From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9803" Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 11:26 PM ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 19:44:13 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: UK Virtual Society Special Lecture MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT VIRTUAL SOCIETY? SPECIAL LECTURE - 1 APRIL 1998 The first of a series of Virtual Society? special lectures will be held to coincide with the 10th anniversary year of CRICT (Centre for Research into Innovation, Culture and Technology) at Brunel University, UK. To mark the occasion, CRICT and the ESRC Virtual Society? Programme cordially invite you to: Bruno Latour (Ecole des Mines, Paris) "Thought Experiments in Social Science: from the social contract to virtual society" Wednesday 1 April 1998, 4.30-6.00pm followed by a reception. Howell Lecture Centre H001, Brunel University To book a place, please email Debbie.Chagouri@brunel.ac.uk indicating whether you will (a) attend the lecture and reception or (b) lecture only, and giving your electronic and postal addresses. Please reply as soon as possible and by 23 March 1998 at the latest. Directions to Brunel and a campus map can be found at http://www.brunel.ac.uk/campus/maps/accux.html Steve Woolgar, Director, ESRC Virtual Society? Programme Christine Hine, Acting Director, CRICT Apologies if you receive more than one copy of this message. Please forward to anyone who may be interested, and who may not have received a copy. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:25:01 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Genes, Gestation, and Life Experiences: Perspectives on the Soci MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT "Genes, Gestation, and Life Experiences: Perspectives on the Social Environment in the Age of DNA" Call for papers for a session proposed for the July 1999 ISHPPSB meetings. Everyone "knows" that genes and environment interact, but, in this Age of DNA, genetics is often seen as the way to expose the important or root causes of behavior and disease and as the necessary basis of effective therapeutic technologies. The dominance of genetics is also reflected within STS. Critical light has been shed on the history, semantic complexity, ethics and other dimensions of genetics, yet very little STS scholarship concerns the sciences of, for example, educational interventions or psychological development. In general, the "environment" is underexamined and construed in simple terms. Nevertheless, several scientific currents are bringing the environment, in different variants, back into the picture. In evolutionary biology, a great deal of attention is now given to the plasticity of phenotypes across a range of environments. Developmental biology, filling the gap between genes and the characters they shape, is experiencing a rennaissance. Although the field still focuses mainly on embryological or early development, the influence of the environment is now acknowledged even for those stages. Behavioral genetics, once firmly directed towards establishing the heritability of traits, now highlights the effects of "non-shared" environmental influences, i.e., those not experienced equally by members of the same family. Among such non-shared influences, Sulloway has argued that birth order may be a key factor in explaining conformity to or rebellion against authority in intellectual and other spheres of social life. In short, the stage is set for STS scholars to examine the complexities of the "environment." What meanings are given to the term, and how have these changed over time and in response to criticism? What is measured and what is explained? What methodologies are employed for collecting data and making inferences? What is the status of the different sciences and social sciences involved? How are these colored by past and present associations with political currents? With these questions in mind, this session aims to enrich scientific and popular discussion about the contribution of the environment to the development of behavioral and medical conditions over any individual's lifetime. If you are interested in contributing a paper to this session -- or know someone who might be -- please contact: Peter J. Taylor Lang Visiting Professor for Social Change Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA 19081, USA phone: 610-690-6858 (o); 328-8663 (fax) email: ptaylor1@swarthmore.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 14:57:39 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Richard Sclove Subject: DEMOCRATIZING SCIENCE (in _Science_ magazine!): Action Alert! MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Loka Alert 5:2 (4 March 1998) Please Repost Widely Where Appropriate DEMOCRATIZING POST-COLD WAR SCIENCE POLICY: Action Opportunities! (Editorial from _Science_ Magazine by Richard Sclove) Friends and Colleagues: This is one in an occasional series of electronic postings on democratic politics of science and technology, issued by the nonprofit Loka Institute. Below is an editorial about democratizing U.S. science policy that I have just published in _Science_ magazine (27 Feb. issue). It is followed by some suggested easy steps you can take right now to promote post-Cold War science and technology policies that are more socially responsive and responsible. There's a political opportunity here; let's work together to use it! If you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Loka Institute's E-mail list, please send a message to: . Please invite interested friends and colleagues to subscribe too. Thank you! --Dick Sclove Executive Director The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004-0355 USA E-mail: resclove@amherst.edu World Wide Web: http://www.amherst.edu/~loka ** PLEASE NOTE THE LOKA INSTITUTE'S NEW PHONE & FAX NUMBERS ** Tel. +(413) 559-5860; Fax +(413) 559-5811 ***************************************************************** CONTENTS (1) Introduction................................... (12 lines) (2) "Better Approaches to Science Policy" (Loka Editorial in _Science_ magazine)...... (1-1/2 pages) (3) What You Can Do................................ (1 page) (4) About the Loka Institute....................... (7 lines) ***************************************************************** BETTER APPROACHES TO SCIENCE POLICY by Richard E. Sclove (1) INTRODUCTION The venue for the editorial that follows unusual: _Science_ magazine is the leading professional science journal published in the United States, and it publishes only one editorial per issue. I take the fact that _Science_ made the unusual decision to publish an editorial calling for more social responsiveness in science policymaking as a hopeful sign. A post-Cold War thaw may finally be starting in U.S. science and technology institutions. On the other hand, the thaw after a long freeze can produce a sulfurous swamp, lifeless hardpan, or a blooming meadow. After the editorial I list a few steps you can take right now to help get those flowers blooming! ***************************************************************** [The editorial that follows is reprinted with permission from _Science_ magazine, Volume 279, Number 5355, Issue of 27 February 1998, p. 1283. Copyright 1998 by The American Association for the Advancement of Science. Readers may view, browse, and/or download this material for temporary copying purposes only, provided these uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. Except as provided by law, this material may not be further reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, adapted, performed, displayed, published, or sold in whole or in part, without prior written permission from AAAS.] (2) BETTER APPROACHES TO SCIENCE POLICY, by Richard E. Sclove Who should sit at the table when science policy is being decided? Across the higher echelons of U.S. government, the long-standing norm is to invite scientific leaders, but no one else who will be affected or who might have an illuminating alternative perspective. For example, to help frame a year-long effort to develop a post-Cold War U.S. science policy, the House Science Committee on 23 October convened an elite group: the presidents of the National Academies of Science and Engineering, representatives from the Council on Competitiveness, leaders of the Sandia and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, the president of MIT, and so on. Notably absent were any representatives from the many grassroots, worker, and public-interest organizations concerned with science policy. There were no social scholars of science, no proponents of alternative science policies (from within the science community or without), and only a solitary science policy critic. This event's restricted roster was hardly anomalous. For example, in 1992 and 1993--when Democrats controlled Congress-- the House Science Committee organized 30 hearings on a comprehensive National Competitiveness Act. Among 120 invited witnesses, there was not one from an environmental, defense conversion, or labor organization commenting on a major piece of legislation with ecological, employment, and other social implications. In the Executive Branch, the composition of high-level science advisory panels--such as the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Science Board--is similarly constricted. The problem with exclusively elite, insider approaches to science policy-making is that they fly in the face of inescapable realities: (i) All citizens support science through their tax dollars and experience the profound consequences of science, both good and bad. (ii) In a democracy, those who experience the consequences of an activity and those who pay for it ordinarily expect a voice in decisions. (iii) Scientific leaders have no monopoly on expertise, nor do they have a privileged ethical standpoint, for evaluating the social consequences of science and of science policies. (iv) Nonscientists already do contribute to science and science policy (for example, women's organizations have redirected medical research agendas to reduce gender biases). (v) Elite-only approaches are antithetical to the open, vigorous, and creative public debate on which democracy, policy-making, and science all thrive. (vi) There is a danger that public support for science will erode if other perspectives are excluded. (vii) With the Cold War concluded, it is time for science policy to welcome new voices and fresh ideas for addressing the social needs of the 21st century. There are proven methods that use broadened representation to inform and improve decisions. The Swedish government's Council for Planning and Coordination of Research includes a majority of nonscientists and is noted for promoting innovative interdisciplinary research programs. Japan, Germany, and other European nations have pioneered processes fostering collaboration between industrial engineers, university scientists, workers, and end-users in developing new technologies. Dutch universities advance social responsiveness via a decentralized national network of "science shops" that address questions posed directly by community and worker groups, public-interest organizations, and local governments. For a decade, the Danish government has appointed panels of everyday citizens to cross-examine a range of experts and stakeholders, to deliberate, and then to announce nonbinding science policy recommendations at a national press conference. A 1989 Danish citizens' panel on the Human Genome Project seconded expert support for basic genetics research, but called for more research on the interplay between environmental factors and genetic inheritance and on the social consequences of science, while influencing the Parliament to prohibit the use of genetic screening information in employment and insurance decisions. This carefully structured, participatory process is already being emulated in other countries, including the United Kingdom, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, and has undergone an independent pilot-scale demonstration in the United States. Experiences such as these can light the way toward U.S. science policies that are more socially responsive and responsible, more widely supported, and more consonant with the tradition of openness that is the true lifeblood of science and a healthy democracy. ______________ Richard E. Sclove is executive director of the Loka Institute, Amherst, MA, USA, and author of _Democracy and Technology_ (Guilford Press). E-mail: . For more information about the ideas and projects discussed in this editorial, visit the Loka Institute Web page: . ***************************************************************** (3) WHAT YOU CAN DO From World War II through the end of the Cold War, U.S. science and technology institutions were powerfully shaped by national security imperatives. In the aftermath of the Cold War, science and technology bureaucracies (e.g., universities, federal agencies, national laboratories, and corporations) have generally tried to remobilize for a new "war"--a war for strategic position in the global economy. But there are other choices. We could take advantage of the end of the Cold War to rebuild a science and technology infrastructure guided by broader and more humane social imperatives--such as social justice, democracy, environmental sustainability, high quality jobs, healthy communities, and a sane pace of life. You can contribute to the post-Cold War thaw, and press for more humane and socially responsive U.S. science and technology policies, by communicating your views to the Clinton Administration and to the U.S. Congress. There's a strateigc opportunity here, but nothing good will happen if you and I don't make an effort. Please send a short note supporting Loka's editorial, and adding your own views or recommendations, to one or all of the following forums. And pass this Alert around, inviting others to do the same. (If you visit the Loka Institute's homepage at you will find all of the following suggestions, along with hot links to make the steps easier for you): A. