From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9802" Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 11:32 PM ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 18:15:53 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon Umerez Urrezola Subject: ideological diversity In-Reply-To: <199801220448.FAA07163@chico.rediris.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Norman Levitt wrote > On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Paul Gallagher wrote >> Another good source is Keywords in >> Evolutionary Biology, ed. by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd, >> for all of the issues discussed in this thread. > My goodness--what ideological diversity in your sourcing. First, Lewontin > (though at least addressing a technical point) and now Fox Keller and > Lloyd. Well, I've had my say in print about Fox Keller, and she about me > (see ACADEME, Nov./Dec. '96). Lloyd is a nominal philosopher with a > substantial investment in that curious anomaly, "feminist epistemology." I am sorry I could not reply earlier. Anyway here it is, without further comments, some information for anyone to judge whose 'ideological diversity in () sourcing' is been exposed here. E.F. Keller & E.A. Lloyd (eds.) (1992) Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P. List of contributors: P. Abrams, J. Beatty, D.H. Boucher, P.J. Bowler, R.N. Brandon, R.M. Burian, R.K. Colwell, H. Cronin, J.F. Crow, J. Damuth, L. Darden, R. Dawkins, M.R. Dietrich, M.J. Donoghue, L.A. Dugatkin, J. Dupre, J.A. Endler, M.W. Feldman, K. Fristrup, D.M. Gordon, S.J. Gould, J.R. Griesemer, M.J.S. Hodge, D.L. Hull, E.F. Keller, D.J. Kevles, M.Kimura, P. Kitcher, J.G. Lennox, R.C. Lewontin, E.A. Lloyd, J. Maienschein, J.C. Masters, R. McIntosh, D. Paul, R.J. Richards, A. Rosenberg, M. Ruse, E. Sober, H. G. Spencer, P.F. Stevens, P. Taylor, M.K. Uyenoyama, M.J. Wade, M.J. West-Eberhard, M.B. Williams, D.S. Wilson. Jon Umerez (postdoctoral research fellow, research group on Philosophy of Biology) Logika eta Zientziaren Filosofia saila Euskal Herriko Unibertsitaea Donostia ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 18:54:43 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge In-Reply-To: <199802010446.XAA02476@betty.globecomm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Paul Gallagher wrote: Dawkins and Wilson don't sweat too much about anthropological data, but their response to contemporary disputes is that individuals can ignore the dictates of their genes but will experience anxiety, and that societies can suppress the dictates of the genes only through totalitarian means and then only temporarily. The genes permit humans some freedom, but too much rebellion will be punished. =========== REPLY: Where on earth did you get this from? ==================================================== Now, all this said, I wonder whether the science wars people are the same as the culture wars people. If evolutionary psychologists start to dominate all academic disciplines, I wonder whether the cultural right will complain. =========== REPLY: Evolutionary psychologists seek to establish continuities between disciplines and if anything this more clearly delineates the the boundaries of a discipline and strengthens its legitimacy. Thus evolutionary biology is of relevance to psychology, and psychology is relevant to sociology and anthropology. These don't become one homogenous mega-discipline. It's more a case of selecting appropriate conceptual and methodological tools for the job. Regards Ian ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:18:33 -0500 Reply-To: vpiercy@indiana.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Van Piercy Organization: Indiana University Subject: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Interesting thread. Immediately reminded me of issues in discussing Gregory Bateson's ideas. I'm sympathetic to both sides of this debate between, roughly, biologists and culturalists, but I keep wondering if this current thread isn't an example of a broader sort of almost impossible conversation between monists (supporting a biological unity of knowledge) and dualists (supporting a split of culture, ethics, and social dynamics from nature). I mean, especially addressing the question to folks who have taken the culturalist line here, Why assume that ethical or cultural diversity has origins so vastly different, so different in principle from genetic diversity or natural selection processes? Isn't the "unity" claim exactly that both sets of diversity can be seen to be the result of informational processes? Perhaps Dawkins and Wilson fuel the confusion because of their own philosophically imperfect understanding of the monistic theory they are proposing. They recommend, for example, that ethics or aesthetics are just meaningless. So much for the proposed unity of "knowledge." What definition of knowledge is at work for them? Is there a non-arbitrary reason to refuse to recognize only a portion of the human ideational and motivational landscape? Memetics gets its major analogies from genetics and natural selection, and one would expect a unified theory at the very least to unify all the elements in play. Dawkins and Wilson appear to propel the misunderstandings of their monistic claims for a unity of knowledge because I suspect they are ultimately dualists dressing themselves in monist clothing. I'd suggest that theirs is a materialist dualism, fetishizing a particular plasmic isolate, whereas some of their more humanistic inclined critics seem to espouse the opposite, privileging will, agency, subjectivity, cultural malleability over a determining and mindless nature. The only theorist I know who makes any headway through this dualistic Scylla and Charybdis is Gregory Bateson. He begins with a thorough distinction between, not nature and culture, but between matter and information. (Isn't that a dualism too? Not according to Bateson. Dead matter instigates nothing and simply has no place in his epistemology.) Dawkins and Wilson aren't really interested in matter qua matter either. They are interested in quasi-purposive agents known as genes. To that extent they would seem to be information theorists on Bateson's framework, though terribly reductive ones since the problem of consistency which Asia points out should more properly break down along levels of explanation, e.g., kicking a rock is a different intentional experience from kicking a dog, the raw matter of a "pill" is different from the intentional design built into a pill, how a gene recombines is different from the context in which it recombines. What a monistic information theory seems to tell us is that there are significant formal properties shared by all informational processes. We should be able to find (and here we see Bateson's deductivist approach) evidence of stochastic process, of self-correction, of response to difference, of systemic and therefore circular or holistic properties in the objects of study, of a responsiveness to energy budgets that are nonetheless not the sole determining principles of systemic function. Bateson's theory is frustratingly self-contained, but that's also one of its comparative virtues. He seems to have profitably ignored a number of semantic detours in his trek through the established disciplines in order to take a rather broad and formal look at communicational events generally as composing an ecology of ideas. Why are there different theories, different religions, ethical systems, ideologies, genetic heritages, biological species? Even a relatively simple ecological model would seem to propose a way to start thinking out that problem on a unified, co-evolutionary, co-contextual scale. Van Piercy (vpiercy@indiana.edu) English Dept., Indiana Univeristy Bloomington, IN ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:41:09 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of In-Reply-To: <199802012228.RAA13736@mail1.panix.com> from "Van Piercy" at Feb 1, 98 05:18:33 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are several evolutionary psychology texts online. http://www.skeptic.com/04.1.miele-immoral.html The (Im)moral Animal: A Quick & Dirty Guide to Evolutionary Psychology & the Nature of Human Nature By Frank Miele http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.htm Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby http://weber.u.washington.edu/~crayfish/Xenophobia.html A Consideration of the Sociobiological Dimensions of Human Xenophobia and Ethnocentrism http://www.percep.demon.co.uk/pythagor.htm THE PYTHAGOREAN PERSPECTIVE: The Arts and Sociobiology http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/users/steen http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/users/steen/CogWeb/Bibliography.html CogWeb Bibliography http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/toc_tabo.html Stalking the Wild Taboo And to balance things out: Steve Jones' "The Set Within the Skull" http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?1997110613R@p1 (Look in the Archives for the Nov. 6 issue rather than trying to type this.) and http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/users/steen/Abstracts/Gardner_on_Mithen.html Martin Gardner's Thinking About Thinking The CogWeb Bibliography has a large bibliography. Maybe relevant to the theme of Science and Culture are the works of Robert Storey and Mark Turner, who use evolutionary psychology in literary criticism: the evolution of the story-telling mind and of mimesis. By the way, Storey has kind things to say about our friend, Norman Levitt: http://www.reasonmag.com/9501/dept.bkSTOREY.text.html, as did E.O. Wilson in his recent autobiography, Naturalist. ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 23:18:09 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of In-Reply-To: <3CF8BC4838@iccrom.org> from "Paul Gallagher" at Feb 1, 98 09:41:09 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I neglected one excellent online article: Steve Jones' "Go Milk a Fruit Bat" in the July 17, 1997 NYRB. http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997071739R Get it quick before NYRofB becomes a for-pay site! Also, some material online - not directly related to sociobiology - by someone who influenced me a lot, Jeremy Ahouse: http://www1.bocklabs.wisc.edu/carroll/jcahouse/publications/DDI/critique.html Paul ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 22:20:38 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Michael Gregory, NEXA/H-NEXA" Subject: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge (X Sci-Cult) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:18:33 -0500 From: Van Piercy Interesting thread. Immediately reminded me of issues in discussing Gregory Bateson's ideas. I'm sympathetic to both sides of this debate between, roughly, biologists and culturalists, but I keep wondering if this current thread isn't an example of a broader sort of almost impossible conversation between monists (supporting a biological unity of knowledge) and dualists (supporting a split of culture, ethics, and social dynamics from nature). I mean, especially addressing the question to folks who have taken the culturalist line here, Why assume that ethical or cultural diversity has origins so vastly different, so different in principle from genetic diversity or natural selection processes? Isn't the "unity" claim exactly that both sets of diversity can be seen to be the result of informational processes? Perhaps Dawkins and Wilson fuel the confusion because of their own philosophically imperfect understanding of the monistic theory they are proposing. They recommend, for example, that ethics or aesthetics are just meaningless. So much for the proposed unity of "knowledge." What definition of knowledge is at work for them? Is there a non-arbitrary reason to refuse to recognize only a portion of the human ideational and motivational landscape? Memetics gets its major analogies from genetics and natural selection, and one would expect a unified theory at the very least to unify all the elements in play. Dawkins and Wilson appear to propel the misunderstandings of their monistic claims for a unity of knowledge because I suspect they are ultimately dualists dressing themselves in monist clothing. I'd suggest that theirs is a materialist dualism, fetishizing a particular plasmic isolate, whereas some of their more humanistic inclined critics seem to espouse the opposite, privileging will, agency, subjectivity, cultural malleability over a determining and mindless nature. The only theorist I know who makes any headway through this dualistic Scylla and Charybdis is Gregory Bateson. He begins with a thorough distinction between, not nature and culture, but between matter and information. (Isn't that a dualism too? Not according to Bateson. Dead matter instigates nothing and simply has no place in his epistemology.) Dawkins and Wilson aren't really interested in matter qua matter either. They are interested in quasi-purposive agents known as genes. To that extent they would seem to be information theorists on Bateson's framework, though terribly reductive ones since the problem of consistency which Asia points out should more properly break down along levels of explanation, e.g., kicking a rock is a different intentional experience from kicking a dog, the raw matter of a "pill" is different from the intentional design built into a pill, how a gene recombines is different from the context in which it recombines. What a monistic information theory seems to tell us is that there are significant formal properties shared by all informational processes. We should be able to find (and here we see Bateson's deductivist approach) evidence of stochastic process, of self-correction, of response to difference, of systemic and therefore circular or holistic properties in the objects of study, of a responsiveness to energy budgets that are nonetheless not the sole determining principles of systemic function. Bateson's theory is frustratingly self-contained, but that's also one of its comparative virtues. He seems to have profitably ignored a number of semantic detours in his trek through the established disciplines in order to take a rather broad and formal look at communicational events generally as composing an ecology of ideas. Why are there different theories, different religions, ethical systems, ideologies, genetic heritages, biological species? Even a relatively simple ecological model would seem to propose a way to start thinking out that problem on a unified, co-evolutionary, co-contextual scale. Van Piercy (vpiercy@indiana.edu) English Dept., Indiana Univeristy Bloomington, IN ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:01:51 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of In-Reply-To: <199802020626.BAA28426@mail2.panix.com> from "Michael Gregory, NEXA/H-NEXA" at Feb 1, 98 10:20:38 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 17:18:33 -0500 > From: Van Piercy > > I mean, especially addressing the question to folks who have taken the > culturalist line here, Why assume that ethical or cultural diversity has > origins so vastly different, so different in principle from genetic > diversity or natural selection processes? Isn't the "unity" claim > exactly that both sets of diversity can be seen to be the result of > informational processes? I may be misunderstanding your point, but one argument that's made is that the origin of cultural diversity is fundamentally different. Genetic diversity arises from random processes - mutation and recombination. Only rarely will a favorable mutation appear, and then only rarely will it spread throughout the whole population. This will require at the very least many generations. It can be passed on only by descent. In addition, only a relatively small amount of information can be passed on genetically: for example, perhaps at most a few thousand adaptive genetic substitutions separate humans from their nearest relatives. (See discussions of Haldane's Dilemma.) In contrast, culture involves a vast amount of information. It can be created purposively, in response to immediate needs. Cultural change can occur very quickly, within a generation, and can be transmitted laterally, not just from ancestor to descendent. The volume and rapidity of cultural change would seem to swamp genetic change. Even simply from the perspective of adaptation, purposive cultural change seems a vastly more adept, efficient mechanism for adapting to one's environment. Instead of waiting, say, 300 generations for a beneficial mutation to spread throughout the population, a beneficial idea can be spread within a single generation. If circumstances change, the population need not wait for a new mutation or depend on existing variation, but can perhaps create a new idea. One can imagine than selection might have favored cultural innovativion and flexibility in human ancestors. In a sense, nature has found in the human mind a mechanism by which new variation can arise in response to perceived needs and be transmitted at will. This is a faster and more efficient mechanism of adaptation than one that relies on the random origin of variation through mutation. A rough analogy can be drawn with Lamarck's theory of adaptation as the organism's response to its needs, and his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin recognized that if this mechanism could work, its speed would reduce the mechanism of natural selection to insignificance. An alternatives view is memetics, of course, but I noticed that Levi-Strauss' idea of cultural change as the random permutations and recombinations of structures is similar to some evolutionary ideas. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 13:54:03 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: Re: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:50 PM 1/31/98 +73900, you wrote: Re Wilson's understanding of morality: >Wilson thinks that ethical beliefs arise because our genes, pursuing >their own selfish interests (that is, maximizing their inclusive fitness), >want us to cooperate. However, Wilson says that our ethical statements >are not knowledge. They are neither true nor false, but instead meaningless >emotive utterances. Hence, Wilson avoids being a meta-ethical relativist, >since he does not think that the meaning of ethical statements must contain >reference to the speaker (that is, "X is good," because "it conforms to >*my* ethical belief system, or to my culture's"). Instead, he thinks >ethical statements are meaningless. He also seems not to accept meta- >ethical naturalism, since again he does not believe that "X is good" means >"X is natural," or "X increases my fitness." However, since he believes >that ethical beliefs arose from our genes' quests to maximize their fitness, >he can still make factual, instrumental imperatives: do this, if you want >the human species to survive. If humans make emotive utterances that "X is >good," it is likely, but not certain, that X will increase the individual's >fitness. I do not find Wilson's notions of "meaning" and "knowledge" very convincing. Of cource suitable definitions can render any statement true, but where is the reason to accept that "ethical statements are emotive atterances", that "emotive atterances" are "meaningless"? Has Wilson ever delved into philosophical litterature on "meaning"? I doubt so. The most common way of defining meaning (and meaninglessness) of a statement is to se whether that statement has a recognizable referent, and statement such as "good action" certainly have a referent in our culture. The reason that people in litterary criticism do not get very excited about Wilson's theories is presicely that they have no reason to accept this string of fairly strange postulates. However, since he believes >that ethical beliefs arose from our genes' quests to maximize their fitness, >he can still make factual, instrumental imperatives: do this, if you want >the human species to survive. If humans make emotive utterances that "X is >good," it is likely, but not certain, that X will increase the individual's >fitness. I agree that this seems to be Wilson's idea about the ontology of moral judgements. However, non of this in any reasonable way proves that such judgements "have no meaning". To give something a biological explanation, even if possible, is hardly a reasonable way to deny that the very same something has a psychological meaning. And it certainly does not follow that this psychological meaning is not influential or important. Sociobiologists are rather fond of offering cross-cultural similarities as a proof for the basic qualities that build up human nature. That every culture upon earth has created an ethical system should then certainly be clue about the importance of the phenomena in structuring social realities. My impression is that what underlies Wilson's notion about human nature is the Protestant notion that human nature is basically evil, selfish and nasty, and that only external forse (God) will change it. Wilson, similarly, tends to believe that true gut level reactions of a human being are selfish and nasty, whilst affection, or the concern for justice, or emphathy towards other, are at best a thin layer of ideology on top of "the real thing". I am not sure I buy this theory. Best, Asia ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 17:25:32 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: jobs.ac.uk X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New National Website for Staff Vacancies The Universities Advertising Group (UAG) has launched a new national website for staff vacancies in Higher Education. The site can be found at http://www.jobs.ac.uk UAG, a consortium of 37 Universities, hopes that all UK Universities will use the new website to advertise staff vacancies and that the website will become the primary location to advertise vacancies in Higher Education. Whilst the new venture will open up the University=92s own job vacancies to a wider national and international audience, the University continues to explore ways to ensure equality of opportunity for the local community and for those without internet access and will continue to advertise vacancies in the local and national press. __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Youn= g 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, 4 Feb 1998 01:59:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge In-Reply-To: <199802031154.GAA26557@mail2.panix.com> from "Asia Lerner" at Feb 3, 98 01:54:03 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > but where is the reason to accept that "ethical statements are emotive > utterances", that "emotive utterances" are "meaningless"? I wonder how popular this idea is with philosophers? Wilson co-wrote the article, "The Evolution of Ethics," with Michael Hull, who's a professional philosopher. I associate the idea that ethical propositions are meaningless with logical positivism, or verificationism, which I've heard is not very popular nowadays. I wonder if Wilson and Hull are influenced by logical positivism? I don't know enough about Hull or logical positivism to tell... "morality is merely an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but not justified by it, because .. it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 14:55:32 -0500 Reply-To: vpiercy@indiana.