAEAAAAuAAAAU01UUDpTQ0lFTkNFLUFTLUNV >TFRVUkVATUFFTFNUUk9NLlNUSk9ITlMuRURVAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAA >AAAAAAI8RgEEgAEAAQAAAAAAAAEFgAMADgAAAM0HDAAeAA4ADAAdAAIANwEBIIADAA4AAADNBwwA >HgAOAAwACQACACMBAQmAAQAhAAAAMkJDRjUwMjQxRjgxRDExMUE1ODIwMDAwQjQzQUE2MDIA4gYB >A5AGAJQBAAAUAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwAuAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQAA >yVj2LBW9AR4AcAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABvRUs9lgkUM8sgR8R0aWCAAC0OqYC >AAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEgAAAHNlcmdpb3NAbmVvc2lzLnB0AAAAAwAG >EAoT6EMDAAcQCwAAAB4ACBABAAAADAAAAFVOU1VCU0NSSUJFAAIBCRABAAAAfwAAAHsAAADzAAAA >TFpGdROpt3P/AAoBDwIVAqQD5AXrAoMAUBMDVAIAY2gKwHNldO4yBgAGwwKDMgPGBxMCg/ozEw19 >CoAIzwnZAoAKgdMNsQtgbmcB0DcN8AsKkxQiAdAgVQCAdWIE8lxiZQtGEvIMAXADYHQvBZAFQAqF >FSEAHCAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzDgZWXqLBW9AUAACDDgZWXqLBW9AR4APQABAAAAAQAA >AAAAAAADAA00/TcAAB9L > >------ =_NextPart_000_01BD152C.F6FF1B20-- __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.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: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:37:07 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: John Falkenberg Subject: sign off Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" sign off