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has asked the House Science Committee to propose a post-Cold War U.S. science policy. Visit the Web page for this process at: http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_study.htm and leave a comment there. Committee staff tell us that your comment will have more impact if it is polite, substantive, specific, and succinct (ideally no more than one page long; two pages maximum). Staff will ask you for follow-up information if they are interested. (If you are a U.S. citizen, you might increase your odds of being taken seriously if you send a copy of your message to your own Congressman. You can locate your Congressman via the Web at .) B. President Clinton has just announced proposed changes in his top science policy advisors and administrators. E-mail your comments on U.S. science policy to outgoing Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. John Gibbons ; to newly nominated Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. Neal Lane ; and to the newly nominated director of the U.S. National Science Foundation, Dr. Rita Colwell . (We would be grateful if you would also e-mail a copy of your comments to us at the Loka Institute: .) If you are writing before March 13, you might mention your concern that Vice President Gore (and possibly President Clinton) is scheduled to participate in a March 13th "National Summit" on Innovation, organized at MIT by the Council on Competitivenss (COC); the attendees of this event--which is closed to the public, but open to the COC's corporate and university executives--will "vote" their preferences on U.S. R&D policy. (For info about the COC, go to on the Web.) C. If you want to discuss the democratization of U.S. science and technology policy with others, subscribe to FASTnet (the listserv of the Federation of Activists on Science & Technology Network), and post your comments there. To subscribe, send an E-mail message to with a blank subject line and the message: subscribe FASTnet ***************************************************************** (4) ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE The Loka Institute is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization dedicated to making science and technology responsive to democratically decided social and environmental concerns. TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE LOKA INSTITUTE, to participate in our on-line discussion groups, to order publications, to apply as a volunteer of intern, or to help us financially, visit our Web page: . Or contact us via E-mail at . ### ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 05:35:26 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: Belastungsmatrix:NO FUTURE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_889094126_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_889094126_boundary Content-ID: <0_889094126@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_889094126_boundary Content-ID: <0_889094126@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mail.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v40.2) with SMTP; Thu, 05 Mar 1998 04:56:34 -0500 Received: from mail2.ipf.de (mail.ipf.de [195.211.211.22]) by rly-za04.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id EAA16307 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 04:56:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from PARITAET.ORG ([195.88.82.35]) by mail2.ipf.de (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA10615; Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:56:30 +0100 Received: from PWV/SpoolDir by PARITAET.ORG (Mercury 1.40); 5 Mar 98 10:58:40 MEZ Received: from SpoolDir by PWV (Mercury 1.21); 5 Mar 98 10:58:25 MEZ From: ARCHIVE1 To: "graffiti" Subject: Belastungsmatrix:NO FUTURE Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 04:55:07 EST Errors-to: Reply-to: "graffiti" Sender: ECHO@paritaet.org X-listname: X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows sub 74 (via Mercury MTS v1.21) Message-ID: <8E5436366C@PARITAET.ORG> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Im Folgenden eine Auflistung der (belastenden)Schwerpunkte und Besonderheiten,durch die ein =DCber-Leben in der Welt erschwert wird. Das Material wurde entnommen und konzentriert aus den 2(bisher ver=F6ffentlichten)Teilen des VOCABULARY OF GRAFFITI-RESEARCH(sowie Ausz=FCgen aus dem(in Bearbeitung)T= eil 3). STICHWORTE(English): inimical territory,poverty,lack,unsatisfied needs,housing,hopelessness,unwantedness,aggression,hate,abuse(verbal,phys= ical) ,no facilitation,bad schooling,bad education,nutritional lacks,parental instability,no chances,no transportation,ghetto-life,insecurity,no guidance,overchallenge/underfeed, psycho-social depivation,no opportunities,spatial needs,invisible prison,,insecurity,helplessness,continual minimal traumatisation,,revenge,identificational lacks,broken homes,rapid changes,acceleration,inhibited adaption,coping lacks,no dreams,premature adulthood,no playgrounds,,children=3Dnuisances,bad health,lack in care,rejection,,denials,incapacitation,no pets,anaclitic depression,traumatisation,packing,environment,violence,xenophobia,ambival= ences ,boredom,frustration,self-estrangement,siciopathies,a-socialisation,psych= o- toxidity,mobbing,hostility,disintegration,splitting processes(fragmentation),arbitraryness,restlessness,no leisure,agitetedness,haste,no rutuals,damages,censorship,desperation,viol= ent homes,losers,lack in orientation,refuge(lack)sesnsation seeking,danger- craving,troubles,unresponsiveness,lifetime-wasting management,wearout,anonymisation,breakdown,,bureaucracy,,complexity,confl= icts, deviance,discrimination,disintegration,drugs,discontent,disinformation,no empathy,envy,escalation,fears,no future,herding people,horror,incompetence,illegal legality etc./vice/versa,insecurity,intimidation,insults,irritation,losses,margina= lity, monotony,nightmares,overregulation,persecution,prejudices,racism,passivis= ation ,peacelessness,rat-race,repression,sabotage,segregation,social idiocy,unstructuredness,surpluslives,survival,uncannyness,monopolies,welf= are,z ombieasation,slander,blackmail,suppression A.Thiel Kassel --part0_889094126_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 19:03:42 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Basuki X-To: MR JON J BENNETT In-Reply-To: <199802221027.RAA04968@uicsgtw.cs.ui.ac.id> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Jon and all here, Help me to stop for subscribe to this list group. I want to move to seeking Hospital Social work. As researcher I want to start to digging material for new topic as hospital social work. Thank you for your help. Basuki. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:20:54 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: News from Nowhere MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Comments? ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- STAR WISDOM Exploring Contact with the Cosmos A Native American/Western Science Conference and Dialogueon Extraordinary Experiences Co-Sponsored by the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research (PEER) and the Interface Foundation May 8-9, 1998 Interface Newton, Massachusetts (Boston) Featuring: John Mack, M.D., Harvard psychiatrist and author of Abduction Sequoyah Trueblood, Choctaw Native elder Edgar Mitchell, D.Sc., Apollo astronaut and founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences Dhyani Ywahoo, Cherokee chief and Tibetan Buddhist leader Rudy Schild, Ph.D., Astrophysicist and cosmologist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Experiencers, individuals from Western culture who describe experiences with non-human intelligences This fascinating and unique conference brings together the scientific and clinical communities with Native Americans who describe contact with "star people" and Westerners who describe "alien abduction" experiences. For countless generations, Native Americans and other indigenous people around the world have described contact with other intelligences in the cosmos, often calling them "star people." The Lakota Sioux refer to the Pleiades star system as their original home. These peoples have accepted such relationships as a natural part of their worldview, a worldview that easily accommodates inter-dimensional experience as a part of everyday reality. In stark contrast, Western science, even at its most progressive, has taken a very cautious and skeptical stance toward the existence of other intelligent beings. Scientists have exhibited great reluctance