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Van Piercy Organization: Indiana University Subject: Re: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I remember hearing Richard Lewontin marvel at how even a "beneficial" genetic mutation is likely to be swamped by a population's conservatively held genetic variety. So I follow you on that point. Genetic evolution is radically conservative. What I would suggest is the case for what I've been calling the "monistic" view is that such a diversity, which "arises from random processes - mutation and recombination," still is not in principle arguably different from what happens in cultural evolution and learning. (The phenomenon of learning itself takes place for species other than humans and so raises the related question of breaching another nature/culture barrier since "learning" as a process spans both the cultural and natural categories.) Paul Gallagher wrote: > In contrast, culture involves a vast amount of information. Genes carry a lot of information too, right? Would the argument be that this culture/nature difference is basically a difference of scale that translates into a difference in kind? > It can > be created purposively, in response to immediate needs. Cultural change can > occur very quickly, within a generation, and can be transmitted laterally, not > just from ancestor to descendent. The volume and rapidity of cultural change > would seem to swamp genetic change. Even simply from the perspective of > adaptation, purposive cultural change seems a vastly more adept, efficient > mechanism for adapting to one's environment. Instead of waiting, say, 300 > generations for a beneficial mutation to spread throughout the population, > a beneficial idea can be spread within a single generation. This is a description of Lamarkian inheritance or the inheritance of acquired characteristics. I think people in memetics have observed this before about cultural change. One important argument here is that if that sort of rapid change took place at the level of genetic evolution, with no barrier between soma and germ plasm, biological evolution would probably come to quick halt. As it is, the patterns of adaptation and addiction (what Bateson sees as the dark potential of every adaptation) occur on both levels, the individual organism and the genotype, but at different rates of change. Imagine if we were all born with our parents' skills and experiences, and before them their parents', and before them theirs, etc. Lamarkian inheritance rightly does not work at the level of genetic information, and is only generally simulated cultural level. One could argue that cultural evolution, because of its Lamarkian pattern of transmission, is inherently unstable. There may be important analogies between epigenesis and the slow rate of species change and the conservative functions of certain cultural institutions. > If circumstances > change, the population need not wait for a new mutation or depend on existing > variation, but can perhaps create a new idea. One can imagine than selection > might have favored cultural innovativion and flexibility in human ancestors. > > In a sense, nature has found in the human mind a mechanism by which new > variation can arise in response to perceived needs and be transmitted at will. > This is a faster and more efficient mechanism of adaptation than one that relies > on the random origin of variation through mutation. A rough analogy can be > drawn with Lamarck's theory of adaptation as the organism's response to > its needs, and his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin > recognized that if this mechanism could work, its speed would reduce the > mechanism of natural selection to insignificance. The same thing that makes Lamarkianism so unstable on the level of genetics and species evolution should give us pause over the dynamics of cultural change. I realize that that's an argument for the conservation of cultures and institutions. Of course that cuts both ways politically, as many non-modernist arguments do. I gather that the paradox of true Lamarkian style inheritance at the cultural level would be that our cultures would stagnate rather than flourish. The same argument against Lamarkianism on the biological level would apply on the cultural: the options of ancestors are not present in the off-spring. And this has some truth: At a certain point, societies could move toward industrialization or no, but once in the industrializing process, there seems to be no real chance of going back. Just as on the Lamarkian model of biological eveolution, certain fundamental options are all too quickly lost, within a generation. Other similar conjectures could be made here, but the relevant point to this discussion is that monists might still arguably observe that a Lamarkian pattern of transmission is still a pattern of transmission, of information flow, subject to similar patterns of addiction, adaptation, stability and instability. One interesting thing to note is that at the level of population genetics, rather than at the individual, phenotypic, level biologists have observed that Larmarkian inheritance is simulated. Again, I think monists like Bateson would come back to some scheme of levels of explanation covering a principle form or substance, in this case information itself, rather than submit the difference to an absolute dualism. Van Piercy (vpiercy@indiana.edu) English Dept., Indiana University Bloomington, IN ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:26:28 -0600 Reply-To: fed@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Frank durham Organization: Tulane Subject: Re: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear S-as-C: Just this comment on the slippery slopes of determinisms. If "morality is merely an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but not justified by it, because .. it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance", then of course "us" is merely an illusion fobbed off on genes by genes to get genes to cooperate. See, e. g., Karl Popper's _The Open Universe_, and even earlier J. B. S. Haldane, on the demoralizing insight that this discussion is already determined, if anything is. Your answer, too. Yes, even that. Best wishes forward and backward, Frank Durham ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 13:59:02 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: pseudoscience etc X-cc: psych-ci@maelstrom.stjohns.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Following on from our recent discussions of pseudoscience and anti-science I am sure that members of the forum will be interested in the Web site for debate of Allen Esterson's new article on Masson and Freud's Seduction Theory: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/aesterson.html Esterson (author of Seductive Mirage) shows how original documents contradict the story that Freud's female patients told him that they had been sexually abused in early childhood. There are also contributions by Mark Pendergrast (author of Victims of Memory) and Malcolm Macmillan (author of Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc). Macmillan's piece concentrates on the deterministic assumptions underlying Freud's methods and the myth of the childhood sexual drive. Contributions to the site are welcome. Regards Ian ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:00:40 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adam Nieman Subject: help with nuclear industry ads One of my students (on the Science, Society and the Media degree at the University of the West of England) is doing his final year project on issues in the public understanding of science posed by the advertising campaigns of the nuclear industry. Does anyone know of any research or commentaries on nuclear industry adverts (e.g. the BNFL 'what kind of science' ads on British TV recently)? Adam Nieman Faculty of Applied Sciences University of the West of England Bristol, UK ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 11:41:29 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Axel Thiel Subject: vocabulary Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit int.work-group on graffiti-research: Part 2 od the"vocabulary of graffiti-research"(like no.1)just been published: 150 pages= ca. 1 500 keywords. A.Thiel(coordination) Germany ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 8 Feb 1998 16:55:30 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: help with nuclear industry ads In-Reply-To: <199802061608.LAA27247@barney.globecomm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Adam Nieman wrote: One of my students (on the Science, Society and the Media degree at the University of the West of England) is doing his final year project on issues in the public understanding of science posed by the advertising campaigns of the nuclear industry. ======= REPLY: I don't know if this is much help but there is a group concentrating on nuclear power as part of the Open University's S280 course _Science Matters_. See Science Matters: Nuclear Power by Malcolm Scott and David Johnson (Open University, 1993). You might be able to find out more via the OU web site http://www.open.ac.uk/ Regards Ian ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 00:52:35 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge In-Reply-To: <199802031154.GAA26557@mail2.panix.com> from "Asia Lerner" at Feb 3, 98 01:54:03 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > My impression is that what underlies Wilson's notion about human nature is > the Protestant notion that human nature is basically evil, selfish and > nasty, and that only external forse (God) will change it. Wilson, > similarly, tends to believe that true gut level reactions of a human being > are selfish and nasty, whilst affection, or the concern for justice, or > emphathy towards other, are at best a thin layer of ideology on top of "the > real thing". I am not sure I buy this theory. > > Best, Asia > I was looking through Howard Kaye's The Social Meaning of Modern Biology, and he mentions that Kenneth Bock brought up the same idea of the ascetic Protestant roots of Wilson's thought in his "Human Nature and History." Browning and Lyo, "Sociobiology and Ethical Reflection," Theology Today 36, pp. 229-38, and James Gustafon, "Sociobiology: A Secular Theology," Hastings Center Report 9, pp. 23-27, also discuss the religious elements in Wilson's work. I'll try to summarize some of these ideas. Wilson (Sociobiology, p. 575; On Human Nature, p. 2-4, 149, 157, 176, 184, 188) says religion, which he calls "unthinking submission to the communal will," the primary restraint on slefish behavior: it is "above all the process by which individuals are persuaded to subordinate their immediate self-interests to the interest of the group." Since science has exposed the myths of religion, Wilson says, Western civilization is "in immediate danger of decline" through "a loss of moral consensus." Wilson hopes sociobiology can solve "the great spiritual dilemmas" of our time, by showing how kin altruism, "the enemy of civilization," can be suppressed in favor of "reciprocal altruism," or enlightened selfishness: "True selfishness, if obedient to other constraints of mammalian biology is the key to a more nearly perfect social contract." Sociobiology can resolve the "spiritula dilemma" posed by our genetically based ethical systems: a "biology of ethics" will evaluate the "mosaic of cultural hypertrophies of the archaic behavioral adaptations" and create an "enduring code of moral values" by enabling us "to see beyond the blind decsion making process of natural selection and to envision the history and future of our own genes against the background of the entire human species." (Of course, this is open to criticism, if genes are the mind's "hidden masters" and the mind is simply an epiphenomenon of competing physiological needs, "a device for survival and reporoduction" (On Human Nature, p. 2, 76-77), how can the will, or the mind, overcome the effects of the genes?) A new "biology of ethics," with its "cardinal value" the survival of the human gene pool, depends on persuading individuals to subordinate themselves to the group (Sociobiology, p. 561). Wilson believes this can be done because the human mind "will always create morality, religion, and mythology and empower them with emotional force", including such factors as "consecration of personal and group identity, attention toi charismatic leaders, mythopoeism, and others." The human mind "quickly manufactures" religion using whatever material is avialable. Therefore, scientists should "craft" their knowledge as "a deliberately affective appeal to the deepest needs of human nature." This could lead to a "new age" of enlightened self-interest. (On Human Nature, pp. 177, 190-92, 200, 201, 204, 206) In a sense, Wilson is arguing for sociobiology to take the place of religion, although he prefers the term, "mythology." Some analogies can be drawn between his ideas and those of Christianity: Kenneth Bock writes, "Man lives encumbered with a past, must confess his weakness, seek education in the ways of righteousness, and await salvation." Otehr sociobiologists have very different perspectives. Kaye discusses Dawkins, Alexander, Barash, and Robert Wallace. Roughly, Dawkins stresses that culture must struggle against the "ruthless selfishness" of the genes, while Barash thinks culture is the root of our problems: the "beast" of "meddlesome cultures" has to be mastered to reestablish the harmony between nature and culture by appealing to the "enlightened [genetic} self-interest of the human mind." (Sociobiology and Behavior, 211, 324). However, again this faces the problem of the constraints thegens place on human freedom: Barash believes, "We are free, it is true, but free only to maximize our fitness and that of our silent genetic riders", and that innate behavioral tendencies "predominate over our rationality." (pp. 323-324), while Dawkins believes individuals "will stop at nothing" to exploit their fellows, and individuals are "huge colonies [of genes], safe inside gigantic lumbering robots..they created us body and mind and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence." (The Selfish Genes)a; hence Alexander believes "sociobiology will further the interests of humanity in gneral and enable its survival" (Darwinism and Human Affairs, pp. xii- xiv, xvi, 5) While Alexander is critical of genetci determinism, he is a strong adaptationist: all morphological, benavioral, and cultural traits are adaptive: "to invoke proximate limitations to explain extant phenomena of life is in effect to deny the power of the evolutionary proecss to produce some perceived or imagined effect." Alexander believes, "We are programmed tro use all our effort, and in fact all our lives, in rep[roduction." The individual is an epiphenomenon of a colaition of selfish gens that use it fior replicatin. Free will is the visulaization in consciouness of the various courses of action openn to the gene colation to maiximize their inclusive fitness. All individuals can be reduced to "reproductive maximazation" and cultre is "the cumulative effetc of .. inclusive fitness-maximizing be3havior .. by all humans that have ever lived." (pp. 47, 56, 58, 65, 68, 80, 132-33, 142) Societies only exist to protect individuals from each other. Alexander ses self-decepotion as being an adaptation. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:55:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge In-Reply-To: <199802110630.BAA26466@mail1.panix.com> from "Paul Gallagher" at Feb 11, 98 00:52:35 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My last message was sent out accidently, unedited. Here's the new and improved version: > > My impression is that what underlies Wilson's notion about human nature is > the Protestant notion that human nature is basically evil, selfish and > nasty, and that only external force (God) will change it. Wilson, > similarly, tends to believe that true gut level reactions of a human being > are selfish and nasty, whilst affection, or the concern for justice, or > empathy towards other, are at best a thin layer of ideology on top of "the > real thing". I am not sure I buy this theory. > > Best, Asia > I was looking through Howard Kaye's The Social Meaning of Modern Biology, and he mentions that Kenneth Bock brought up the same idea of the ascetic Protestant roots of Wilson's thought in his "Human Nature and History." Browning and Lyon, "Sociobiology and Ethical Reflection," Theology Today 36, pp. 229-38, and James Gustafon, "Sociobiology: A Secular Theology," Hastings Center Report 9, pp. 23-27, also discuss the religious elements in Wilson's work. I'll try to summarize some of these ideas. Wilson (Sociobiology, p. 575; On Human Nature, p. 2-4, 149, 157, 176, 184, 188) says religion, which he calls "unthinking submission to the communal will," is the primary restraint on selfish behavior: it is "above all the process by which individuals are persuaded to subordinate their immediate self-interests to the interest of the group." Since science has exposed the myths of religion, Wilson says, Western civilization is "in immediate danger of decline" through "a loss of moral consensus." Wilson hopes sociobiology can solve "the great spiritual dilemmas" of our time by showing how kin altruism, "the enemy of civilization," can be suppressed in favor of "reciprocal altruism," or enlightened selfishness: "True selfishness, if obedient to other constraints of mammalian biology is the key to a more nearly perfect social contract." Sociobiology can resolve the "spiritual dilemma" posed by our genetically based ethical systems: a "biology of ethics" will evaluate the "mosaic of cultural hypertrophies of the archaic behavioral adaptations" and create an "enduring code of moral values" by enabling us "to see beyond the blind decision making process of natural selection and to envision the history and future of our own genes against the background of the entire human species." (Of course, this is open to criticism, if genes are the mind's "hidden masters" and the mind is simply an epiphenomenon of competing physiological needs, "a device for survival and reproduction" (On Human Nature, p. 2, 76-77), how can the will, or the mind, overcome the effects of the genes?) A new "biology of ethics," with its "cardinal value" the survival of the human gene pool, depends on persuading individuals to subordinate themselves to the group (Sociobiology, p. 561). Wilson believes this can be done because the human mind "will always create morality, religion, and mythology and empower them with emotional force", including such factors as "consecration of personal and group identity, attention to charismatic leaders, mythopoeism, and others." The human mind "quickly manufactures" religion using whatever material is available. Therefore, scientists should "craft" their knowledge as "a deliberately affective appeal to the deepest needs of human nature." This could lead to a "new age" of enlightened self-interest. (On Human Nature, pp. 177, 190-92, 200, 201, 204, 206) In a sense, Wilson is arguing for sociobiology to take the place of religion, although he prefers the term, "mythology." Some analogies can be drawn between his ideas and those of Christianity: Kenneth Bock writes, "Man lives encumbered with a past, must confess his weakness, seek education in the ways of righteousness, and await salvation." Other sociobiologists have very different perspectives. Kaye discusses Dawkins, Alexander, Barash, and Robert Wallace. Roughly, Dawkins stresses that culture must struggle against the "ruthless selfishness" of the genes, while Barash thinks culture is the root of our problems: the "beast" of "meddlesome cultures" has to be mastered to reestablish the harmony between nature and culture by appealing to the "enlightened [genetic} self-interest of the human mind." (Sociobiology and Behavior, 211, 324). However, again this faces the problem of the constraints the genes place on human freedom: Barash believes, "We are free, it is true, but free only to maximize our fitness and that of our silent genetic riders", and that innate behavioral tendencies "predominate over our rationality." (pp. 323-324), while Dawkins believes individuals "will stop at nothing" to exploit their fellows, and individuals are "huge colonies [of genes], safe inside gigantic lumbering robots..they created us body and mind and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence." (The Selfish Gene). Furthermore, Dawkins also models culture in terms of selfish replicators, or memes, further reducing the autonomy of culture and will. Alexander believes "sociobiology will further the interests of humanity in general and enable its survival" (Darwinism and Human Affairs, pp. xii- xiv, xvi, 5) While Alexander is critical of genetic determinism, he is a strong adaptationist: all morphological, behavioral, and cultural traits are adaptive: "to invoke proximate limitations to explain extant phenomena of life is in effect to deny the power of the evolutionary process to produce some perceived or imagined effect." Alexander believes, "we are programmed to use all our effort, and in fact all our lives, in reproduction." The individual is an epiphenomenon of a coalition of selfish genes that use it for replication. Free will is the visualization in consciousness of the various courses of action open to the gene coalition to maximize their inclusive fitness. All individuals can be reduced to "reproductive maximization" and culture is "the cumulative effect of .. inclusive fitness-maximizing behavior .. by all humans that have ever lived." (pp. 47, 56, 58, 65, 68, 80, 132-33, 142), while societies exist only to protect individuals from each other. Alexander sees self-deception as being an adaptation, since it makes individual deceit more effective, but Alexander believes that modern science has accidently uncovered the secret of the genes, and that the effect can be to be liberate us from the gene's rule. He also sees the belief in natural selection and selfish genes to be liberating in themselves. Alexander states that "majority rule and individual rights" are implied by evolutionary theory (pp. 77, 132, 137, 142, 233, 277). (Kaye thinks Alexander's arguments make no sense, since Alexander emphasizes that the individual is nothing but a coalition of genes, that hostility toward non-kin and domination of the weak are the biological norm, and that human behavior and culture are "finely-tuned" to further the gene's inclusive fitness, leaving little room for independent action.) In contrast, Robert Wallace, in The Genesis Effect, advocates very different political changes based on "the great messages of sociobiology": "less individual freedom, string central government, nationalism, imperialism, assimilation. miscegenation, and detente." So, Wilson, Dawkins, Alexander, Barash, and Wallace believe in the "morality of the gene," and that sociobiology has found "the ultimate meaning of life", to use Wilson's phrases, that most identifiable traits are adaptive, genetically controlled, and naturally selected (Selfish Gene, pp. 20-25; Darwinism and Human Affairs, pp. 11, 18, 25-26, 33, 87-88, 94, 104, 111, 143, 167, 199), that the human mind is "programmed" to reflect inclusive fitness calculations in terms of pleasure or pain (Selfish Gene, pp. 60-61; Darwinism and Human Affairs, 81-82; Barash, The Whisperings Within, 39, 41, 94, 209). All but Dawkins think culture "is not independent of or in contradiction to" human biology, but represents "hypertrophies" bound to biological purposes. E.O. Wilson advocated a human morality based on "the morality of the gene," and sees kin altruism rather than selfishness as the root of civilization's problems, while Dawkins advocates teaching humans to cooperate for the common good, contrary to the demands of the genes. In contrast, Barash sees culture as the root of civilization's problem, leading it away from the wisdom of the genes. Wilson places religion at the center of human society (and invokes group selection - almost a heresy among strong selectionists to explain it), and sees scientific materialism, in particular sociobiology, taking over its social role of encouraging the subordination of the individual to the group, now in the name of the "cardinal principle" of genetic survival. Alexander sees sociobiology as liberating humans from their genes, and sees in selfish genes the basis for individual rights and majority rule, while Wallace sees a different message. Those who see these men as pursuing objective, a-political science still have to decide among the various theories and recommendations they have developed. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:32:24 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Marissa MOORE Subject: Labour and Technology X-To: sci-cult@SJUVM.stjohns.edu I am currently planning research on the relationship between labour and technology. If you are currently involve in similar reseach, have been infvolved, know someone who is involved, have been involved... Please contact me at mmoor@csir.co.za Marissa Moore Policy Group: Council for Scientific and Industiral Reseach South Africa ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:25:55 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Aronowitz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT R I G H T+O N ! by D A V I D+H O R O W I T Z The loafing class Shiftless, lazy good-for-nothings? Try the richly paid leftist professors securely ensconced in their irrelevant ivory towers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - There's good news and bad news in higher education today. The good news is that a university education can provide a pass, open to all, to the incredible bounties of the information age economy. The bad news is that the price of the pass can be the equivalent of a Ferrari, putting the average student into hock for a good chunk of his or her working life. As the price tag of a degree has gone up, moreover, the quality of the product has gone down. Professors of literature, eschewing the classics, have taken to teaching courses on racism and imperialism, while sociologists discourse on the "social construction" of scientific truths in which they are equally unlettered. The discredited doctrines of Karl Marx abound in the midst of real-world economic forces that are decidedly non-Marxist. There is also a sense of irrelevance in much of academia. Liberal arts programs are in decline, while new technical schools have become an educational growth industry. Tenured professors become increasingly inaccessible to students, while low-paid graduate assistants assume the heavy burden of actually teaching. The current issue of the academic journal Social Text offers a particularly illuminating example of the process. Couched as a personal memoir and written by one of the magazine's editors, "The Last Good Job in America" provides a portrait of today's liberal arts professor as slacker-in-residence. Its author, Stanley Aronowitz, was a labor organizer in the '60s who got his Ph.D. from an Antioch extension program and was recruited to the Graduate Center of City University by a '60s comrade already on the faculty. City University is New York's publicly funded higher education opportunity for children of the working classes. Like other financially overburdened educational institutions, it is "downsizing," replacing full professors like Aronowitz with less qualified and lower paid teaching assistants. Twenty years ago, City University had hired Aronowitz "because they believed I was a labor sociologist." In fact, as he admits in Social Text, this was just a scam: "First and foremost I'm a political intellectual ... [I] don't follow the methodological rules of the discipline." Following his own looser rules, Aronowitz created the "Center for Cultural Studies," a broad umbrella under which he could teach Marxist politics at his leisure. >From such a base, Aronowitz became an academic star, with a six-figure salary and a publishing vita to match. In today's faddish academic climate, it is totally in keeping that Aronowitz's chef d'oeuvre is a book called "Science As Power," which endorses the old Stalinist proposition that science is an instrument of the ruling class. A reviewer for the Times Literary Supplement was moved to remark: "If the author knows much about the content or enterprise of science, he keeps the knowledge well hidden." Connoisseurs of Aronowitz were hardly surprised last year when he and his fellow editors at Social Text published Alan Sokal's hoax essay, designed to demonstrate the magazine would publish pure gobbledygook, so long as it sounded postmodern and politically correct. But Aronowitz is accurate enough in his most recent article. He does have the last good job in America. "What I enjoy most is the ability to procrastinate and control my own worktime, especially its pace: taking a walk in the middle of the day, reading between the writing, listening to a CD or tape anytime I want, calling up a friend for a chat." Easy to do when you teach just one two-hour course a week, a seminar in -- you guessed it -- Marxism. On Mondays and Wednesdays, Aronowitz doesn't even bother to leave his house. These are days devoted to writing such things as "The Future of the Left" for the Nation. And the pay isn't too shabby, either. Of course, Aronowitz discloses this coyly, identifying himself, naturally, with the working class. "I earn more by some $5,000 a year than an auto worker who puts in a sixty-hour week." The last time I checked, an auto worker can make up to $40 an hour, which factors out to $2,400 a week (not including overtime) or over $120,000 a year. Then again, your average auto worker doesn't attend the assembly line just two hours a week, for only nine months per year. Neither do they, like Aronowitz and his armchair comrades, tilt at the windmills of a capitalist patriarchy from whose teat they feed, trampling on academic standards and abusing the educational aspirations of their young charges. But such contradictions -- a favorite term of failed revolutionaries -- seem to escape Aronowitz. He concludes his memoir with a call to arms, reproving to his comrades for not advancing their struggle militantly enough: "We have not celebrated the idea of thinking as a full-time activity and the importance of producing what the system terms 'useless' knowledge. Most of all, we have not conducted a struggle for universalizing the self-managed time some of us still enjoy." Loafers of the world unite! SALON | Feb. 9, 1998 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:17:52 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Fuller/Public Understanding of Science? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE From Wednesday 25 February to Wednesday 11 March, there will be an internet conference designed to explore the prospects for setting a global agenda for 'the public understanding of science'. This conference, which is part of a larger initiative sponsored by the UK's Economic and Social Research Council, will be moderated by Prof. Steve Fuller of Durham University. The conference will be conducted in English. The conference will be kicked off with short statements from about 15 people who represent a variety of perspectives on the topic worldwide. Additional contributions can be made by anyone who subscribes to the conference listserv, and all contributions will be archived on the World Wide Web for subsequent use by any researchers, including journalists, who will be notified of this conference for possible reportage. Not only do we expect that the key terms 'public', 'understanding' and 'science' will be interpreted differently according to local concerns, but also that conference participants will comment on the relevance of other formulations of the issue to their own concerns. However, to maintain order in the discussion, individual messages will be kept to 500 words (including excerpts from previous messages) and specify in the subject header whether they are making a response or opening a new line of inquiry. However, No limit will be placed on the number of messages that subscribers can post during the conference. And messages may include weblinks for readers to access complete texts of articles relevant to the topic at hand. Assistance will be provided to those who would like to make their materials available in this fashion. Subscribers will have a choice in accessing the conference proceedings: (1) by receiving every message as it is posted; (2) by viewing the conference website as each day's new messages are added. To subscribe to the conference list, send a message to Pus.sociology@durham.ac.uk For further information about the substance of the conference, please contact steve.fuller@durham.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:07:36 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: _Annual Review of Critical Psychology_ - call for papers X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Call for papers. The first issue of the Annual Review of Critical Psychology (ARCP) is scheduled to be published in July 1999. This first themed special issue will be on `Foundations`. What are the necessary prerequisites for critical work in different areas of the discipline? What theoretical and methodological resources do we already have at hand for good critical practice? What are the conceptual and institutional foundations for critical psychology? We are commissioning papers for this special issue, and we are also issuing this call for papers for those who would like to contribute. The deadline for submissions is the end of July 1998. We anticipate that this special issue will include papers on academic, clinical, community, educational and organizational psychology. There will be reviews of connections between critical psychology and the human sciences and book reviews of recent key texts in critical psychology. We also plan to include papers which address the main theme of the special issue for sections on `case studies` (of the work of critical psychology in specific settings), `conditions of practice` (which focus on forces bearing on the work of critical psychologists), `popular psychology` (elaborating the way psychology permeates commonsense) and `critical assessments` (of key concepts in psychology). We are looking for good inclusive referencing for papers so that they can function as an archival resource for critical psychologists. All submissions will be peer-reviewed. We strongly encourage intending contributors to contact us before submitting papers. *For more information on the call for papers for the Annual Review of Critical Psychology Foundations special issue, contact I.A.Parker@Bolton.ac.uk with `ARCP` in the subject header* The second issue of Annual Review of Critical Psychology will be on the theme of `Action Research`. Intending contributors should contact us, and are invited to submit papers for the International Conference on Critical Psychology and Action Research which will take place in Bolton on July 13-16, 1999. *For information on the call for papers and conference registration contact J.Whiting@Bolton.ac.uk with `CPAR Conference` in the subject header* Is this message late? Probably. Rewiring chaos continues here. And they unplugged the email system. Which means that messages may well have been bounced back. If this happened to you, apologies. I may be able to get onto the system again Wed 18 or Thur 19, but it may be Mon 23rd before I can really sort this accumulating disorder out. For today (11th Feb), this is a brief dip into the system before they close things down again. :-( Best wishes. Ian. ********** Ian Parker Professor of Psychology Discourse Unit Psychology Bolton Institute Deane Road Bolton BL3 5AB UK email: I.A.Parker@Bolton.ac.uk http://www.sar.bolton.ac.uk/psych/ tel: (+44) (0)1204 903150 fax: (+44) (0)1204 399074 ************************* __________________________________________ 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, 12 Feb 1998 12:10:52 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Petar_Sqib=EBk?= Organization: Lund University Subject: Re: Aronowitz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I would like to ask Ian Pitchford to explain the relevance of his posting. Piotr Szybek, Lund university ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:25:55 +0000 Reply-to: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Aronowitz To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU R I G H T+O N ! by D A V I D+H O R O W I T Z The loafing class Shiftless, lazy good-for-nothings? Try the richly paid leftist professors securely ensconced in their irrelevant ivory towers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - There's good news and bad news in higher education today. The good news is that a university education can provide a pass, open to all, to the incredible bounties of the information age economy. The bad news is that the price of the pass can be the equivalent of a Ferrari, putting the average student into hock for a good chunk of his or her working life. As the price tag of a degree has gone up, moreover, the quality of the product has gone down. Professors of literature, eschewing the classics, have taken to teaching courses on racism and imperialism, while sociologists discourse on the "social construction" of scientific truths in which they are equally unlettered. The discredited doctrines of Karl Marx abound in the midst of real-world economic forces that are decidedly non-Marxist. There is also a sense of irrelevance in much of academia. Liberal arts programs are in decline, while new technical schools have become an educational growth industry. Tenured professors become increasingly inaccessible to students, while low-paid graduate assistants assume the heavy burden of actually teaching. The current issue of the academic journal Social Text offers a particularly illuminating example of the process. Couched as a personal memoir and written by one of the magazine's editors, "The Last Good Job in America" provides a portrait of today's liberal arts professor as slacker-in-residence. Its author, Stanley Aronowitz, was a labor organizer in the '60s who got his Ph.D. from an Antioch extension program and was recruited to the Graduate Center of City University by a '60s comrade already on the faculty. City University is New York's publicly funded higher education opportunity for children of the working classes. Like other financially overburdened educational institutions, it is "downsizing," replacing full professors like Aronowitz with less qualified and lower paid teaching assistants. Twenty years ago, City University had hired Aronowitz "because they believed I was a labor sociologist." In fact, as he admits in Social Text, this was just a scam: "First and foremost I'm a political intellectual ... [I] don't follow the methodological rules of the discipline." Following his own looser rules, Aronowitz created the "Center for Cultural Studies," a broad umbrella under which he could teach Marxist politics at his leisure. >From such a base, Aronowitz became an academic star, with a six-figure salary and a publishing vita to match. In today's faddish academic climate, it is totally in keeping that Aronowitz's chef d'oeuvre is a book called "Science As Power," which endorses the old Stalinist proposition that science is an instrument of the ruling class. A reviewer for the Times Literary Supplement was moved to remark: "If the author knows much about the content or enterprise of science, he keeps the knowledge well hidden." Connoisseurs of Aronowitz were hardly surprised last year when he and his fellow editors at Social Text published Alan Sokal's hoax essay, designed to demonstrate the magazine would publish pure gobbledygook, so long as it sounded postmodern and politically correct. But Aronowitz is accurate enough in his most recent article. He does have the last good job in America. "What I enjoy most is the ability to procrastinate and control my own worktime, especially its pace: taking a walk in the middle of the day, reading between the writing, listening to a CD or tape anytime I want, calling up a friend for a chat." Easy to do when you teach just one two-hour course a week, a seminar in -- you guessed it -- Marxism. On Mondays and Wednesdays, Aronowitz doesn't even bother to leave his house. These are days devoted to writing such things as "The Future of the Left" for the Nation. And the pay isn't too shabby, either. Of course, Aronowitz discloses this coyly, identifying himself, naturally, with the working class. "I earn more by some $5,000 a year than an auto worker who puts in a sixty-hour week." The last time I checked, an auto worker can make up to $40 an hour, which factors out to $2,400 a week (not including overtime) or over $120,000 a year. Then again, your average auto worker doesn't attend the assembly line just two hours a week, for only nine months per year. Neither do they, like Aronowitz and his armchair comrades, tilt at the windmills of a capitalist patriarchy from whose teat they feed, trampling on academic standards and abusing the educational aspirations of their young charges. But such contradictions -- a favorite term of failed revolutionaries -- seem to escape Aronowitz. He concludes his memoir with a call to arms, reproving to his comrades for not advancing their struggle militantly enough: "We have not celebrated the idea of thinking as a full-time activity and the importance of producing what the system terms 'useless' knowledge. Most of all, we have not conducted a struggle for universalizing the self-managed time some of us still enjoy." Loafers of the world unite! SALON | Feb. 9, 1998 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, 12 Feb 1998 11:29:12 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Philosophy of the Environment MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Philosophy of the Environment Conference 18-19 April 1998 Speakers & Titles: Professor Stephen Clark (University of Liverpool), Evolutionary Ethics and the Environment Michael Jacobs (Fabian Society and L.S.E), Sustainable Development and New Labour: Collision or Convergence? Dr Tim Lenton (University of East Anglia), A Natural Philosophy of Gaia Mary Midgley, Who or What is Gaia? Bryn Jones (former Director: Green Peace), Has the Environmental Movement Failed? And Why? Dr Kate Rawles (University of Lancaster), Environmental Ethics and Animal Welfare: Complementary or Incompatible? Professor Roger Scruton (Birkbeck College London), Absent Generations Sir Crispin Tickell (Green College Oxford), Religion and the Environment Eric Turner (Environmental Resources Management), The Role of Business in Delivering Sustainable Development The Registration Fee is L50 until February 28th 1998. After February 28th 1998 a late registration fee of an additional L10 will be charged. (Cheques should be made payable to "King's College London".) The Registration fee will include the cost of coffee and tea on both days. The Principal of King's College will speak at the Conference Reception to which all registered members of the conference are invited. In addition to the registration fee there will be charges for lunch on April 18th (L13.25), dinner on April 18th (L17.25) and lunch on April 19th (L13.25) for those who wish to eat on campus. For those who do not wish to eat on campus there are many cafes, pubs and restaurants in the immediate vicinity. There is a limited number of rooms available at a cost of L15.75 per night for bed and breakfast at King's College Hall at Camberwell. Because of the limited number of rooms early booking is essential. The Conference is being held by the Centre for Philosophical Studies at King's College London The Conference will take place at the Strand Campus of King's College in the Strand on April 18th and April 19th 1998. Application forms are available from and should be returned to: Dr Tony Dale Centre for Philosophical Studies King's College London Strand London WC2R 2LS Tel: 0171 8732585 e-mail: a.dale@kcl.ac.uk world wide web: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schools/hums/philosophy/Centre.html Dr A.J.Dale Centre for Philosophical Studies King's College Strand London WC2R 2LS Telephone: 0171 8732585 email: a.dale@kcl.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:50:38 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Aronowitz In-Reply-To: <199802121104.GAA05797@betty.globecomm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Piotr Szybek wrote: I would like to ask Ian Pitchford to explain the relevance of his posting. REPLY: Doesn't Stanley Aronowitz have some connection with science as culture? ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:54:45 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Academe Today MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >From "Academe Today" Stanley Aronowitz is the author of "Science As Power" (U. of Minn. Press) as well as a member of the "Social Text" Collective that welcomed Alan Sokal's "Transgressing....." ------------------------------------------- MAGAZINES & JOURNALS A glance at the February 9 edition of "Salon Magazine": Are full professorships the last good jobs in America? In the summer issue of "Social Text," Stanley Aronowitz, a sociology professor at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, wrote that as a full professor, he held "what may be the last good job in America." Dr. Aronowitz, who teaches one course on Marxism, wrote that he most enjoyed "the ability to procrastinate and control my own worktime, especially in its pace: taking a walk in the middle of the day, reading between the writing, listening to a CD or tape anytime I want, calling up a friend for a chat." That freedom -- not a capitalist system that makes everyone put their "noses to the grindstone," as Dr. Aronowitz says -- may be why the tenure system is endangered," writes David Horowitz, a contributing writer for "Salon." In "The Loafing Class," Mr. Horowitz writes that Dr. Aronowitz and other "richly paid" leftist professors are irrelevant in academe. Mr. Horowitz also attacks Dr. Aronowitz's attempt to identify himself with the working class by noting that the professor makes "more by some $5,000 a year than an auto worker who puts in a sixty-hour week." But unlike Dr. Aronowitz, Mr. Horowitz writes, auto workers don't "tilt at the windmills of a capitalist patriarchy from whose teat they feed, trampling on academic standards and abusing the educational aspirations of their young charges." (The "Salon" article may be found on the magazine's World-Wide Web site, at http://www.salonmagazine.com/col/horo/1998/02/nc_09horo2.html. The "Social Text" article may be ordered on the journal's Web site, at http://www.nyu.edu/pubs/socialtext. ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:49:46 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Aronowitz - disowned but located In-Reply-To: <887284487.1526326.0@maelstrom.stjohns.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" see below: ANSWER >Piotr Szybek wrote: > >I would like to ask Ian Pitchford to explain the relevance of his >posting. > >REPLY: Doesn't Stanley Aronowitz have some connection with science >as culture? ANSWER: No, he does not. However, your arrow is pointing to a real target of sorts, since he is an editor of the journal, _Social Text_, which publisher the Sokal spoof of social constructivism which caused a great stir and lampooned cultural studies, a field in which Aronowitz operates. (I missed getting pooh on me by a hair: I was asked to contribute to that special issue but 'forgot' to reply.) Best, Bob Young > >******************************************************************************* >* > Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com > Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology > Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies > University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent > SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. > Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 >******************************************************************************* >* > Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies > http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ > Online Dictionary of Mental Health > http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html > Mental Health Metasearch > http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html > InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet > http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html >******************************************************************************* >* __________________________________________ 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, 12 Feb 1998 17:19:53 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Aronowitz - disowned but located In-Reply-To: <199802121652.LAA06328@betty.globecomm.