to accept the notion that other intelligent beings-in this universe, in other dimensions, or in realms not yet understood-may be in relationship with humans. They have resisted the possibility that there are valid ways of knowing and understanding the universe distinct from the currently prevalent scientific paradigm. Recently, Native Americans have begun to share their knowledge and experiences of the "star people." Many credit their willingness to reveal these secrets, in part, to the work of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, whose pioneering and courageous look at so-called "alien abduction" experiences created dramatic ripples in the mainstream scientific community. And there are a few broad-minded scientists, especially those engaged in quantum physics, who are beginning to consider alternate explanations for extraordinary experiences and have been openly inquiring into such phenomena. Together, we will explore the nature and meaning of these experiences. Regardless of the ultimate explanation, it is vital to examine these unusual phenomena and consider their implications. Join us as we explore the known and the unknown, listen to stories of "star people" and "alien abduction" experiences, and ask profound questions. This conference is for those who are just curious, those who are intelligently informed, and those who are deeply involved. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:41:21 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kevin Johansen Subject: Comments on News from Nowhere X-cc: "NJLEVITT@IDT.NET" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mr. Levitt, Aliens, huh? In ages past, shamans told stories around the campfire of the Demons and = Gods who danced in the shadows at the edge of the darkness. With = technology we have made our campfires much brighter, and have pushed the = edge of darkness much father away. Off of the planet entirely, it = seems. =20 Cheers, Kevin _______________________________________________________________ Kevin Johansen Voice 800-789-0145 CEO, 4WORK, Inc. - and 303-741-9701 http://www.4work.com Fax 303-741-9702 "No one has the right to sit around and feel sorry for=20 themselves. There's too much work to do." - Dorothy Day _______________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Norman Levitt [SMTP:njlevitt@IDT.NET] Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 2:21 PM To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: News from Nowhere Comments? ---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- STAR WISDOM Exploring Contact with the Cosmos A Native American/Western Science Conference and Dialogueon = Extraordinary Experiences Co-Sponsored by the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research (PEER) and the Interface Foundation May 8-9, 1998 Interface Newton, Massachusetts (Boston) Featuring: John Mack, M.D., Harvard psychiatrist and author of Abduction Sequoyah Trueblood, Choctaw Native elder Edgar Mitchell, D.Sc., Apollo astronaut and founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences Dhyani Ywahoo, Cherokee chief and Tibetan Buddhist leader Rudy Schild, Ph.D., Astrophysicist and cosmologist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Experiencers, individuals from Western culture who describe experiences with non-human intelligences This fascinating and unique conference brings together the scientific = and clinical communities with Native Americans who describe contact with = "star people" and Westerners who describe "alien abduction" experiences. For countless generations, Native Americans and other indigenous people around the world have described contact with other intelligences in the cosmos, often calling them "star people." The Lakota Sioux refer to the Pleiades star system as their original home. These peoples have accepted such relationships as a natural part of their worldview, a worldview that easily accommodates inter-dimensional experience as a part of everyday reality. In stark contrast, Western science, even at its most progressive, has taken a very cautious and skeptical stance toward the existence of other intelligent beings. Scientists have exhibited great reluctance to accept the notion that other intelligent beings-in this universe, in other dimensions, or in realms not yet understood-may be in relationship with humans. They have resisted the possibility that there are valid ways of knowing and understanding the universe distinct from the currently prevalent scientific paradigm. Recently, Native Americans have begun to share their knowledge and experiences of the "star people." Many credit their willingness to = reveal these secrets, in part, to the work of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, whose pioneering and courageous look at so-called "alien abduction" = experiences created dramatic ripples in the mainstream scientific community. And = there are a few broad-minded scientists, especially those engaged in quantum physics, who are beginning to consider alternate explanations for extraordinary experiences and have been openly inquiring into such phenomena. Together, we will explore the nature and meaning of these experiences. Regardless of the ultimate explanation, it is vital to examine these unusual phenomena and consider their implications. Join us as we explore the known and the unknown, listen to stories of "star people" and "alien abduction" experiences, and ask profound questions. This conference is for those who are just curious, those who are = intelligently informed, and those who are deeply involved. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 23:44:05 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Mack MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I think the description of Mack as a pioneer is interesting - I could think of many more suitable terms also beginning with "p". The background info on Mack from Sagan's The Demon-Haunted Worlsd is quite enlightening: (p.143) John Mack is a Harvard University psychiatrist whom I've known for many years. 'Is there anything to this UFO business?' he asked me long ago. 'Not much', I replied. 'Except of course on the psychiatric side.' He looked into it, interviewd abductees, and was converted. He now accepts the accounts of abductees at face value. Why? 'I wasn't looking for this,' he says. 'There's nothing in my background that prepared me' for the alien abduction story. ' It's completely persuasive because of the emotional power of these experiences.' In his book _Abductions_, Mack explicitly proposes the very dangerous doctrine that 'the power or intensity with which something is felt' is a guide to whether it is true. ==== >From my point of view the most interesting aspect of the alien abduction stories is that they always fail to describe anything remotely alien at all. The creatures are always humanoid and behave in very human-like ways. 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: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:01:31 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Comments on News from Nowhere MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kevin Johansen wrote: > > Mr. Levitt, > > Aliens, huh? > > In ages past, shamans told stories around the campfire of the Demons and = > Gods who danced in the shadows at the edge of the darkness. With = > technology we have made our campfires much brighter, and have pushed the = > edge of darkness much father away. Off of the planet entirely, it = > seems. =20 [snip] How can a person who has a genuinely scientific (i.e., critical) spirit reject out of hand anyone's claim to have experienced something, especially when that claim comes with some at least not patently fabricated evidence of "strange things" (again, I recommend the film about Australian aboriginals and liberal Westerners: "The Last Wave")? Perhaps these persons' interpretation of their experience is "wrong" and their "strange encounters" can be reduced to trite "realities". But we cannot even begin to assess this in at least some cases until we try to understand these persons' life as they experience it (*if* they will let us do this act which is invasive no matter how nobly meant!). The image of *light*, like all metaphors has its limits. The brighter we make the light, the less we can see of the starry heavens. The louder people scream (or just pressure us with dead-lines), the less we can detect the subtle details which may be indicative of important things to come, or even just the hopes and fears of fragile human persons (a person's faint moan of pain amidst the clamour of an invading tank column...).... Far be it from me to say "there is no G-d", although, at this point, I rather doubt there is such. But if G-d speaks to me (or even smites me), I'll both consider the possibility that I am hallucinating, and *also* that something else might be going on. Sometimes it is darkness that reveals things -- even the light.... Reason consists in debunking bunk, not in debasing what is of value. \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: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 19:20:12 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Mack (extraterrestrial marketing strategy...) X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: > [snip] > >From my point of view the most interesting aspect of the alien > abduction stories is that they always fail to describe anything > remotely alien at all. The creatures are always humanoid and behave > in very human-like ways. [snip] There may be a rather obvious explanation for this, which should be self-evident in a free market economy and in a democracy. If you want to gain market share, or popular support for your agenda, if you want to acquire customers or supporters, the best way is to *appeal* to them: to make them *want* your product or to further your agenda. (This is, of course, more generally applicable, e.g., to the transmission of wisdom.) So if the aliens *want* to interact with us, what does one expect them to do? To make themselves as weirdly off-putting as possible? So the similarlity of aliens to us certainly can be a function of our psychological projection (etc.), but it *could* also be the result of psychological savvy on the part of the aliens. ("When in Rome do as the Romans do", etc.). If you are going to communicate with me, you will have to speak my language (or, to be "spacy" about it: you will have to conform yourself to my conditions of possible experience).... \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: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:36:40 -0700 Reply-To: kwj@4work.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kevin Johansen Organization: 4Work Subject: Re: Comments on News from Nowhere X-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Mr. McCormick, The letters behind my name are 'CEO', not Ph.D. Because of this, I must use different evaluative mechanisms than an academic. And because of this, I often get a different answer to the question asked. I realize that it is a quantum universe, and thus a probablistic one, and thus that all things are possible, if not probable. I also realize that to create a foundation for progress, or even simple communication, we must have shared values. The values of the NA/WS Conference were discarded by the larger culture decades ago as unworkable, lacking in utility, detached from reality, and/or simply lacking in relevance. The world moved, and they did not move with them. Consequently, from my rationalist, bottom line perspective (Which I wear special for this post - an uncomfortable fit, at best.), the greater values of this conference will be anthropological and psychological, not scienctific or sociologic. This, of course, doesn't mean that we can't have fun talking about them. Cheers, Kevin Johansen CEO, 4WORK, Inc. http://www.4work.com Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: > Kevin Johansen wrote: > > > > Mr. Levitt, > > > > Aliens, huh? > > > > In ages past, shamans told stories around the campfire of the Demons and = > > Gods who danced in the shadows at the edge of the darkness. With = > > technology we have made our campfires much brighter, and have pushed the = > > edge of darkness much father away. Off of the planet entirely, it = > > seems. =20 > [snip] > > How can a person who has a genuinely scientific (i.e., critical) > spirit reject out of hand anyone's claim to have experienced something, > especially when that claim comes with some at least not patently > fabricated evidence of "strange things" (again, I recommend the film > about Australian aboriginals and liberal Westerners: "The Last Wave")? > > Perhaps these persons' interpretation of their experience is > "wrong" and their "strange encounters" can be reduced to trite > "realities". But we cannot even begin to assess this in at > least some cases until we try to understand these persons' life as > they experience it (*if* they will let us do this act which is > invasive no matter how nobly meant!). > > The image of *light*, like all metaphors has its limits. The brighter > we make the light, the less we can see of the starry heavens. > The louder people scream (or just pressure us with dead-lines), > the less we can detect the subtle details which may be indicative > of important things to come, or even just the hopes and fears > of fragile human persons (a person's faint moan of pain amidst the > clamour of an invading tank column...).... > > Far be it from me to say "there is no G-d", although, at this point, > I rather doubt there is such. But if G-d speaks to me (or even > smites me), I'll both consider the possibility that I am > hallucinating, and *also* that something else might be going on. > > Sometimes it is darkness that reveals things -- even the light.... > > Reason consists in debunking bunk, not in debasing what is of value. > > \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: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:43:36 -0700 Reply-To: kwj@4work.