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear Bob, re Aronowitz and science as culture you wrote: ANSWER: No, he does not. REPLY: I meant science as culture as a concept, not the journal. I know that Aronowitz isn't connected with your journal as I checked through every edition last night! Best wishes Ian ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:57:45 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Human Science Research Conference MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT From: "David R. Harrington, Ph.D." Greetings: The 17th International Human Science Research Conference, a multidisciplinary gathering for discussing and reporting qualitative research, will be meeting in Sitka, Alaska, June 10-14. The conference is supported in part by the Alaska Humanities Forum. For information, go to http://www.sj-alaska.edu/ihsr-ind.htm. Announcements and updates will be found there. Registration forms will be available on the website shortly. (We also respond to snail mail, e-mail, or fax inquiries.) Although the deadline for abstract submission is stated to be February 16th, it can be extended if you submit a statement of intent to submit an abstract. David Harrington Conference Director ============================================================ ihsrc98@sj-alaska.edu Seventeenth International Human Science Research Conference June 10 - 14, 1998 Sheldon Jackson College 801 Lincoln Street Sitka, Alaska 99835 (907)747-5226 Voice or FAX ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:46:13 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Cartmill in "Discover" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII The new issue of "Discover" (March 1998) has a fascinating (and to me quite gratifying) piece by physical anthropologist Matt Cartmill demolishing, with equal fervor, the fundamentalist creationism of the Right and the postmodern relativism of the ostensible Left. Our gracious host, R.M. Young is quoted in the piece--but not, alas, favorably. N. Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:32:30 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: New website: Society for the Social History of Medicine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The website of the Society for the Social History of Medicine is now available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ahzwww/homesshm.htm Since its inaugural meeting in 1970, the Society for the Social History of Medicine (SSHM) has pioneered inter-disciplinary approaches to the history of health, welfare, medical science and practice. Its membership consists of those interested in a variety of disciplines, including history, public health, demography, anthropology, sociology, social administration and health economics. The Society has an active Programmes Committee which organises at least two conferences per year. It publishes *Social History of Medicine* (Oxford University Press, 1988-) and the SSHM *Gazette*, an accompanying newsletter reporting on conferences and other relevant news. In 1987, following a number of Society-sponsored publications, SSHM also launched a series of edited volumes, currently published by Routledge under the title 'Studies in the Social History of Medicine'. Though primarily based in the United Kingdom, the Society has always had a thriving international membership, and Social History of Medicine has continued to expand its international coverage, reflecting the growing number of subscribers outside the UK. Details of membership and subscriptions, publications, past and forthcoming conferences, Executive Committee membershp and other news can all be found at the Society's website. __________________________________________ 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: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:19:38 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Valdusek@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Aronowitz X-cc: CHammer@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Besides the query as to relevance, I saw no response to the piece about cultural studies of science figure Stanley Aronowitz by David Horowitz. Since this is a world-wide list some might not be familiar with David Horowitz. Horowitz was former New Leftist who shifted allegiance to the more rabid fringes of rightist propaganda. He and his then co-author Collier, for instance, have described the left as an AIDS virus in society which needs to be eliminated. Howowitz and Collier switched from being fans of father-figure Mao and his guerrilas to fans of father-figure Reagan and the Afghan guerrilas. Horowitz now mainly produces his polemics about the media, such as a denunciation he wrote of Oliver Stone's films, which made it sound like Stone's new leftist themes are typical of Hollywood productions. He also publishes a magazine Heterodoxy, which rabidly denounces PC (political correctness) with anecdotes more exaggerated and denunciations more vituperative (if that be possible) than the mainstream to conservative press. Its ads say that if PC makes you puke subscribe to Heterodoxy. One number I saw had letters defending the Tailhook conference sexual harrassment of female military personnel saying that if this behavior were stopped cat-based military names (such as Flying Tigers) would have to be changed to pussy-cat, and an article ridiculing disability activists. Horowitz's institute also produces research such as a piece by an ex- Trotskyist, now reformed, intimating that Freudian psychoanalysis was tied to Soviet espionage. This was based on claim that one of the early circle of psychoanalysts, a businessman funder, was tied to Soviet spying. The case was embarrassingly demolished by Theodor Draper (now hardly a defender of Communism), who showed that the links forged depended on confusing two people who happened to have the same name. Horowitz focuses on Aronowitz's alleged laziness. Aronowitz has managed to write or edit about a dozen books as well as serve on editorial boards of journals, so he must spend some time away from walking and listening to CDs to write. His earlier sociology of labor books are pretty good, despite Aronowitz's own imprudent self-deprecation. Horowitz himself, like many other far right USA writers such as Tom Sowell and Sykes of "Profscam" who make a career denouncing the laziness of the professoriate and complain how little time they spend teaching, needs spend no time teaching, and is in an instituted which has been financed by funders such as Scaife, whose millions have also funded several of the law foundations supporting Kenneth Starr as well as the position held for Starr at Pepperdine college after retirement as independent counsel, and journalists fanning the flames of the various Clinton scandals, including claims that Vince Foster and Ron Brown assassinated (see the article and diagram in the latest Nation magazine) Horowitz himself, according to the Nation recently contributed another piece to Salon magazine, where the Aronowitz piece appeared, which repeated Bush administration speculation that Clinton's trip to Moscow as a Rhodes scholar was for potentially traitorous purposes. To say this about Horowitz is not to defend the perfection of Aronowitz's writings about science. His own article in ill-fated Sokal-hoaxed Social Text and its version reprinted in the book Science Wars has itself half a dozen errors, ranging from pure errors of fact about the history of the two early versions of quantum mechanics to misleadingly phrased claims which suggest that Kuhn was a follower of Peirce to mispellings of scientist Albert Michelson's, name and mis-citations of book titles, such as those by Manuel De Landa and Gary Werskey. Nevertheless the posting of the Horowitz piece shows that upset over anti-realism or sloppiness in cultural studies, postmodernism, etc., can lead one into alliances with forces even more disreputable, such as supporters of highly sexist Afghan anti-communist forces and imtemperate right wing polemicists. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 14:56:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Aronowitz In-Reply-To: <199802151819.NAA27884@u1.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 Valdusek@AOL.COM wrote: > Besides the query as to relevance, I saw no response to the piece about > cultural studies of science figure Stanley Aronowitz by David Horowitz. ................ I would have to agree that David Horowitz, in his curent incarnation, is one of the more odious characters on the current political scene. Still, as the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Taken in themselves, Horowitz's observations about Aronowitz and, by extension, a large class of opportunistic and over-rated academics, make a certain amount of sense. Obviously, I speak from the perspective of someone who sees Aronowitz (to put it in the kindliest manner possible) as someone who puts far more effort into writing and speaking than into actual thought. He obviously has quite a lot of company. Some days, academia seems to be little more than a playground for the breed. The sadder fact is that most of this Bunthornean status-grabbing is perpetrated by people who ostentatiously proclaim their "leftism" and who cleverly use the moral leverage thus afforded to climb the greasy pole all the more swiftly. That this doesn't do much to help the average working stiff is all too obvious. The greatest harm likely to be done by Horowitz is that people will be prompted to peek into "Social Text" to see what Aronowitz actually wrote. One ought not be surprised if one subsequently hears them clamoring for professors (especially "distinguished" professors with light teaching loads) to be sold for scrap. I have some personal connections to CUNY from which I learn that quite a few people there are deeply depressed by the damage Aronowitz (NOT Horowitz) has done to the reputation of the place. Granted that all of Dusek's ad hominem remarks about Horowitz are true--and then some. Nonetheless some of the weaknesses and absurdities he imputes to the left are real weaknessses and absurdities. His memoir of the days when he was an associate and supporter of the SF-area Black Panthers is worth a read, and shouldn't be dismissed offhand as a fabrication. To the best of my knowledge, his most damning accusations seem to be true; if so, the "left" has a lot to ponder about its own susceptibility to slogans and gratifying fantasies. But I have wandered far from the topic of Aronowitz--who is merely silly, and not much of a danger to anything except his admirers. Norm Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 19:36:29 +0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Guo Rong Subject: remove In-Reply-To: <199802151737.BAA02327@sophia.pacific.net.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 05:32 PM 2/15/98 +0000, you wrote: >The website of the Society for the Social History of Medicine is now >available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ahzwww/homesshm.htm > >Since its inaugural meeting in 1970, the Society for the Social >History of Medicine (SSHM) has pioneered inter-disciplinary >approaches to the history of health, welfare, medical science and >practice. Its membership consists of those interested in a variety >of disciplines, including history, public health, demography, >anthropology, sociology, social administration and health economics. >The Society has an active Programmes Committee which organises at >least two conferences per year. It publishes *Social History of >Medicine* (Oxford University Press, 1988-) and the SSHM *Gazette*, an >accompanying newsletter reporting on conferences and other relevant >news. In 1987, following a number of Society-sponsored publications, >SSHM also launched a series of edited volumes, currently published by >Routledge under the title 'Studies in the Social History of >Medicine'. Though primarily based in the United Kingdom, the Society >has always had a thriving international membership, and Social >History of Medicine has continued to expand its international >coverage, reflecting the growing number of subscribers outside the UK. > >Details of membership and subscriptions, publications, past and >forthcoming conferences, Executive Committee membershp and other news >can all be found at the Society's website. > >__________________________________________ >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: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:09:30 -0800 Reply-To: wderzko@pathcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Walter Derzko Subject: Haunted Houses, UFO's, mystical experiences explained X-To: List -Creativity X-cc: List Cognet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For your information Walter Derzko Brain Space (formerly the Idea Lab at the Design Exchange) Toronto wderzko@pathcom.com ======================================= HOT SHEET FOR TUESDAY FEBRUARY 17, 1998 CBC Radio IDEAS program: 740 AM in Toronto Tonight on Ideas...the conclusion of Haunted House, Haunted Mind. In 1993 broadcaster Don Hill saw - and felt - a chilling apparition in the basement of his house. A four-year odyssey to discover the truth behind this ghostly encounter turned up some startling new science which suggests that weak electromagnetic fields, naturally occurring in the environment, can stimulate mystical experiences: UFOs, ghostly entities and poltergeist phenomena. Find out more in the conclusion of Haunted House, Haunted Mind, tonight on Ideas at 9:05 (9:35 NT) on CBC Radio One. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:10:27 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: "Pain and Suffering in History" symposium at UCLA 13-14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT Pain and Suffering in History: Narratives of Science, Medicine, and Culture Los Angeles, California, USA 13-14 March 1998 Announcement and program may also be found at http://bri.medsch.ucla.edu/archives/an4-98.htm The UCLA History of Pain Project will host an interdisciplinary symposium on the history of pain in medicine and society, to mark the official opening of the John C. Liebeskind History of Pain Collection. This symposium will be the first occasion on which scholars from the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences meet to explore this complex and fascinating topic. Special features will include a History of Pain Exhibit mounted by the UCLA Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library and a reception for all participants on Saturday evening. The Symposium is jointly sponsored by the Department of Psychology, the Center for Cultural Studies of Science, Technology, and Medicine, the Biomedical Library, the University of California Humanities Research Institute, and the Fetzer Institute. Pain is a universal human experience, known to every time and every culture; but it has not always had the same character. Until the nineteenth century, pain-for Europeans and Americans-was a religious and philosophical problem, an essential part of human life with which individuals dealt by drawing on mental discipline and spiritual belief, as well as on physical fortitude. Physicians treated pain, but also used its "vital force" as a diagnositc and therapeutic aid. Physiologists began to explore the neuroanatomy of pain in the 1800s, but it was not until the years after World War II that pain became the focus of an organized scientific and medical field. Despite many recent advances in pain research and management, traditional social and cultural ideas persist and continue to influence the individual experience of pain There is no charge for symposium attendance or for the reception, but reservations are required to ensure sufficient seating. There is a $16 charge for those wishing to have lunch at the UCLA Faculty Center on Friday. Attendees may also order a softcover book of the conference papers at a cost of $25 each.. Questions? Please contact: Katharine Donahue, M.L.S. History and Special Collections Division Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library UCLA (310) 825-6940 kdonahue@library.ucla.edu Marcia Meldrum, Ph.D. Department of History UCLA (310) 825-3888 meldrum@history.ucla.edu ___________________________________________________ Russell A. Johnson rjohnson@library.ucla.edu Archivist (310) 825-3191 or 206-2753 Neuroscience History Archives Brain Research Institute, UCLA Box 951761 Los Angeles CA 90095-1761 Special Collections Cataloger (310) 825-6940 Louise M. Darling Biomedical Library, UCLA Box 951798 Los Angeles CA 90095-1798 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 20:12:42 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Science Ombudsman Appointed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT \Nature, "German Ombudsman to Watch Out for Fraud," Nature 5 February 1998, p. 526.\ [MUNICH] The University of Konstanz last week became the first university inGermany to appoint an ombudsman for science. The move is in line with the recommendations of a committee of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the German science council, set up last year ti suggest ways of encouraging good scientific practice after a serious case of alleged scientific fraud (see Nature 390, 652; 1997) Rudolph Klein, a 62-year-old professor of physics, has been appointed to the position for two years. According to the university, his role will primarily be one of 'confidant' for young scientists uncertain how to act over suspected scientific misconduct in their laboratories. ++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:42:00 +0200 Reply-To: deukalion@platon.ee.duth.gr Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Resent-From: "M.A.B." Comments: Originally-From: Lida Anestidou From: "M.A.B." Organization: Democritus University of Thrace Subject: I need some help Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7 Mime-Version: 1.0 Does anybody know of an email address or URL, even, for the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care? Aside from their address, I am also trying to find their bulletin, I need a specific article by J. Vollmann. Anybody got any clues? Thank you all, Lida -- Lida Anestidou, DVM,MS UT-Medical School at Houston Dept. of Integrative Biology, MSB 4.004 6431 Fannin Houston, Tx 77030 anestido@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:12:39 +0000 Reply-To: richard.hull@umist.ac.uk Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Richard Hull Organization: ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition, Manchester Subject: One year Research Post at CRIC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------FE053768E09B613EC4F3756E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------FE053768E09B613EC4F3756E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apologies for cross-posting. A new one-year Research post is available at CRIC. It is on "The Role of the Web in Social Science: Resourcing Good Practice and User Engagement". You can find full details at: http://www.grapevine.bris.ac.uk/jobs/ It is also posted in The Economist - Feb.14-20 page 121. You need to contact the University of Manchester Personal Office for application forms (see job posting on Web or in The Economist for details) - i.e. NOT from CRIC. <<>> Regards, Richard -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Richard Hull CRIC ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation & Competition Tom Lupton Suite, University of Manchester Precinct Centre Manchester M13 9QH, UK Tel: +44 (0)161 275 7364 email: richard.hull@umist.ac.uk http://les.man.ac.uk/cric/ ############################### --------------FE053768E09B613EC4F3756E Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Richard Hull Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf" begin: vcard fn: Richard Hull n: Hull;Richard org: ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition adr: Tom Lupton Suite;;University Precinct Centre, Oxford Road;Manchester;;M13 9QH;UK email;internet: richard.hull@umist.ac.uk title: Research Fellow tel;work: +44 (0)161 275 7364 tel;fax: +44 (0)161 275 7361 x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard --------------FE053768E09B613EC4F3756E-- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 21:44:52 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: AZT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. "Placebo Use Is Suspended in Overseas AIDS Trials," New York Times, (19 February 1998), p. A16.\ Saying they have finally found a cheap way for developing nations to use the drug AZT to reduce mother-to-infant transmission of the AIDS virus, Government health officials announced yesterday that they were suspending the use of dummy pills in a series of controversial overseas experiments on pregnant women. The announcement, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention left people on both sides of the debate elated, but for different reasons. Defenders of the Government-financed studies said the findings -- that $80 worth of AZT given during the last four weeks of pregnancy could cut transmission of the virus in half -- will have a major impact on many developing nations, which have been devastated by AIDS. Critics, who had called the use of the placebo unethical, pronounced themselves vindicated because the women in the experiments will now get AZT instead of dummy pills. "I'm delighted," said Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, who in an editorial last year likened the studies to the infamous Tuskegee experiments, in which treatment for syphilis was withheld from poor black men. "Better late than never." The AIDS studies, which have involved 12,211 women in seven countries, were based on one of the most impressive discoveries of the epidemic: the finding, four years ago, that use of AZT during pregnancy could cut the risk of mother-to-infant transmission of H.I.V., the AIDS virus, by two-thirds. Today, as a result of that discovery, H.I.V.-infected women in the United States are routinely given AZT during the last 12 weeks of pregnancy. They also receive intravenous infusions of the drug during delivery, and their babies take the medicine for six weeks after being born. This is commonly called the "076 regimen," after the number assigned to the Federal study that proved it effective. But the 076 regimen is expensive -- $800 a patient, including the infusions and drugs for the babies -- and too complicated for use in developing countries, where access to medical care is poor. Yet every day, an estimated 1,600 H.I.V.-infected babies. are born worldwide, most of them in developing nations. So when the 076 results were published, officials at the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., and the disease control centers in Atlanta set out to find a way to translate the results to those countries. They settled on experiments in which half the women were given a short course of AZT and half were given dummy pills. The studies were controversial even among the Government's own researchers; most recently, the debate cast a shadow over the confirmation of Dr. David Satcher, the new Surgeon General who previously headed the centers. Now, the first of those studies, conducted on 393 women in Thailand, is complete. The study found that women who were given AZT during the last four weeks during pregnancy, as well as during labor and .delivery, had half the risk of giving birth to an H.I.V.-positive baby as those who received the placebo. "We are very pleased," said Dr Phillip Nieburg, a centers official involved with the experiments. "The controversy was unfortunate, but we feel that the placebo-controlled trial that we did was very necessary." Others echoed Dr. Nieburg's sentiments. "It's just wonderful news," said Mark Harrington, policy director for the Treatment Action Group, an advocacy organization. " If we can get this incredible health benefit for 80 bucks a pop, then we can really make a difference around the world." How much difference the study will make, however, remains to be seen. While $80 may sound inexpensive, it is eight times what most developing nations spend per capita on health care each year. Mr. Harrington called on the manufacturer of AZT, Glaxo-Wellcome to provide the drug to developing nations at a steeply discounted price. And Dr. Joseph Saba, who heads the international working group that coordinated the experiments, said he was trying to "set up plans on how we move on and who does what." But the advocacy group Public Citizen, long a critic of the project, said researchers should have known the answer to the most pressing question -- whether a short course of AZT would work -- all along. Dr. Sidney Wolfe, who directs Public Citizen's Health Research Group, obtained data on a subset of patients from the original 076 trial. Dr. Wolfe said that among those who received AZT for an average of seven weeks, the risk of transmission was cut by two-thirds. Government officials said those data were unreliable, but Dr. Wolfe maintained that the figures should have been taken into account. "This is inexcusable, sloppy research," he said. "They have wasted a large number of lives and a huge amount of money." ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 02:24:19 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God The mechanical paradigm of modern science was based upon certain archetypes. These archetypes were interrelated. For example reductionism, atomism, determinism, dualism, absolutism, uniformity, linearity, simplicity, hierarchy, order, certainty, rationality, objectivity-they are all logically related. They all are derived from the idea of the eternal, the changeless-although this may not be apparent at first. In philosophical terms, they are all species of the category of Being. In mythological or religious terms we can say that they are derived from the category of Heaven. This paradigm was so successful that it soon became the world view for all of society, spreading to all domains, and every compartment of culture. This paradigm, and these archetypes, though fast fading are still with us. In science as well as society as a whole we have moved into an organic paradigm-one of living, dynamic, interactive systems. The archetypes of this paradigm are likewise logically related. Wholism has replaced reductionism, indeterminism instead of determinism, complexity instead of simplicity, uncertainty instead of certainty, chaos instead of order, relativism instead of absolutism, multiple levels instead of uniformity, cycles instead of lines, lateral connections over hierarchy, and a neutral monism instead of a hierarchical dualism. The archetypes of the organic paradigm are based, and derived from, the philosophical category of becoming. In mythological or, religious, terms they are children of earth-hence the rise in neo-paganism and gaia. The interesting thing is that both paradigms ultimately are traceable back to ideas about God-ideas about "Ultimate Reality". Mythic-religious systems can be divided into solar and lunar. One defining trait of the solar creator is the absolute separation of the deity from the creation, and all created forms. This deity is the supreme Lord of creation, sovereign, self-contained, absolute, and eternal. In a lunar mythic system, creator and creation are One. The created world was considered to be the very body of the creator, as with gaia and many native american and eastern religions. The boundaries between a lunar "creator" and the creation are not so distinct. Likewise, the above mentioned archetypes of the organic paradigm are not so distinct. As mentioned, oneness, or uniformity, was an archeytpe of the mechanistic paradigm, as was reductionism. But it's not exactly correct to assign the opposite archetype to the organic\systems paradigm. The moon appears in the day and night. It's more accurate to say that the archetypes of the organic paradigm form a continuum between the one and the many, reductionism and wholism, subject and object, mind and matter, the linear and the cyclical, order and chaos etc.-as the moon goes through a continuum between a full and a new moon, between a full face and nothing, but never represents these two extreme poles as an absolute dichotomy, as does the sun which absolutely divides day from night. Using the metaphors of the sun and the moon may seem absurd at first. But remember how modern science congealed around the notion of a cosmic clock. Just as every piece of a clock is interrelated, so are the archetypes of the mechanical paradigm, and the definition and function of each piece is clearly understood. We know that the "parts" of living systems are also interrelated. But with life their is mystery, things are not so reducible. For this reason the paradigm of living systems is harder to define, and understand. For negation, paradox, and uncertainty are intrinsic to organisms, or ecosystems, that live and die. It's hard to fit the cycles of life and death into a paradigm. And in a real way the organic\systems paradigm is at its heart NON-PARADIGMIC, as well as non-reductionistic, and therefore defies simple classification, or definition. But I believe this very characteristic defines it-at least partially. For we must accept "partiality", and this limit to our understanding as an aspect of this new paradigm. I'd love to hear your thoughts Jon Bennett ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:13:48 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 02:24 AM 2/21/98 -0500, you wrote: > I'd love to hear your thoughts I liked your contribution very much - it has much truth in it without any fundamentalistic atheist or religious bias. I appreciate that. Especially your distinction between solar and lunar is enlightening (aren't we still primitive beings in our ways of thinking still dependent upon such obvious cosmic experiences?). To pick up that metaphor - I believe in God as known from the bible and the revelation of Jesus Christ when He was among us, and in Him as the creator of everything known and unknown, of the whole universe including our mental abilities and thinking, I think you would say a "solar" religion. Like the sun enlightens the moon and regulates its appearances God sets the laws that make the creation function, including (largely unknown) normative laws we can tresspas to our own disadvantage and/or disaster (recent concerns about destruction of our econiche by our economy stemming from the industrial times make this clear as do wars that offend the command of "loving our neighbour like ourselves"). So when I abstract from my knowledge of God I adhere a "lunar" religion. I'd like to have your comments on this. Kind regards, Arie PS. Did you get/publish your ideas from some specific publication/book? ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 12:06:01 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Antonio Rossin Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God X-cc: PAR-announce-L@cornell.edu, Kerry Miller , Andy Blum , Enok Kippersund , "Lawrence A. Parker" , Cameron Neil , Joseph Cautilli Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > The mechanical paradigm of modern science was based upon certain > archetypes. These archetypes were interrelated. (snip) > > We know that the "parts" of living systems are also interrelated. But > with life their is mystery, things are not so reducible. For this > reason the paradigm of living systems is harder to define, and > understand. For negation, paradox, and uncertainty are intrinsic to > organisms, or ecosystems, that live and die. It's hard to fit the > cycles of life and death into a paradigm. And in a real way the > organic\systems paradigm is at its heart NON-PARADIGMIC, as well as > non-reductionistic, and therefore defies simple classification, or > definition. But I believe this very characteristic defines it-at least > partially. For we must accept "partiality", and this limit to our > understanding as an aspect of this new paradigm. > > I'd love to hear your thoughts > Jon Bennett Dear MR JON, Why, so many paradigms for one's understanding? "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", once Occam said (and let me humbly subscribe). And let me add: maybe it is fuzzy, speaking of *knowing it*, *understanding that*, and so on -- provided that the would-be knower-understander can have one only knowledge, that is her own *Self-knowledge* (Descartes, here?) Imo, now the question is whether one can deal with one's own self-knowledge or not. You know, such "knowledge" requests open-mindedness, Critical Thinking, freedom of speech and _most_of_all_ Freedom of Thought. What is the average standard re this last item now? Should we speach of Science-as-Culture, for instance, as how it can condition others' self-consciousness, ie, self-knowledge -- as Science and Culture usually do? However, quoting nearer to us, Albert said: "A solution is never found by the same level of thought as the problem was conceived". Let's admit that the conceived problem is "Knowledge", now. Also its solution is "Knowledge": but now the levels are two... Let me explain. No person comes into the world having knowledge of every thing. She has to be taught, hasnt she? Well, now ve are dealing with two levels for *one same* knowledge: the teaching level and the learning level. But, will *that* be the same knowledge for both? Lt's admit, Jon, it should be the same - provided only that the teacher was very skilled and the learner was very open-minded. But this is not so spread a communication context, among living beings ;-) most of all, we know well that a teacher-learner relationship is *always conditioning to the latter* -- especially if the latter was trained to be conditioned even before, say, since her parent-child first relationships. Now the main question becomes: how could we perform the teacher-learner relationship, as well as the parent-chil relationship, as well as whatever else relationship of Knowledge communication-understanding, but by avoiding that the relationship in which Knowledge is delivered may turn itself into conditioning *over* the child-learner? So as to allow the latter to obtain actually *Self-conscious* knowledge? Actually, wouldnt it be self-conscious, what else kind of knowledge are we speaking of? Let me suggest, the bare minimum requisite to allow the target to keep self-conscious is giving her a communication-teaching context where she can be free to choose. Therefore, the teaching level for Knowledge must contain "knowledge" plus a "X" more. This way, the learner will be enabled to choose freely between "knowledge" and a the "X", like thesis and antithesis. After that, the resulting Knowledge will be self-conscious synthesis... (Hegel, so far?) Therefore, and a bit paradoxically, who wants to speak knowledge (say, in a teacher-learner relationship, not just within today's advertising or politics ;-)), has not to worry about what its exact paradigms to be. Recognizing them is not the teacher's business. That is the learner's. Imo, the teacher's main business is providing the learner with a dialectic context, wherefrom the latter is able to withdraw *by herself* her self-conscious knowledge. Finally, Jon and all of you, the dialectic communication context is the only possible scientific paradigm for KNOWLEDGE. Isn't it? Let me conclude, the parent/child relationships since the Zero year of the latter and before the school age are very influential, in training (or conditioning) the latter to apply either to self-consciousness or to "leadership-mediated" consciousness, for her future beliewing- behaving procedures. In my short way, I sought for a dialectic context to nurtur my own children in my family; and in society, I am now offering my Dialectic Education theory (substantially, the above) as a new educative project, addressing all the families I'm able to reach through the web... just my two cents, forward please to them. antonio The Dial Ed web-site is at: ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 09:03:56 -0600 Reply-To: tpabeles@hamline.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: tom abeles Organization: sagacity Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MR JON J BENNETT wrote, in a small part: > > The mechanical paradigm of modern science was based upon certain > archetypes. .... > This paradigm was so successful that it soon became the world view ... > > In science as well as society as a whole we have moved into an organic > paradigm-one of living, dynamic, interactive systems. > > The archetypes of this paradigm are likewise logically related. ------------------------------------------ Jon has summarized and contrasted these ideas very well for the "state space". What I am particularly interested in is whether there is a comparable shift with rgards to time states such as that prposed by Huw Price in Times Arrow and others. Is time as asymmetrical as the past paradigms seem to indicate? Or does the new, organic, dynamic model have more to say on this dimension? tom abeles ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 10:42:33 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God X-To: tpabeles@hamline.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit tom abeles wrote: > > MR JON J BENNETT wrote, in a small part: > > > > The mechanical paradigm of modern science was based upon certain > > archetypes. .... > > This paradigm was so successful that it soon became the world view ... > > > > In science as well as society as a whole we have moved into an organic > > paradigm-one of living, dynamic, interactive systems. > > > > The archetypes of this paradigm are likewise logically related. I am sure there are *many* paradigms, but, in this context of world views that have world-historical import for the Global society, isn't there a *third* paradigm which may be the next step we need to take even though it's at least as old as Kant, if not Heraclitus: The *self-reflective* paradigm, which sees *all that which is* (including all mechanical and organic systems...) as particular contents *in* "the conversation we are". Heraclitus said that the extent of the Logos is so great that we will never reach its boundaries, and he urged us to care for the Logos at out peril if we do not do so. Kant showed us how Galilean science, with all its data and theories, including mechanical and organic systems... is dependent on the questions we ask. Habermas has his "discourse ethics" based on a search for the pragmatic a priori of social life.... [add your own favorites, e.g., Bateson, Hegel, Pierce...] Can someboy answer my continuing question why this paradigm has not won the day, at least not yet, and, I fear, it likely never will, leading to what thinkers from Bateson to Heidegger and others speculate may "end" in the end of being-human, even if not in the end of human beings (whatever that might mean in that case). "The earth has become small and on it hops the last man who makes everything small...", as Nietzsche somewhat generously said (he seems to have thought things were better in past...), but there must be more to it than that. Where is the national effort to find the roots of naive empiricism, organicism, etc., like we are looking for the roots of cancer and AIDS? > ------------------------------------------ > > Jon has summarized and contrasted these ideas very well for the "state > space". What I am particularly interested in is whether there is a > comparable shift with rgards to time states such as that prposed by Huw > Price in Times Arrow and others. Is time as asymmetrical as the past > paradigms seem to indicate? Or does the new, organic, dynamic model have > more to say on this dimension? So long as we cannot raise [all!] the dead and not just stop but reverse aging, any "symmetries" which time may possess don't seem to me to be very significant outside the conversations of physicists (which certainly are *important* parts of the Lifeworld! but do not *subsume* it as a lump of coal would be subsumed in their physical universe...).... "Why?".... \brad mccormick -- 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: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 08:21:38 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Jon Bennett wrote: The mechanical paradigm of modern science was based upon certain archetypes. These archetypes were interrelated. For example reductionism, atomism, determinism, dualism, absolutism, uniformity, linearity, simplicity, hierarchy, order, certainty, rationality, objectivity-they are all logically related. ======== REPLY: The bulk of this characterization is wrong, and reeks of the New Ageist postmodern claptrap that underlies much of the anti-science movement. Science seeks reductive explanation, but is not reductionist. If it were there would only be one science: physics. Atomistic expectations may pervade our common-sense explanations of the world, but could hardly sustain modern scientific exploration. Science is not dualistic: all scientists work on the assumption (in practice) that there is one physical reality which can be modelled on different levels of explanation. For example, I am interested in the evolution of the mind, but do not consider the mind to be ontologically distinct from the brain, any more than I consider H2O to be something other than water. And how could science ever be absolutist, since we assume all knowledge to be provisional, and all of our models to be approximations of the natural world?. As for uniformity, I would think that this can be perceived in modern science only at a delusional level of abstraction. Similarly, the linearity of science is something that can be perceived only by those who want to see it. For example, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation F=Gm1m2/r2 is a non-linear equation, and it was work in this tradition, Henri Poincare's three-body problem, that gave rise to the study of chaos theory. Even the oscillations of a pendulum are not uniform and deterministic. As far as I can see the only relationship between the terms you mention is that they form the backbone of the beliefs about science of those who don't know any science. Regards Ian ******************************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 ******************************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/index.html Mental Health Metasearch http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/metasearch.html InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 05:29:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: In defense of archetypes I made this comment in a recent posting: >The mechanical paradigm of modern science was based upon certain archetypes. These archetypes were interrelated. For example reductionism, atomism, determinism, dualism, absolutism, uniformity, linearity, simplicity, hierarchy, order, certainty, rationality, objectivity-they are >all logically related. ======== To which Ian Pitchford commented: REPLY: The bulk of this characterization is wrong, and reeks of the New Ageist postmodern claptrap that underlies much of the anti-science movement. Science seeks reductive explanation, but is not reductionist. If it were there would only be one science: physics. Atomistic expectations may pervade our common-sense explanations of the world, but could hardly sustain modern scientific exploration. Science is not dualistic: all scientists work on the assumption (in practice) that there is one physical reality which can be modelled on different levels of explanation. For example, I am interested in the evolution of the mind, but do not consider the mind to be ontologically distinct from the brain, any more than I consider H2O to be something other than water. And how could science ever be absolutist, since we assume all knowledge to be provisional, and all of our models to be approximations of the natural world?. As for uniformity, I would think that this can be perceived in modern science only at a delusional level of abstraction. Similarly, the linearity of science is something that can be perceived only by those who want to see it. For example, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation F=Gm1m2/r2 is a non-linear equation, and it was work in this tradition, Henri Poincare's three-body problem, that gave rise to the study of chaos theory. Even the oscillations of a pendulum are not uniform and deterministic. As far as I can see the only relationship between the terms you mention is that they form the backbone of the beliefs about science of those who don't know any science. Regards Ian My Reply: Do we have a confusion of terms? By modern I mean the 17th century to about mid 20th cent. My point is precisely that science no longer sees the world as linear, simple, atomistic, uniform, or absolute. If you think that science has not been entrenched in these ideas for the past 3 centuries, you are mistaken. Space, time, causality, motion, the laws of nature-were believed to have an absolute nature, and in describing them Newton even compares them to the absolute nature of God. That the world had an essentially corpuscular nature was one of the dominant ideas of the 17th century-and it certainly had great influence for at least 2 centuries, and in some ways is still with us. As for reductionism I'm not merely referring to the reducing of all science to physics, but a much broader implementation of this idea. And science is misled when it seeks, only reductive explanation. Although this may me necessary, and fruitful, it ultimately limits the understanding of the world-even from a strictly scientific perspective*, which is not the only one. *This is an idea I'd like to develop when time allows. As for the Universal law of gravitation, its worth remembering that gravity was assumed to have its effect in straight lines, and only applied to two bodies at a time-as applied to say understanding the stability of the solar system. Regarding your comments on a pendulum, and its non-uniform, non-deterministic motions, once again I think you miss my point. My point is that certain ages ignore some aspects of the world in order to SEE others. Much as our visual system works wonderfully, but leaves us with a blind spot. The very processes that give sight, produce a blind spot-the vision and the blindness are inseparable. Classical science ignored the chaotic aspects of reality, and did look for uniform, deterministic relations. This is why we are only now beginning to appreciate the significance of Poincare-in THIS AGE. And science had to concentrate on the simple, the orderly, in its early stages. Classical science was born out of a wedding between two ontological levels, and one of these levels was considered superior. That is why in thought experiments Galileo conceive a perfectly smooth surface, where wheels turned with no friction, or resistance. It was in comparing this "abstract", or mental, motion- which was indeed uniform, absolute, linear-to motion in the real world, that a profound understanding of the motion of the "real" world was accomplished. And it could have been accomplished in no other way-according to EInstein, not me. Modern science would never have happened without this duality, and without giving primacy to the "mental" level, with its linear, absolute, and uniform motions and entities. I don't see how anyone could deny that the atoms, the laws, the space, the time of classical science were seen as absolute, immutable, and indivisible. In explaining the law of inertia it is true that Newton wedded these two levels-put them on the same ontological level. That is, he viewed motion as a species of rest, or becoming as a species of being. This relationship was repeated throughout the development of modern science, and is a clear mimicking of the solar Creator/creation relationship I mentioned in my last posting. And as mentioned, Newton was aware, and made numerous references to the nature of God, and His relevance to his cosmology. I realize that I've introduced many themes and not adequately developed them. Give me time. I look forward to developing these ideas further, and responding to the specific comments of all who have participated. I wont be able to reply until the about Tuesday, or later, however. But thanks for the comments of all. Your humble servant, Jon ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 08:21:12 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: [text rearrahged:] > ******************************************************************************** > Ian Pitchford - Email Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com > Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology > Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies > University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent > SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. > Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 > ******************************************************************************** [end rearrangement of text] Dear Mr. Pitchford. While I was reading this posting my mind (or was it my brain?) made an associative connection which now leaves me puzzled. Perhaps you can enlighten me (as a person or as brain cells, which, as I read your posting, are the same thing). How does the position you put forth in your postings relate to the position Prof. Robert Young puts forth in his Web self-presentation (writings, recommendations of other persons' writings...)? I ask this question because it seems you both belong to the same institution, and, in reading some of the materials Prof. Young has posted, I seem to find a perspective rather different than the one I find in your postings. Perhaps I am wrong (and I am sure Prof Young can correct me!), but his writings and writings he appears approvingly to recommend seem to me to be more favorable to a transcendental phenomenological / hermeneutic / etc. orientation than yours. I further see that you are apparently the "webmaster" or at least a web developer for University of Sheffield. I have worked all my adult life with "computer type people", ranging from COBOL business application programmers in insurance companies, to "high powered" Ph.D. computer scientists. I have always been struck by -- there are exceptions, of course -- the general poverty of these persons' inaginative horizons (frequently restricted to the latest episode of StarTrak...) and their ignorance of (among *many* other areas...) philosophy (at least anything beyond Douglas Hofstadter...). Are you a psychoanalytic student, or are you an "experimental psychology" student? Or? Do you try to understand and dialogically engage with persons' (AKA patients'?) lived experience, or do you do statistical reductions on meter indicator needle readings, perhaps about correlation of short term memory retention with length of silence in inter-word gaps? What do you make of D.W. Winnicott? Harold Searles? Ernest Schachtel (whose book _Metamorphosis_, IMO, bridges the gap between Winnicott and Husserl, thus unifying our understanding of infant development, with transcendental philosophical interpretation of adult (already-constituted) life)? Heinz Kohut? Melanie Klein? Reusch and Bateson's _Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry_? D.P. Spence? Ferenczi? I could, of course, now go on to mention the "existential psychoanalysts".... What might you make of my own dissertation, which is a hermeneutically oriented inquiry into the nature of supervision of psychotherapist training (it's on my web site; as a *student*, you might be interested in a text which deals with how teachers treat students...)? What do you see as the proper relation between the social praxis of computer programming and Western culture (in a Universal, not ethinc sense; ref.: Joseph Needham, _Science and Civ. in China, Vol. 3)? Do you know Arnold Gehlen's observations (in _Man in the Age of Technology_), concerning the place of the technical worker in modern society? I presume you are young (small "y"), unless, like myself, you have pursued your education into middle age (or later). Thus perhaps you cannot be expected to have "absorbed the literature" yet. But one cannot absorb everything today, and, as you say, nothing is certain -- esp. insofar as brain physicists may subtly refine the trajectory of social praxis whose paradigm is *bullet entering brain*...), and you can spend you life going down one "Holzweg" (ref.: Heidegger) or another, so I would offer to you that there are other paths besides (philosophically naive) empiricism and (e.g.) new-Agey neo-obscurantism. There is, e.g., the path defined by Edmund Husserl's work, which urges that (to borrow a phrase of Bruno Latour's against his meaning:) we [including all natural scientists] have never yet been fully modern. (Robert Musil, in _The Man Without Qualities_ describes the paradox of engineers, whose lives should be paragons of precision, wearing tie-tacks with little horses' heads on them....) [snip] > Science seeks reductive explanation, but is > not reductionist. If it were there would only be one science: > physics. Atomistic expectations may pervade our common-sense > explanations of the world, but could hardly sustain modern scientific > exploration. Science is not dualistic: all scientists work on the > assumption (in practice) that there is one physical reality which can > be modelled on different levels of explanation. For example, I am > interested in the evolution of the mind, but do not consider the mind > to be ontologically distinct from the brain, any more than I consider > H2O to be something other than water. And how could science ever be > absolutist, since we assume all knowledge to be provisional, and all > of our models to be approximations of the natural world?. [snip] I wonder what notion you have of "ontology". Is it simply a kind of *metaphysics* in the "bad" sense of speculation about what cannot possibly be an object of experience (some kind of "physical world" which has an "ontological status" of being something else than the object of concern of scientific praxis? "Atomistic expectations" may pervade much "common sense", which, of course, is not the comon sense of the average 12th century peasant, but the result of a certain kind of child-rearing in which children are taught to believe in Newton and Einstein rather than in some stern or less stern personal God Who is actively present in every drop of water.... Surely most modern persons are just as superstitious believers in "science" as their ancestors were superstitious believers in "theology". Water and H2O are "the same" perhaps in a way similar to how a carcel is "the same" for the prisoners, the warders and the oversight committee. "Water" is an "element" (along with earth, air and fire) of lived experience. We refresh ourselves with it (or get scalded by it when a pot on the stove boils over). The guide in Bertolt Brecht's _The Exception and The Rule_ gets killed over a bottle of water in the desert.... As even you admit, this element of our Lifeworld could -- just possibly could -- one day turn out to *not* be H2O, and the resulting *massive scientific upheaval* would probably have no effect on anyone's (including the scientists themselves) drinking more of it to quench their thirst, on that momentous day or in future. I will be interested in your response to this posting, which I have taken the time to write out of concern for the care of your soul and concern for the fate of "Everyman" (woman, child) -- you, me -- in our time. "Vale!" \brad mccormick -- 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: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 09:29:08 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: In defense of archetypes In-Reply-To: <199802221030.FAA02749@u1.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > > > My Reply: > > > Do we have a confusion of terms? By modern I mean the 17th century to about > mid 20th cent. My point is precisely that science no longer sees the world > as linear, simple, atomistic, uniform, or absolute. If you think that > science has not been entrenched in these ideas for the past 3 centuries, > you are mistaken. Space, time, causality, motion, the laws of nature-were > believed to have an absolute nature, and in describing them Newton even > compares them to the absolute nature of God. That the world had an > essentially corpuscular nature was one of the dominant ideas of the 17th > century-and it certainly had great influence for at least 2 centuries, and > in some ways is still with us. > > Mr. Bennett's intervention is interesting on two levels. First of all, it is further evidence of the ongoing syncretism between two trendy ideological strains--postmodernism and New Age-ism. In addition, it once again illustrates the wisdom of Mr. Pope in declaring that "A little learning is a dangerous thing." What Mr. Bennett means by "linear," one can't precisely discern. If he believes he is using it in some technical sense (as in "chaos in the dynamics of non-linear systems") then he is simply replicating a common, and silly error. The first serious mathematical physics that was ever written down--Newton's "Principia" is an investigation of the dynamics of a highly non-linear system. Of course, Mr. Bennett may have some kind of metaphysical meaning in mind, in which case he owes us all a definition, and perhaps a substitute locution. Similarly, nobody ever thought science was "simple" in any commonplace sense. There was--and is--a belief in the probability that, at the end of the day, the underlying principles of the physical universe will turn out to have an elegance and irredundancy that might deserve to be called "simple" in a somewhat more refined sense--but that's another story. But as to his basic point--well, whatever the "culture" thinks, metaphysical reductionism and philosophical monism are more strongly embedded in the worldviews of most working scientists than they ever were. The reason is quite simple--whenever there is anything resembling a test-case, reductionism unequivocally triumphs. As Ian Pitchford points out, that doesn't mean that all sciences are reductionistic in practice--they can't be and they shouldn't be. Ornithologists study owls, not the quarks of which owls are made. But this does not amount to any kind of principled rejection of philosophical reductionism. If, perchance, an ornithologist wants to study the mechanics of owl flight, the thing to do is to consult aerodynamicists and structural engineers, not to posit that special vital forces peculiar to birds are necessary to keep owls aloft. It would be instructive to compare the worldviews of S. Weinberg and E.O. Wilson. Professsionally, these two giants are as far apart as is possible for two working scientists, since Weinberg's achievement was to clarify elementary particle theory by elaborating the mathematical principles of quantum field theory, whereas Wilson, the world expert on social insects, is very much a "naturalist" in the 18th-and-19th century sense. But if you contrast "Dreams of a Final Theory" with "Consiliience", you will discover--well, not much of a contrast on the basic philosophical issues. This is especially noteworthy because, a few decades ago, Wilson was supposed to represent "antreductionism" in that his methodology had little to do with the new, highly self-confident, molecular biology of Jim Watson et al. This was true to a point; viz., Wilson went on studying ants, not the structural biology of ant DNA and the proteins it codes for. But this illustrates the difference between a variety of methodological reductionism, which Wilson was not interested in pursuing, and philosophical reductionism, of which Wilson is as strong a proponent as Weinberg. To give another example (without wishing to compare myself to Weinberg), I am a pure mathematician (differential topology, if anyone cares), who has been collaborating closely on "philosophical" (probably too pretentious a word) work with Paul Gross, a molecular biologist/embryologist. (For Paul, the comparison with his friend Wilson might not be too far out of line.) Oddly enough, we don't seem to have many disagreements on philosophical or methodolgical points. I can assure you that my own views are pretty commonplace among mathematicians; so far as I can tell, Paul's seem to prevail among biologists (except for a small cadre of the ideologically supercharged). More generally, science is going--enthusiatically--in directions that Bennett, for whatever reason, wants to disallow. He obviously gets his sense of what scientists are up to, and how they think about their work (and other's work) from secondary, even tertiary, sources--and highly biased ones at that. Of course, none of this proves that Bennett is "wrong" philosophically. But he is most definitely wrong if he thinks his views are supported by the practice, achievement, or prevalent philosophical view, of contemporary science. Norm Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 09:54:11 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: PS to last In-Reply-To: <199802221030.FAA02749@u1.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > As for the Universal law of gravitation, its worth remembering that gravity > was assumed to have its effect in straight lines, and only applied to two > bodies at a time-as applied to say understanding the stability of the solar > system. Regarding your comments on a pendulum, and its non-uniform, > non-deterministic motions, once again I think you miss my point. My point > is that certain ages ignore some aspects of the world in order to SEE > others. Much as our visual system works wonderfully, but leaves us with a > blind spot. The very processes that give sight, produce a blind spot-the > vision and the blindness are inseparable. > > Classical science ignored the chaotic aspects of reality, and did look for > uniform, deterministic relations. This is why we are only now beginning to > appreciate the significance of Poincare-in THIS AGE. And science had to > concentrate on the simple, the orderly, in its early stages. On a point of personal privilege: this is nonsense, historically, and silly, mathematically. Of course, Newton (and every physicist since) understood that the many-body problem automatically arises from Newton's laws; nobody every thought that gravity only applied to "two bodies at a time". The only point worth making is that, if you ignore the effects of planets on each other (as negligible, compared to solar gravity), then the pure Keplerian model emerges. That being said, the nest step is to understand the more complicated situations not represented by the two-body problem, e.g., the earth/sun/moon system. That the unreduced three body problem was enormously difficult was already well-known to Newton and his contemporaries. Moreover, if you want to find the origins of "chaos theory," the place to look is Newton's on speculations on the possible (to him, probable) instability of the solar system. What also must be understood is that "chaos" is so interesting, mathematically, precisely because it DOES NOT CONTRADICT determinism; there's nothing stochastic about it. Nobody has repealed the existence and uniqueness theorems for solutions of differential equations. As for Poincare being ignored--well, he was in his day, and has always continued to be one of the most influential mathematicians of all time. (My own dissertation, by the way, had largely to do with spaces satisfying Poincare duality. And I'd love to prove (or find a counterexample to) the Poincare conjecture--fat chance!! My college roommates senior paper was on Poincares dynamics--by the way, congratulations to him on being elected to the National Academy of Sciences.) But to say that certain themes suggested by Poincare weren't fully developed until now is no more than to say that mathematics is (a) difficult and (b) cumulative, so that in order to make progress in any area, one needs to be able to draw on an enormous reserve of pre-existing conceptual machinery, and then to amplify it by creating new conceptuaol machinery. This is as true for any of the hundreds of branches of mathematics as it is for chaotic dynamics. Does Bennett think that the Fermat conjecture went unsolved until a couple of years ago merely because the philosophical/cultural framework was not right? It is well to have some direct, first hand, knowledge of this particular world of ideas before making sententious pronouncements. N. Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 12:50:29 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ted Winslow Subject: Re: In defense of archetypes In-Reply-To: <199802221429.JAA05229@comet.ccs.yorku.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I suspect Norman Levitt's characterization of the beliefs of most working scientists, "metaphysical reductionism and philosophical monism are more strongly embedded in the worldviews of most working scientists than they ever were," is true. I don't see how this can be coherently explained in the way he explains it, however: "The reason is quite simple--whenever there is anything resembling a test-case, reductionism unequivocally triumphs." This explanation is inconsistent with the worldview in question. The same problem arises with the claims of Weinberg and Wilson. For instance, one of the purposes of _Dreams of a Final Theory_ is to persuade Americans and their government that they _ought_ to _choose_ to build a Super Collider in Ellis County, Texas. Yet Weinberg explicitly denies that there are objective standards of value or that self-determination plays any role in determining what occurs. "Judging from this historical experience, I would guess that, though we shall find beauty in the final laws of nature, we will find no special status for life or intelligence. A fortiori, we will find no standards of value or morality." p. 250 "Everyone agrees on how to use quantum mechanics, but there is serious disagreement about how to think about what we are doing when we use it. For some who felt wounded by the reductionism and determinism of Newtonian physics, two aspects of quantum mechanics seemed to offer a welcome balm. Where human beings had no special status in Newtonian physics, in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics humans play an essential role in giving meaning to the wave function by the act of measurement. And where the Newtonian physicist spoke of precise predictions the quantum mechanician now offers only calculations of probabilities, thus seeming to make room again for human free will or divine intervention. "Some scientists and writers like Fritjof Capra welcome what they see as an opportunity for a reconciliation between the spirit of science and the gentler parts of our nature. I might, too, if I thought the opportunity was a real one, but I do not think it is. Quantum mechanics has been overwhelmingly important to physics, but I cannot find any messages for human life in quantum mechanics that are different in any important way from those of Newtonian physics." pp. 77-78 Weinberg himself makes claims that contradict the ontology he adopts. For instance: "The decision to believe or not is not entirely in our hands. I might be happier and have better manners if I thought I were descended from the emperors of China, but no effort of will on on my part can make me believe it, any more than I can will my heart to stop beating. Yet it seems that many people are able to exert some control over what they believe and choose to believe in what they think makes them good or happy. ... the pain of confronting the prospect of our own deaths and the deaths of those we love impels us to adopt beliefs that soften the pain. If we are able to manage to adjust our beliefs in this way, then why not do so? "I can see no scientific or logical reason not to seek consolation by adjustment of our beliefs - only a moral one, a point of honour. What do we think of someone who has managed to convince himself that he is bound to win a lottery because he desperately needs the money? Some might envy him his brief great expectations, but many others would think that he is failing in his proper role as an adult and rational human being, of looking at things as they are. In the same way that each of us had to learn in growing up to resist the temptation of wishful thinking about ordinary things like lotteries, so our species has had to learn in growing up that we are not playing a starring role in any sort of grand cosmic drama." pp. 259-60 In Chap. 4 of _On Human Nature_, Wilson attempts to define "free will" in terms consistent with adopting Laplacean determinism. Free will is then said to characterize behaviour which cannot be precisely foretold due to incomplete knowledge of the process of determination. An omniscient observer, however, would know with certainty precisely what the future would bring. Apart from the fact that this implicitly assumes that the observer's beliefs stand outside the process which determines everything else, it rules out any role for choice in the determination of behaviour and any possibility of influencing what will occur. Yet throughout the book Wilson assumes that we do have choices and that his kind of biology will provide the knowledge (including the ethical knowledge) on which to rationally base choice and control destiny. In Chap. 1 (p. 7), for example, he says: "At some time in the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain - in this ultimate, biological sense - because we must consciously choose among the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our biological properties to precise steering based on biological knowledge." In the next paragraph he says: "Although human progress can be achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum choices among the competing criteria of progress." Wilson quite explicitly urges us to embrace the ontology at issue - "scientific materialism" - as our modern "religion". As in so many other religions, these aspects will enable the credo of true believers to include as one of their articles of faith _credo quia absurdum_. 8-) As Brad McCormick points out there are critiques of the ontological foundations of orthodox science which cannot be dismissed as "New Ageist postmodern claptrap." In addition to Husserl's _Crisis of European Sciences_ (particularly good at showing their inadequacy as ontological foundations for psychology) I would recommend A.N. Whitehead (e.g. _Process and Reality_ and _Science and the Modern World_). Some years ago Free Association Books published a new edition of _Science and the Modern World_ with an intro by Bob Young. Ted Winslow Division of Social Science York University ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 14:42:21 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: In defense of archetypes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Norman Levitt wrote: [snip] > whenever there is anything resembling a > test-case, reductionism unequivocally triumphs. [snip] This is probably true, but perhaps in much the same way as a man looking for his eyeglasses can very clearly see everywhere that they are not -- because, unwittingly, they are on the bridge of his nose and he is looking through them. Either reductionism is a self-limiting, tactical social praxis, which consciously reflects on and keeps itself within its proper limits (the universe of instrumental rationality), while proactively nurturing on the other side the space of peer conversation in which alone that project (or any project...) can be sustained, or else it needs at some point to turn on itself instead of parasitically [self-deludingly] living off unreduced discourse. In the latter case, I have good hope that reductionism will cease to be a problem as it proceeds to consume (reduce) itself tail-first. > > It would be instructive to compare the worldviews of S. Weinberg and E.O. > Wilson. Professsionally, these two giants are as far apart as is possible > for two working scientists, since Weinberg's achievement was to clarify > elementary particle theory by elaborating the mathematical principles > of quantum field theory, whereas Wilson, the world expert on social > insects, is very much a "naturalist" in the 18th-and-19th century sense. > But if you contrast "Dreams of a Final Theory" with "Consiliience", you > will discover--well, not much of a contrast on the basic philosophical > issues. [snip] I know nothing about these persons, but if I were to propose candidates for this Gedankenexperiment(sp?), I'd pick: (1) J. Robert Oppenheimer, because he apparently was an educated as well as highly trained person (who, so I have read, e.g., once read all of Das Kapital, in German, during a single cross-country train trip -- t'would probably have been more prudent if less edifying to have spent the time reading the then current laissez-faire economist du jour, but that's not the issue here...). And, (2) -- and here I admit I'm on thinner ice because I'm not sure *why* the man did what he did or exactly what texts he was studying (for all i know, it could have been Husserl's early *mathematical* work...) -- I'd pick Kurt Godel who, in his late years at Princeton, studied Husserl. If I had my way, all scientists would be spoon fed Husserl's _Crisis of European Sciences..._ during their "doctoral" (as opposed to what might indeed fittingly be limited to technical training, i.e., the "Masters" level...) studies, if they couldn't figure it out for themselves. \brad mccormick -- 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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 13:28:16 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Fred Grinnell Organization: UT Southwestern Medical Center Subject: Response to Ted Winslow X-To: sci-cult@SJUVM.stjohns.edu MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hello Ted and others: I just tuned into your conversation and can't resist disagreeing completely. Most working scientists believe in publishing interesting papers, visiting interesting places, and getting funded. They wouldn't have the vaguest idea what you meant by "metaphysical reductionism and philosophical monism" -- I'm not sure that I do -- and they probably would not believe it if you explained it to them. They are pragmatists in James' sense of the word, and that is why science works. Regards, FG -- Fred Grinnell, Dept of Cell Biology/Neurosci UT Southwestern Med Ctr, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd Dallas, TX 75235-9039 214-648-2181 (T); 214-648-8694 (F) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 23:21:25 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Maciek Moskwa Subject: Re: In defense of archetypes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Friends, If you don't mind I would like to add some remarks to the discussion. Sometimes we forget, that science and every theory being a brick which forms this building is nothing more than an approximation. Most of the full blood scientists consider their constructions as tools which are working properly until the day somebody invents something better. Their main concern related with the new theory is whether it is empirically adequate. And the battle between realists and anti-realists / instrumentalists sometimes seems to me a bit irrelevant since *scientific practicioners* do not pay big attention for that problem. Whether they go any further it is a matter of one's belief. And than they cultivate metaphysics in old sense of the word. For most of them it is a waste of time. The same thing is with the problem of reduction. As Norman Levitt put it in a pretty way of 'ornithologist example' it is only a kind of readiness to explain phenomena from certain level using theories from the level below (maybe with a little help of thing-identity connecting sentences). (For further details see: Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam: Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis and Bas van Fraassen: Scientific Image. 1980) All this mess around scientific reduction was evoked by people who think (pardon me, folks) reductionism is immoral because it puts off all the burden of moral responsibility from the back of the human by explaining his or her behavior in terms of psychology etc. Please excuse me for that *psychologism* in the interpretation of science but I am not witnessing this type of discussion for the first time and I believe that most of superstitions about what is science like are conditioned in one's early years (or even drunk with the mother's milk, to quote famous Quine's expression) . Or maybe it is reading first Freud writings prior to first book on the life of ants ;-). Finally, I would like to give a hint to all those out-dated revolutionists: It is too late to make an uprising under the banner of non-experimental science. And after all you may hurt yourself. Best regards to all of you, Maciek Moskwa ************************ Maciek J. Moskwa MD Dep. of Clinical Psychiatry Warsaw Medical School Nowowiejska 27, 00 665 Warsaw, Poland e-mail: moskwa@psych.waw.pl http://www.psych.waw.pl/SKN ************************ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 17:40:15 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Response to Ted Winslow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Fred Grinnell wrote: > > Hello Ted and others: > > I just tuned into your conversation and can't resist disagreeing > completely. Most working scientists believe in publishing interesting > papers, visiting interesting places, and getting funded. They wouldn't > have the vaguest idea what you meant by "metaphysical reductionism and > philosophical monism" -- I'm not sure that I do -- and they probably > would not believe it if you explained it to them. They are pragmatists > in James' sense of the word, and that is why science works. > > Regards, FG > -- > Fred Grinnell, Dept of Cell Biology/Neurosci > UT Southwestern Med Ctr, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd > Dallas, TX 75235-9039 > 214-648-2181 (T); 214-648-8694 (F) Fred's (Prof. Grinnell's...) message raises an interesting (to me, at least) issue. Let us assume Fred is right, and that only a small but highly vocal sub-group of scientists pushes scientism, reductionism, etc. (although I would question this in such fields as "experimental psychology", where, if the practitioners don't think about these things, "they know not what they do".) In that case, it seems to me that there would not be much problem, if the vocal sub-group did not exist. A similar "peaceable kingdom" would exist for women if there were no militant anti-abortionists (AKA "right to lifers"). Since there are these groups, then "just doing your thing" isn't good enough, because there are others who are not leaving well enough alone. In order to fight the nefarious effects of these vocal self-styled "conservative" sub-groups, it is necessary to thematize what one is doing, out of self-defense, and to become proactive oneself. On the other hand, if Socrates was even close to right about the unexamined life not being worth living (I would say that, more accurately: the unexamined life is only "lived" in an equivocal and kind of metaphorical sense, while, on the other hand, contrary to Freud's notion, unreflected pleasures are less exquisite than connoisseurship!) -- if Socrates is even close to right about this, then even if there was no ideological foe to fight, reflection would be a positive desideratum in terms of potential joy in living. At least that's how I see things.... "Yours in discourse" (<== and *thinking* about and *savoring* the meaning of that assertion...) \brad mccormick -- 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: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 21:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rudi Borth Subject: Re: Response to Ted Winslow In-Reply-To: <199802232200.RAA15424@fiona.orc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Listers: I cannot resist agreeing completely with Fred Grinnell's points made in his posting of 23 Feb. under this subject, and I would like to try to both broaden and focus this debate. Several months ago, I saw a brief list of some fundamental questions on the philosophy of science and could not resist writing equally brief answers which, while fairly obvious to me, may well be scornfully rejected by some. Whether with or without scorn, I would be curious to see reasoned and perhaps even evidence-based refutations of some or all of these views (not just differing opinions, of which there have been many). Now I cannot resist (how compulsive these activities are!) re-posting these questions and answers here. Q: > Does necessity exist in nature, or is it merely a product of our > theories? A: Necessity, whenever made plausible by empirical observations, gives rise to (approximate and provisional) theories of explanation. In this sense, theories are a product of necessity--not the other way around. Q: > Does science require it, or does empirical correlation work just > as well? A: Work achieving what? For scientific attempts at explanation and prediction, empirical correlations provide the raw material. Q: > Are determinism and chance mutually exclusive alternatives, or is > there something in between? A: Neither. Under reasonably well understood conditions, deterministic causes can produce practically strictly unpredictable results and the appearance of randomness. Q: > Is evolution causal, and if so, what causes it? A: Biological evolution is causal, and it is mostly the result of interaction between (apparently) random changes and environmental weeding out of the poorly adapted. Q: > Is the hypothesis of a self compatible with determinism, and if > not, which of the two should be rejected? A: If 'the hypothesis of self' refers to the human experience of one's mind and consciousness, this is part of the deterministic world. Q: > Does determinism mean that there is, at any given time, only one > possible future? A: Yes, but it is, more often than not, unknowable and unpredictable for fairly well understood reasons. Q: > Is indeterminism a fact about the world, or about our own > uncertainty? A: Unpredictability is a fact about the world; our own uncertainty is the beginning of understanding of this fact. Q: > Has free will anything to do with it? A: Free will is an illusion which, under many circumstances encountered by humans, looks like an obvious certainty to the individual while observers often will readily provide plausible causal reasons for whatever is happening. Q: > Can science determine whether or not the world is deterministic, > or is this a metaphysical problem? A: Science provides falsifiable and improvable approximations. Thinking on metaphysical problems does not, and the latter's everlasting problem status is secure. * * * Asked recently for a comment on reductionism problems encountered in research, I had to say that, IMO, Science has no problems regarding reductionism as I understand the term. Exploring the causal network of reality and thereby reducing the number of underlying factors to the smallest number possible, i.e. the few (or one?) irreducible(s), the building bricks of Nature: this is for me the basic aim and method of all scientific activity. :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: : Greetings! Rudi Borth | A conversation can't : : Dr.sc.techn. (ETH Zurich) | be kept going by : : Professor Emeritus | exchanging : : (University of Toronto) | identical : : Stratford (Ontario) Canada | views. : : ------------------------------------------------- : : E-Mail: : : : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:51:52 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: dissertation abstract online from umi Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Here is a website you can get the abstract (around 400 words) of some latest dissertations of American University, some MA and some Phd. This is a website by the UMI which published the printed dissertation and microfilm you gets in library; now they have an online searching. All you have to do is get into the webpage http://www.umi.com/hp/Products/Dissertations.html to get to the search engine to search the dissertation you want. They have author, title, or keyword search. I think the keyword search is most useful. For example you can key in a word like *unconscious* you will then be returned with a list of dissertations which seem to have covered unconsicous. You can get the abstract of the dissertation that suits you. This service is supposed to be part of the online dissertation order service of the UMI; that means you can purchase the dissertation. (The instruction for ordering you can find on the website) The search engine service is , however, free of charge. But for those who is not getting into the searching service through a library computer terminal, you can only access three month database. I suggest if those who have an access to some university library go to the library staff to check this service, so that you can access the whole database, I believe so. By the way you can access the UMI through my website http://www.spark.net.hk/~cysu/study_tool.html, there are some more online resources which can help you do your research at home. Cheers. cysu cyril c. so cysu@spark.net.hk __________________________________________ 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, 24 Feb 1998 13:47:41 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Louis Stone-Collonge Subject: Re: dissertation abstract online from umi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain And yet another company not wanting to put real content on the web. Instead the provide teasers to hook you for an outrageous fee. UMI is a totally rip-off and a real academic disgrace! RANT RANT RANT Louis > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Maxwell Young [SMTP:robert@RMY1.DEMON.CO.UK] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 12:52 PM > To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > Subject: dissertation abstract online from umi > > Here is a website you can get the abstract (around 400 > words) of some latest dissertations of American University, some MA > and > some Phd. This is a website by the UMI which published the printed > dissertation and microfilm you gets in library; now they have an > online > searching. All you have to do is get into the webpage > http://www.umi.com/hp/Products/Dissertations.html to get to the search > engine to search the dissertation you want. They have author, title, > or > keyword search. I think the keyword search is most useful. For > example you > can key in a word like *unconscious* you will then be returned with a > list > of dissertations which seem to have covered unconsicous. You can get > the > abstract of the dissertation that suits you. This service is supposed > to > be part of the online dissertation order service of the UMI; that > means you > can purchase the dissertation. (The instruction for ordering > you can find on the website) The search engine service is , however, > free > of charge. But for those who is not getting into the searching > service > through a library computer terminal, you can only access three month > database. I suggest if those who have an access to some university > library > go to the library staff to check this service, so that you can access > the > whole database, I believe so. > > By the way you can access the UMI through my website > http://www.spark.net.hk/~cysu/study_tool.html, there are some more > online > resources which can help you do your research at home. > > Cheers. > cysu > > cyril c. so > cysu@spark.net.hk > > > > __________________________________________ > 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, 24 Feb 1998 22:15:57 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is Comments: Resent-From: "Ian Pitchford" Comments: Originally-From: "Andrew Stansfield" From: Ian Pitchford Subject: PUS conference instructions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Public Understanding of Science - Conference Instructions The PUS web page can be found at http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dss0www1 The conference will begin at 0900 GMT on the 25th of February 1998 and will end 1200 GMT on the 11th of March 1998. It currently has over 470 subscribers who represent 35 countries, covering every continent. The main page of the conference contains around 20 opening statements. These are read by clicking on the appropriate title. Respondents reply to statements by clicking the Reply to the statement link. Clicking the image at the bottom of each page returns you to the main page. The 'subject' header of messages must contain the title of the statement, this is necessary in order that all the messages received can be correctly archived and displayed at a later date. You may also start a new line of discussion, but make sure that you specify its topic in the subject header. We expect that the conference will move from these general statements to a variety of specific concerns and differences in perspective, and that several conversations will be going on at once. Please keep each message to 300 words. Feel free to draw readers' attentions to relevant weblinks containing longer works, but do not put these in the body of your e-mail message. This conference will operate entirely through e-mail for its duration but then will be archived and made publicly available on the World Wide Web for any interested researchers and reporters. Queries should be addressed to andrew.stansfield@dur.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:56:37 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Charlie Hendricksen Organization: Department of Geography, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Subject: Re: dissertation abstract online from umi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit UMI's days of selling dissertations are coming to a close. Several Universities are now requiring that Dissertations be mounted on the WWW. We can all help this trend by encouraging our administrators to end the days of the "unpublished Doctoral Dissertation." Louis Stone-Collonge wrote: > And yet another company not wanting to put real content on the web. > Instead the provide teasers to hook you for an outrageous fee. UMI is a > totally rip-off and a real academic disgrace! > > RANT > RANT > RANT > > Louis > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Maxwell Young [SMTP:robert@RMY1.DEMON.CO.UK] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 12:52 PM > > To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > > Subject: dissertation abstract online from umi > > > > Here is a website you can get the abstract (around 400 > > words) of some latest dissertations of American University, some MA > > and > > some Phd. This is a website by the UMI which published the printed > > dissertation and microfilm you gets in library; now they have an > > online > > searching. All you have to do is get into the webpage > > http://www.umi.com/hp/Products/Dissertations.html to get to the search > > engine to search the dissertation you want. They have author, title, > > or > > keyword search. I think the keyword search is most useful. For > > example you > > can key in a word like *unconscious* you will then be returned with a > > list > > of dissertations which seem to have covered unconsicous. You can get > > the > > abstract of the dissertation that suits you. This service is supposed > > to > > be part of the online dissertation order service of the UMI; that > > means you > > can purchase the dissertation. (The instruction for ordering > > you can find on the website) The search engine service is , however, > > free > > of charge. But for those who is not getting into the searching > > service > > through a library computer terminal, you can only access three month > > database. I suggest if those who have an access to some university > > library > > go to the library staff to check this service, so that you can access > > the > > whole database, I believe so. > > > > By the way you can access the UMI through my website > > http://www.spark.net.hk/~cysu/study_tool.html, there are some more > > online > > resources which can help you do your research at home. > > > > Cheers. > > cysu > > > > cyril c. so > > cysu@spark.net.hk > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > 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 -- Charlie Hendricksen veritas@u.washington.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:09:24 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Louis Stone-Collonge Subject: Re: dissertation abstract online from umi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain If there is anyone out there who needs web-space for a graduate project, I am happy to provide space on the www.gradschool.net website. Louis > -----Original Message----- > From: Charlie Hendricksen [SMTP:veritas@U.WASHINGTON.EDU] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 1:57 PM > To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > Subject: Re: dissertation abstract online from umi > > UMI's days of selling dissertations are coming to a close. Several > Universities are now requiring that Dissertations be mounted on the > WWW. We > can all help this trend by encouraging our administrators to end the > days of > the "unpublished Doctoral Dissertation." > > > Louis Stone-Collonge wrote: > > > And yet another company not wanting to put real content on the web. > > Instead the provide teasers to hook you for an outrageous fee. UMI > is a > > totally rip-off and a real academic disgrace! > > > > RANT > > RANT > > RANT > > > > Louis > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robert Maxwell Young [SMTP:robert@RMY1.DEMON.CO.UK] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 12:52 PM > > > To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > > > Subject: dissertation abstract online from umi > > > > > > Here is a website you can get the abstract (around 400 > > > words) of some latest dissertations of American University, some > MA > > > and > > > some Phd. This is a website by the UMI which published the > printed > > > dissertation and microfilm you gets in library; now they have an > > > online > > > searching. All you have to do is get into the webpage > > > http://www.umi.com/hp/Products/Dissertations.html to get to the > search > > > engine to search the dissertation you want. They have author, > title, > > > or > > > keyword search. I think the keyword search is most useful. For > > > example you > > > can key in a word like *unconscious* you will then be returned > with a > > > list > > > of dissertations which seem to have covered unconsicous. You can > get > > > the > > > abstract of the dissertation that suits you. This service is > supposed > > > to > > > be part of the online dissertation order service of the UMI; that > > > means you > > > can purchase the dissertation. (The instruction for ordering > > > you can find on the website) The search engine service is , > however, > > > free > > > of charge. But for those who is not getting into the searching > > > service > > > through a library computer terminal, you can only access three > month > > > database. I suggest if those who have an access to some > university > > > library > > > go to the library staff to check this service, so that you can > access > > > the > > > whole database, I believe so. > > > > > > By the way you can access the UMI through my website > > > http://www.spark.net.hk/~cysu/study_tool.html, there are some more > > > online > > > resources which can help you do your research at home. > > > > > > Cheers. > > > cysu > > > > > > cyril c. so > > > cysu@spark.net.hk > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > -- > Charlie Hendricksen veritas@u.washington.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 20:09:52 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: dissertation abstract online from umi MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Louis Stone-Collonge wrote: > > And yet another company not wanting to put real content on the web. > Instead the provide teasers to hook you for an outrageous fee. UMI is a > totally rip-off and a real academic disgrace! > > RANT > RANT > RANT > > Louis > [snip] Well, there is the story of the blind men and the elephant.... I would like to insert into the record a testimonial *for* UMI. When I submitted my dissertation, they made a real effort to try to get reproduction permission from a *really* uncooperative institution: International Universities Press . UMI finally failed, but they didn't just treat me like my dissertation didn't matter. I'm seriously thinking about getting my DSM out to do some clinical interpretations "beyond the basic rule" (<== yes, that is a *mixed metaphor*!) on this mailing list (do I have any persons who wish to join me in this endeavor?). \brad mccormick -- 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: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 05:00:43 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: Response to Fred Grinnell Fred Grinnell wrote: Hello Ted and others: >I just tuned into your conversation and can't resist disagreeing completely. Most working scientists believe in publishing interesting papers, visiting interesting places, and getting funded. They wouldn't have the vaguest idea what you meant by "metaphysical reductionism and philosophical monism" -- I'm not sure that I do -- and they probably would not believe it if you explained it to them. They are pragmatists >in James' sense of the word, and that is why science works. Regards, FG -- Fred Grinnell, Dept of Cell Biology/Neurosci UT Southwestern Med Ctr, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd Dallas, TX 75235-9039 214-648-2181 (T); 214-648-8694 (F) ------------ Well Fred I also have a problem with some of the terminology, and vague references, although I too have transgressed. It would help if all tried to define their respective jargon, a bit better. Coming from different disciplines, we all have a different jargon. And of course many philosophical terms can have such varied meaning. As far as science being pragmatic, I don't think it's that simple-even with applied science, and certainly not on a theoretical level. There's a great article in "The Journal of The History of Ideas",( around 1985, if you want I'll find more info) about how Newton imputed, or projected certain ideas, certain themes onto nature. Then he saw these as being inherent, self-evident aspects of nature. Scientists do this all the time. Science is guided by certain prevailing themes that permeate all the culture. And these change from time to time, and that's why paradigms change-to solve the most pressing problems of a given age. These themes may be unconscious, but they are there nonetheless. I'm not saying that this is unscientific or impractical. I believe the world is so complex, that a certain framework of ideas may be necessary to solve some problems-like motion-,and that another framework may be needed to understand how the human body works. This world is a very mysterious place. And the "pragmatic" aspects of the world are drenched in this mystery. For this reason scientific understanding of the "real" world is inextricably bound to other, less concrete, "metaphysical", and as I have suggested, mythological aspects of the world. Carl Jung noted that there where mythological aspects to the atom. Science is inseparable from mythology and philosophy. This is particular evident in the nascent stages of science-in ancient Greece and in 17th century europe. When Plato noticed this progression from mythological ideas, to philosophical, to scientific one's, he said: "Everything is full of the gods" To borrow from an earlier reference, our minds know this even if our brains don't, that water is never "just" water-but that God is actively present in every drop of water, and in every thought we think. Take care, Jon ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:56:55 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: ways of finding out-of-print books Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Here are several antiquarian and out-of-print book search utilities on the Web (they will be linked through RETICULUM soon): (1) Advanced Book Exchange: (2) Antiquarian BookWorm: (3) bibliofind: (4) Booksearch Online: __________________________________________ 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, 25 Feb 1998 06:04:10 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Response to Fred Grinnell MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > Fred Grinnell wrote: > > Hello Ted and others: [snip] Carl Jung noted that there > where mythological aspects to the atom. Science is inseparable from > mythology and philosophy. [snip] I fully confess my ignorance even of high school physics (and, a fortiori, biology!), but I cannot believe (until evidence is adduced) that, if quarks have "charm", the reason is to be found entirely either in them or in the denotative semantics of differential equations (or wherever they "live and move and have their being in the human social / psychological / Lifeworld). There is something which, to the best of my knowledge/ignorance, is a highly important text, and with which nobody engages (surely the message has not been "absorbed" by contemporary academe / industrial research and development: Chapter X (as in: 10) of Suzanne Langer's _Philosophy in a New Key_ (Harvard, 1942, 1951, 1957)). If anybody's interested, I'll elaborate (I *love* this text, along with Husserl's Vienna lecture, Adolf Loos's "Ornament and Crime", etc.). It's only 50 pages of large type, easy to read, and I think it both makes sense of where the existential motivation to do science comes from, and -- even more important for "our world" -- how scientific praxis itself contains the key(sic) to a constructive overcoming of the "disenchantment of the world" and "loss of meaning" (etc.) which it has produced. As Robert Musil would surely have agreed, we have never yet been really modern -- or scientific. \brad mccormick -- 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: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:16:36 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ted Winslow Subject: Re: Response to Ted Winslow In-Reply-To: <199802240354.WAA00915@comet.ccs.yorku.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Rudi: Your answers contain the same contradiction I pointed to in the claims of Weinberg and Wilson. You assume the possibility of an activity, "science", which, as you describe it, necessarily involves self-determination. How else could the subjects of this activity, scientists, "falsify" and "improve" their theories? At the same time, you insist that science demonstrates that there is no self-determination, that "the human experience of one's mind and consciousness ... is part of the deterministic world," that "free will is an illusion" (though you also claim that there are "observers" who can escape this illusion and know the truth, i.e. that there are observers self-determined to the degree required to know that there is no self-determination). Your statement at the beginning that "theories are the product of necessity," by which I take it you mean to suggest that the activity of science can be coherently explained without recourse to any concept of self-determination, plays on ambiguity in the meaning of the word "necessity". Truth compels in a way different from the law of gravity. To begin with, it only compels those who are to the requisite degree self-determined, i.e. _rational_. Many people successfully defy the law of non-contradiction. ;-) Best wishes, Ted ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 17:36:30 -0500 Reply-To: vpiercy@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Van Piercy Organization: Indiana University Subject: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just posted to the Bateson-l listserv things I'd written for SCI-CULT on sociobiology and the "biological unity of knowledge." I re-read my last post on that thread to this list and couldn't believe how confusing it was. Re-reading it four weeks later, _I_ could barely understand it! The simple point to be made was that the Lamarkian character of cultural evolution is still an informational process. People who assert a "monism" of knowledge can do so on that basis. In other words, a "biological unity of knowledge" doesn't stand or fall just because Lamarkism doesn't work in nature but does work in cultural evolution. Lamarkism fails as a theory of biological species transformation because there is no conservative component eliminating learned behaviors from the genome. For those very same reasons we should bemoan rather than celebrate the lot of our cultural evolution, its rapidity. We lose evolutionary flexibility rapidly at the level of cultural change. Because there's no barrier in cultural evolution between learning and custom, a secular society drives the rate of change faster and faster. There are no sufficient buffers or barriers of change as there are at the level of the genotype. Contrariwise, epigenesis has to be conservative; embryology can't be revolutionary; changes in parent organisms over their lifetimes cannot become part of the permanent genetic record they pass on to their offspring. It they did pass them on, biological evolution would grind to a fast halt. So the idea is that yes, there's a difference between cultural and natural evolution, but no, the difference has nothing to do with them as informational. In fact, the difference itself is based on their shared informational basis. Even Lamarkism is still a theory of information processing. There are so many common factors at the level of information process and patterns of change as to cast doubt on any fundamental dualism between nature and culture. Van Piercy English Dept., Indiana University Bloomington, IN ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:38:28 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Charles E. Moore" Subject: Re: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge X-To: vpiercy@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Van Piercy wrote: > > I just posted to the Bateson-l listserv things I'd written for SCI-CULT > on sociobiology and the "biological unity of knowledge." I re-read my > last post on that thread to this list and couldn't believe how confusing > it was. Re-reading it four weeks later, _I_ could barely understand > it! The simple point to be made was that the Lamarkian character of > cultural evolution is still an informational process. People who assert > a "monism" of knowledge can do so on that basis. In other words, a > "biological unity of knowledge" doesn't stand or fall just because > Lamarkism doesn't work in nature but does work in cultural evolution. > > Lamarkism fails as a theory of biological species transformation because > there is no conservative component eliminating learned behaviors from > the genome. For those very same reasons we should bemoan rather than > celebrate the lot of our cultural evolution, its rapidity. We lose > evolutionary flexibility rapidly at the level of cultural change. > Because there's no barrier in cultural evolution between learning and > custom, a secular society drives the rate of change faster and faster. > There are no sufficient buffers or barriers of change as there are at > the level of the genotype. Contrariwise, epigenesis has to be > conservative; embryology can't be revolutionary; changes in parent > organisms over their lifetimes cannot become part of the permanent > genetic record they pass on to their offspring. It they did pass them > on, biological evolution would grind to a fast halt. > > So the idea is that yes, there's a difference between cultural and > natural evolution, but no, the difference has nothing to do with them as > informational. In fact, the difference itself is based on their shared > informational basis. Even Lamarkism is still a theory of information > processing. There are so many common factors at the level of > information process and patterns of change as to cast doubt on any > fundamental dualism between nature and culture. > > Van Piercy > English Dept., Indiana University > Bloomington, IN My God! Jane would have enjoyed you.... But really, what applicability do you think the "foggy dew" in Far from the Madding Crowd might have for post-modern Man as he enters the 21st century? [That is your area of expertise, wasn't it?] Charles E. Moore, PE ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 09:04:46 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Other antiquarian/out-of-print book searching utilities X-cc: h.g.davies@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" (5) Interloc (6) ABAA-booknet (7) Bibliocity __________________________________________ 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, 26 Feb 1998 01:32:33 -0500 Reply-To: vpiercy@falstaff.ucs.indiana.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Van Piercy Organization: Indiana University Subject: Re: G. Bateson. Was: E. O. Wilson on the biological unity of knowledge knowledge MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles E. Moore wrote: > My God! Jane would have enjoyed you.... But really, what applicability > do you think the "foggy dew" in Far from the Madding Crowd might have > for post-modern Man as he enters the 21st century? [That is your area > of expertise, wasn't it?] > Charles E. Moore, PE Well, treating your questions as seriously as we can, let's back up to the source of the thread I was reinstigating. As I recall, the unitary premises of sociobiology were called on for discussion, a fairly general point of departure: At 04:37 PM 1/29/98 +0000, R. M. Young wrote: >A glance at the winter issue of "The Wilson Quarterly": >A debate on the biological unity of knowledge > >Advances in the study of the material origins and functioning of the human >brain make that biological terrain increasingly available as a new >foundational discipline of the social sciences and humanities, writes >Edward O. Wilson, the Harvard University professor who pioneered the field >of sociobiology. He argues that because genes and culture have co-evolved, >and because culture is rooted in biology, "culture can never have a life >entirely on its own." That biological unity undermines current notions of >intellectual relativism, he says, and allows for a biologically grounded >understanding of ourselves and our world. What "applicability" is this Wilsonian concept of "biological unity" supposed to have? What is really at stake in it? We are told that it "undermines...relativism." A fairly general claim, alas, a bit "dewy" in its own way, but a claim nonetheless. That would answer your first question to me. Van Piercy English Dept., Indiana University Bloomington, IN ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:06:39 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: NETSOURCES: History Departments Around the World (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" History Departments Around the World, hosted by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, is now an online database which includes the URLs for more than 900 history departments' web pages. It is still located at its old address: http://chnm.gmu.edu/history/depts/ The database is searchable by university name and location (U.S. or Non-U.S.). In the near future it will be searchable by city and state as well. You can also add new departments online. (Many thanks to Lex Renda of University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee, who recently added 400 departments). Please add your department to make the database even more comprehensive. Send comments and corrections to Elena Razlogova at erazlogo@gmu.edu. Thank you, Elena Razlogova, Center for History and New Media, George Mason University __________________________________________ 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, 26 Feb 1998 23:28:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: Archetypes,Paradigms,& God In-Reply-To: <199802251043.FAA16758@mail1.panix.com> from "Robert Maxwell Young" at Feb 25, 98 08:56:55 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not familiar with the technical philosophical issues concerning theory reduction, but I won't let that stop me! I suspect most scientists don't think about these philosophical problems much, and that their personal views may sometimes be at variance with the philosophical positions implicit in their research - or it may simply be that carrying out a reductionist research program doesn't imply a commitment to the metaphysical principles of reductionism. For example, many scientists are deeply religious (such as two of the most important evolutionary biologists, Dobzhansky and Ayala - the latter a priest), which I imagine means they don't believe in materialism, even though materialism is arguably implicit in all scientific research. Similarly, I've heard many medical doctors believe they have a special healing power. Anyway, there's a large literature on reductionism in the natural sciences. Some works I've come across are Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, which contains several essays, including a good summary of what some philosophers think are the requirements for valid theory reduction. The question of whether Mendelian genetics can be reduced to molecular genetics gets special attention. This reminds me of some posts I sent a while back that touched on the subject. I mentioned that most people think it's a mistake to call the gene, the unit of inheritance, and DNA identical, for a number of reasons: some being the existence of prions and non-coding DNA. A trivial point. but it shows that it's often unnecessary to raise the big issues of reductionism when discussing a particular attempt at theory reduction. The reduction can be invalid for a number of simple reasons apart from the question of whether the reduction is possible: in this case, the entities in question are related but not identical. Plus, reduction may be theoretically possible but practically impossible. Another book is Dodzhansky and Ayala's Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems, especially the essay, "Changing Strategies: A Comparison of Reductionist Attitudes in Biological and Medical Research in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries," by June Goodfield and "From Aristotle to Democritus via Darwin: a Short Survey of a Long Historical and Logical Journey," by Giuseppe Montalenti. Kaye's "The Social Meaning of Modern Biology," which I already mentioned, is very interesting too. The essay and the book point out that among scientists who wrote on the topic of reductionism, many have been reductionists (Helmholtz, Carl Ludwig, Jacques Loeb, Jacob Moleschott, Karl Vogt, Jacques Loeb, Gunther Stent, Jacques Monod, Crick) but many have been anti-reductionists (GC Simpson, Medawar, Dodzhansky, the early Waddington, Paul Weiss, Chargaff, Albert Claude, Jacob, Bohr, Max Delbruck) or hard to classify (Julian Huxley, Schrodinger). Goodfield and Montalenti describe alternating periods of reductionism and anti-reductionism. After the vitalism and idealism of Romantic-period science, many scientists (such as Helmholtz) committed themselves to reductionism, and these ideas (such as, "the brain secretes thought the way the liver secretes bile") were spread through popular accounts and were often linked with liberal and anti-clerical ideas. Biologism took on interesting forms in Germany later on, especially with the enormously popular work of Ernst Haeckel, Weltraetsel. Biologism became linked with Nietzche's ideas (Dennett praises Nietzche as the "second sociobiologist," with Hobbes the first), with Bismarck's Kulturkampf, with anti-Enlightenment ideas, and with eugenics. German Social Darwinism tended to lack the reformist, moralizing character of English and American Social Darwinism. In America in the 1910's the ideas of the physiologist Jacques Loeb, a philosophy student who turned to physiology under the influence of Schopenhauer's works in order to prove the unfreedom of the will, promoted reductionism; the idea that all organic processes, including human will and the human ethical sense, could be reduced to simple mechanical processes. These ideas were in turn popularized by Thorstein Veblen, Sinclair Lewis, and H.L. Mencken. Like the Social Darwinists before and sociobiologists after, Loeb hoped to discover a morality grounded in science. In the 1930's, the idea that human physiology could be understood by studying individual chemical reactions in isolation and in vitro, that is, Loeb's idea that organisms are physiochemical machines, seemed to have been refuted through new scientific research. Kaye describes how Sherrington's work on neuronal control, Cannon's work on the nervous and endocrine systems, Henderson's on the buffering action of the blood, and Weiss's on embryological development were not in any way vitalist, but were explicitly anti- reductionist, They emphasized interaction effects, "complex, controlling, coordinating, and integrating processes," the emergent properties of each level of organization, and self-regulation ("homeostasis"). The essential processes that distinguish living systems seem to have "overcome the old reductionist-vitalist debate." But then in the 1940's and 1950's, especially with the influx of physicists into molecular biology, came a new attitude of reductionism. Holist ideas had been common in biochemistry (Avery, Chargaff) and even in physics (Bohr, Delbruck), but an aggressive determinism and reductionism quickly overtook molecular biology. Sydney Brenner wrote in Nature 248: 785, "Molecular biology is nothing more than the search for explanations of the behavior of living things in terms of the molecules that compose them." More than a research program, reductionism was a world view for many molecular biologists. Monod and Crick are the most prominent advocate for this world view (Monod's Chance and Necessity, Crick's Of Molecules and Men). Francis Crick is a vivid spokesmen, and his prominence is very great since he, of course, was one of the discovers of the structure of DNA. Crick once said, his purpose is "to take the magic out" of life. Whereas Delbruck for example emphasized the complexity of life, Crick emphasizes its simplicity. He tends to use religious metaphors, "the Central Dogma" that the process of DNA makes RNA and RNA makes protein and never the other way around, the "gospel" of natural selection - which Chargaff referred to as "normative biology" that "commands nature to behave in accordance with the models." In addition, Crick is a militant atheist. He argues that scientific values should and will replace religious and humanist ones, that Western humanist culture is at its end because "tomorrow's science is going to knock their culture right out from other them." (Of Molecules and Men, 7, 93-95.), replacing religious and literary "nonsense" with the theory of natural selection (pp. 89-99). Crick has become somewhat controversial for his advocacy of eugenics. Since the individual is nothing but a collection of genes, the sanctity of life is a religious or humanist illusion. Individuals with defective genes are not human and should not be treated as such. Crick, Muller and Lederberg at the CIBA Foundation symposium advocated a large-scale eugenics program. Crick advocated "putting something in the food" to reversibly sterilize the whole population and "to license people with the qualities we like" to bear children (Wolstenholme, Man and his Future, 275-76, 294-95). The reductionist spirit was common: the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences published in 1970, Biology and the Future of Man, where it's asserted that the "mind" and "self" are epiphenomenon of the brain, which is "one of the derived developed expressions of the genes," that eugenics is necessary "to expand human potential," and that abortion is needed to control excess population and "nonproductive individuals" (pp. 889, 908-909, 916-17, 927). In the late 1960's many scientists turned to biology as a source of value - most notably Gunther Stent, Waddington, and Monod, as seen in Monod's Chance and Necessity and Stent and Waddington's symposium, for the International Union of Biological Societies and UNESCO, on how biology could be used "to save the world." Monod, who once believed culture to be autonomous from biology, decided that biology determined culture. He developed the idea that ideas are "selected" both for their usefulness and for their "virulence and transmissibility" (From Biology to Ethics, pp. 16-17) - an idea very like Dawkins' later ideas about memes. Monod's book became a bestseller in France and the world. Similarly, Waddington, once a critic of biological analogies and social Darwinism, called for a "biological movement" and "biological values." In Chance and Necessity, Monod proclaimed that molecular biology, having completed Darwinian theory, had destroyed religion and its modern substitutes, such as Marxism, and all "anthropocentric illusions." Monod writes about the rise of linguistic capacity, "the tree of knowledge" that was the fall of man by creating a disharmony between cultural and biological evolution. Monod argues that in response evolution "created" - more religious metaphors - genes "for animism," for respect for authority and custom, and for religion. It created anxiety "which goads us to search out the meaning of existence," in turn creating "all the religions, all the philosophies, and science itself." The destruction of all religious illusions created the present "mal d'ame," psychic anguish arising from the conflict of science with animistic values, which Monod believes can be resolved through "an ascetic renunciation of all other spiritual fare" apart from science. Science should become "the supreme value - the measure and warrant of all values." (Chance and Necessity, pp. 29-33, 160-99, 180) Paul