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Kevin Johansen Organization: 4Work Subject: [Fwd: Comments on News from Nowhere] X-To: BRADMCC@CLOUD9.NET MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Hi Mr. McCormick, > > The letters behind my name are 'CEO', not Ph.D. Because of this, I must use > different evaluative mechanisms than an academic. And because of this, I often > get a different answer to the question asked. I realize that it is a quantum > universe, and thus a probablistic one, and thus that all things are possible, if > not probable. I also realize that to create a foundation for progress, or even > simple communication, we must have shared values. > > The values of the NA/WS Conference were discarded by the larger culture decades > ago as unworkable, lacking in utility, detached from reality, and/or simply > lacking in relevance. The world moved, and they did not move with them. > Consequently, from my rationalist, bottom line perspective (Which I wear special > for this post - an uncomfortable fit, at best.), the greater values of this > conference will be anthropological and psychological, not scienctific or > sociologic. > > This, of course, doesn't mean that we can't have fun talking about them. > > Cheers, > Kevin Johansen > CEO, 4WORK, Inc. > http://www.4work.com > > Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: > > > Kevin Johansen wrote: > > > > > > Mr. Levitt, > > > > > > Aliens, huh? > > > > > > In ages past, shamans told stories around the campfire of the Demons and = > > > Gods who danced in the shadows at the edge of the darkness. With = > > > technology we have made our campfires much brighter, and have pushed the = > > > edge of darkness much father away. Off of the planet entirely, it = > > > seems. =20 > > [snip] > > > > How can a person who has a genuinely scientific (i.e., critical) > > spirit reject out of hand anyone's claim to have experienced something, > > especially when that claim comes with some at least not patently > > fabricated evidence of "strange things" (again, I recommend the film > > about Australian aboriginals and liberal Westerners: "The Last Wave")? > > > > Perhaps these persons' interpretation of their experience is > > "wrong" and their "strange encounters" can be reduced to trite > > "realities". But we cannot even begin to assess this in at > > least some cases until we try to understand these persons' life as > > they experience it (*if* they will let us do this act which is > > invasive no matter how nobly meant!). > > > > The image of *light*, like all metaphors has its limits. The brighter > > we make the light, the less we can see of the starry heavens. > > The louder people scream (or just pressure us with dead-lines), > > the less we can detect the subtle details which may be indicative > > of important things to come, or even just the hopes and fears > > of fragile human persons (a person's faint moan of pain amidst the > > clamour of an invading tank column...).... > > > > Far be it from me to say "there is no G-d", although, at this point, > > I rather doubt there is such. But if G-d speaks to me (or even > > smites me), I'll both consider the possibility that I am > > hallucinating, and *also* that something else might be going on. > > > > Sometimes it is darkness that reveals things -- even the light.... > > > > Reason consists in debunking bunk, not in debasing what is of value. > > > > \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: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 18:18:02 +0000 Reply-To: Jose Morales Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jose Morales Subject: Re: News from Nowhere MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Makes me want to throw up!! Norman Levitt wrote: >Comments? >---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- > >STAR WISDOM > >Exploring Contact with the Cosmos >A Native American/Western Science Conference and Dialogueon Extraordinary >Experiences > >Co-Sponsored by the Program for Extraordinary Experience Research (PEER) >and >the Interface Foundation > >May 8-9, 1998 >Interface >Newton, Massachusetts (Boston) > >Featuring: >John Mack, M.D., Harvard psychiatrist and author of Abduction >Sequoyah Trueblood, Choctaw Native elder >Edgar Mitchell, D.Sc., Apollo astronaut and founder of the Institute of >Noetic Sciences >Dhyani Ywahoo, Cherokee chief and Tibetan Buddhist leader >Rudy Schild, Ph.D., Astrophysicist and cosmologist at the >Harvard-Smithsonian >Center for Astrophysics >Experiencers, individuals from Western culture who describe experiences >with >non-human intelligences > > >This fascinating and unique conference brings together the scientific and >clinical communities with Native Americans who describe contact with "star >people" and Westerners who describe "alien abduction" experiences. > > For countless generations, Native Americans and other indigenous people >around the world have described contact with other intelligences in the >cosmos, often calling them "star people." The Lakota Sioux refer to the >Pleiades star system as their original home. These peoples have accepted >such >relationships as a natural part of their worldview, a worldview that >easily >accommodates inter-dimensional experience as a part of everyday reality. > > In stark contrast, Western science, even at its most progressive, has >taken >a very cautious and skeptical stance toward the existence of other >intelligent beings. Scientists have exhibited great reluctance to accept >the >notion that other intelligent beings-in this universe, in other >dimensions, >or in realms not yet understood-may be in relationship with humans. They >have >resisted the possibility that there are valid ways of knowing and >understanding the universe distinct from the currently prevalent >scientific >paradigm. > > Recently, Native Americans have begun to share their knowledge and >experiences of the "star people." Many credit their willingness to reveal >these secrets, in part, to the work of Harvard psychiatrist John Mack, >whose >pioneering and courageous look at so-called "alien abduction" experiences >created dramatic ripples in the mainstream scientific community. And there >are a few broad-minded scientists, especially those engaged in quantum >physics, who are beginning to consider alternate explanations for >extraordinary experiences and have been openly inquiring into such >phenomena. > > Together, we will explore the nature and meaning of these experiences. >Regardless of the ultimate explanation, it is vital to examine these >unusual >phenomena and consider their implications. > >Join us as we explore the known and the unknown, listen to stories of >"star >people" and "alien abduction" experiences, and ask profound questions. >This >conference is for those who are just curious, those who are intelligently >informed, and those who are deeply involved. > >RFC822 header >----------------------------------- > >Received: from itssrv1.ucsf.edu (128.218.95.22) by rorl.ucsf.EDU with > ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 1.1.2); Fri, 6 Mar 1998 14:37:03 -0700 >Received: from ITSSRV1 (itssrv1.ucsf.EDU [128.218.95.22]) > by itssrv1.ucsf.edu (8.8.5/CDR8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA36660; > Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:31:18 -0800 >Message-Id: <199803062131.NAA36660@itssrv1.ucsf.edu> >Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:20:54 -0500 >Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture > >Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture > >From: Norman Levitt >Subject: News from Nowhere >To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:51:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: VIEW FROM NOWHERE Wasn't it Carl Jung who first predicted this phenomenon-of belief in ET's, as a psychological experience. And isn't this also related to Toynbee's notion of "futurism", that tends to appear in eras of social\cultural disintegration. Jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 22:40:51 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Michael Gregory, NEXA/H-NEXA" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Ian Pritchford says, > >From my point of view the most interesting aspect of the alien abduction stories is that they always fail to describe anything remotely alien at all. The creatures are always humanoid and behave in very human-like ways. Regards Ian << Yes, and that's the scary part. Michael Gregory H-NEXA ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 03:26:46 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Alien Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit A commept to M.Geregory`s posting: The picture of ALIEN is a archetypal image of DEATH as the being being able to take you away.... When old ladies tell you their fears of being alone at some solitary place and somthing could happen to them you might wonder how come such old gals having phantasies of rape. They don`t. The rapist here would be death in a cloak of a normal person killing them.We often smile about their fears because we don`t (want to)listen to their fears that are very natural the elder yuo get the closer the"grey person"(also color depicting end of life...)might be waiting for you. The 3 alien films are the best psychological images to my knowledge and that this"monster"is coming out of chest/belly region(solar plexus)where we experience fearst most is brilliant. Especiall Alien 4,with science trying to tame"nature"not working is worth seeing. Alien also being a disguised question how will we come with our final questions:how to live a life BEFORE death.. so we may be able to pass on quietly Axel Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 05:14:50 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: aliens among us MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Gregory, NEXA/H-NEXA wrote: > > Ian Pritchford says, > > > > > >From my point of view the most interesting aspect of the alien > > abduction stories is that they always fail to describe anything > > remotely alien at all. The creatures are always humanoid and behave > > in very human-like ways. > > Regards > > Ian << > > Yes, and that's the scary part. > > > > Michael Gregory > > H-NEXA As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Or Heidegger, glossing Sophocles' "Ode to Man" from _Antigone_: The strangest of all the strange things in the world is man, and the strangest thing of all about this strangest of all things is that man finds everything strange except for himself. \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: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 05:20:35 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: VIEW FROM NOWHERE (and from the transcendental ego) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > Wasn't it Carl Jung who first predicted this phenomenon-of belief in > ET's, as a psychological experience. And isn't this also related to > Toynbee's notion of "futurism", that tends to appear in eras of > social\cultural disintegration. > > Jon Well, Jung was rather "spacey", wasn't he? Or is mainly that his followers are? But, if the latter, then what in the former made the latter possible? On the subject of demythification, consider the following excerpt from an address by J. Robert Oppenheimer to a 1965 UNESCO gathering honoring Einstein on the 50th anniversary of the general theory of relativity: "I thought it might be useful, because I am sure that it is not too soon---and for our generation perhaps almost too late---to start to dispel the clouds of myth and see the great mountain peak that these clouds hide. As always, the myth has its charms; but the truth is far more beautiful." (SCIENCE, 16 May 1980, p. 698) (What does this have to do with Jung? *We* can go beyond "archetypes", to the Kantian/Husserlean notion of constitutive syntheses of the productive imagination) \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: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 05:30:51 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: lynda birke <100041.1747@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Alien MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I am normally a passive reader of this list....but I was infuriated by Axel Thiel's posting. It is is sexist and ageist. There are perfectly legitimate fears of rape on the part of ANY woman, no matter what her age. To smile indulgently at "old women" and their fears of rape, and to assume that it is merely "death" whom they fear is patronising rubbish. Lynda Birke ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 10:59:07 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Mack and the conjunction fallacy In-Reply-To: <350092BC.1158@cloud9.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: So the similarity of aliens to us certainly can be a function of our psychological projection (etc.), but it *could* also be the result of psychological savvy on the part of the aliens. ("When in Rome do as the Romans do", etc.). ======= REPLY: Try this one for comparison: "Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. - Please rank the following statements by their probability, using 1 for the most probable and 8 for the least probable (a) Linda is a teacher in elementary school (b) Linda works in a book store and takes Yoga classes (c) Linda is active in the feminist movement (d) Linda is a psychiatric social worker (e) Linda is a member of the League of Women voters. (f) Linda is a bank teller (g) Linda is an insurance sales person (h) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement In a group of naive subjects with no background in probability and statistics, 89% judged that statement (h) was more probable than statement (f). When the same question was presented to statistically sophisticated subjects - graduate students in the decision science program of the Stanford Business School - 85% made the same judgment! Results of this sort, in which subjects judge that a compound event or state of affairs is more probable than one of the components of a compound, have found repeatedly since Kahneman and Tversky's pioneering studies." (Samuels, Stich and Tremoulet, unpublished) Now try this one: (a) aliens visit the earth (b) humanoid aliens visit the earth (c) humanoid aliens visit the earth and abduct people (d) humanoid aliens visit the earth, abduct people, and have sex with them. Your basic argument is that a simple improbable statement becomes more credible by the addition of succesively more incredible ingredients. If list members are interested in scholarship emerging from Harvard, then I would advise them to ignore Mack and _Abductions_ and instead turn to the new work by former Harvard literature professor Thomas Richards _Star Trek: In Myth and Legend". This explains how Star Trek became the most syndicated TV show in history by using story lines based an ancient themes in mythology and scripture. It should appeal to anyone interested in hermeneutics. Best wishes 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: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 06:46:37 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: alien Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit a partial reply to L.Birke`s posting: One part of alien-problems is it is a theme that riases deepseated emotions and agitations as well as ambivalences when translations of the"psychological images"is being done. The joke in that context would be: When finger pointing to the moon fool looking at finger. This cannot be helped and is a fundemantel happening you find often in such contexts of controversial character. Whenever some problem ist being discussed one will stand up and state- correctly-but I don`t have(have another)problem. Normally discussions don`t get very far(and deep)if working along these lines. To repeat: ALIEN is a pschological image of DEATH we all are afraid of and would prefer not coming next to us. In what disguise even:rape,accident,drugs etc. A.Thiel Germany ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:10:22 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: News from Nowhere (lost in space...) X-To: Jose Morales MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jose Morales wrote: > > Makes me want to throw up!! > Norman Levitt wrote: > >Comments? > >---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ---------------- > > > >STAR WISDOM > > > >Exploring Contact with the Cosmos > >A Native American/Western Science Conference and Dialogueon > Extraordinary > >Experiences [snip] *I'm* a bit *confused*. I had been developing the hypothesis (transcendental synthesis of immediate data into an object) that Prof. Levitt was a kind of "hard-headed" (in William James terminology...) scientist (esp.: mathematician), and I seem to recall Ian Pitchford having somewhat obstreperously mocked some postmodernist professor (Aronson?) at New York University. I can integrate Pitchford's posting announcements for "leftish/[whatever]" things as part of my constitution of him as a web site administrator (whose job would include posting things he didn't believe in), but I must wonder if there are two Norm Levitts, or if, perhaps, there is a bit of irony afoot here. Who believes / stands for what here? (It's a tad off the mark here, but I can't resist quoting #6, from "The Prisoner" TV series: "Which side are you on?" And: "Who are the prisoners and who are the warders?".... ("That would be telling") \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: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 09:02:42 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: News from Nowhere (lost in space...) In-Reply-To: <199803071315.IAA23691@u3.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > >Comments? > > I had been developing the > hypothesis (transcendental synthesis > of immediate data into an object) > that Prof. Levitt was a kind of "hard-headed" (in William James > terminology...) scientist (esp.: mathematician), > and I seem to recall Ian Pitchford > having somewhat obstreperously mocked > some postmodernist professor (Aronson?) at New York > University. > > I can integrate Pitchford's posting announcements > for "leftish/[whatever]" things as part of my constitution of him > as a web site administrator (whose job would include > posting things he didn't believe in), but I must wonder > if there are two Norm Levitts, or if, perhaps, there is > a bit of irony afoot here. There is, so far as I am aware, but one Norm Levitt--and that's more than enough for suffering humanity to endure. My own position on Mack & Co.--if that wasn't already clear--is that the only interesting question raised is the adequacy of our taxonomy in distinguishing fools from knaves. For further insight into the UFO-Alien Abduction question, I refer readers to the episode of "South Park" that aired this past Wednesday. Norm Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 17:17:34 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Richard Hull, CRIC Research Fellow" Organization: Centre for Research in Innovation & Competition, Manchester Subject: New Web Site on Innovation and Competition MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apologies for cross-posting. The Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition is a new long-term research centre funded by the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK. Within the broad remit of casting new light on the connections between innovation and competitive environments, we are conducting a wide variety of projects within the four themes of (1) New models of competition and their relationship to innovation and public policy; (2) Innovation in Services; (3) New forms of organisation and their relation to innovation and competition; and (4)The comparative context of innovation and competition. Details of the current projects, and of much other useful material, can be found at our new web-site at: http://les.man.ac.uk/cric/ The Web Site includes a list of publications, seminars/workshops/conferences, relevant journals, numerous links to other Centres and web resources, and an Innovation-Competition email distribution list Please remember to visit our on-line GuestBook! CRIC has a Working Paper and Discussion Paper series, and new items will soon be available in downloadable pdf-format. Current items in the Paper Series may be obtainable by post or email - please contact the Administrator, Sharon Hammond at: Sharon.Hammond@man.ac.uk For further details of the Web Site, for instance to suggest additions to the Links, please contact the Webmaster, Birgitte Andersen, at: Birgitte.Andersen@man.ac.uk Regards, Richard ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:14:05 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: ALIEN(follow-up) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit KEYWORD.alien SYNONYMA:stranger,foreigner,fears,projection,unconscious,horror,Zombie,angst,u ncanny,darkness,,facelessness,anonymity,boredom,devil,destruction,death,dragon ,archetypes, PSYCHOLOGICAL RELATIONS:inside/outside LEVELS:society,personal life,psychology TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEMS:mixing up psychologcal images with outside realities=transference/counter-transferece EXAMPLE: One everyday example of a psychological image visualized in many stories and(then translated into films)is the ZOMBIE. According Zombies are un-dead(biologically impossible)bus psychologically perfectly true=severely narcisstically deprived personalities that walk about like"psychological"black holes""you cannot"satisfy"and are full of hate and-if permitted-do to others(revenge-principle)what has been done,they belong to a cohort os PSYCHO-SOCIOLOGICALLY ABORTED persons(unwanted children). Their`s is a very specific(Rene Spitz was first to notice)quality;PSYCHO- TOXIC.If you ever worked with a severely damaged(narcistically)person you`ll know what I`m writing about. Such psycho-socially aborted persons feel"dead on the inside"and they need most extreme "kicks"to be able to feel"alife"and we know of adolescents that killed telling-when asked-they wanted to"feel something at all". Such IMAGES also being"disguised"pictures of death (in the very end...)as it sometimes is coming slowly.Like each parting being a preparation of our final parting when we die.... BNy the way:OUTSIDE walls being the projection screens societies use to have certain(unwanted)themes still being discussed.....a"mirroring"function being also related to archetypal figures of"trickster"(joker"in many countries. A.Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:36:52 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Rudi Borth Subject: Re: Response to Ted Winslow X-cc: Ted Winslow MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On 25 Feb 1998, Ted Winslow posted refutations of some of the theses I posted on 23 Feb. under this subject. (Am I to believe that everybody else agreed with the theses? At least, nobody else had anything to say about them...) It is now time to show why I find the refutations unconvincing. Ted Winslow writes: > Your answers contain the same contradiction I pointed to in the > claims of Weinberg and Wilson. Thanks for putting me in such distinguished company. It makes me feel good. > 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? This could be claimed for most activities. However, self-determination is _not_ implied by the fact that human (and other animals') survival kit includes very complex (and incompletely understood) brain functions for evaluating and reacting to the situations encountered, where 'situation' is meant to include, of course, experiences, memory, skills, opinions etc. in addition to the environment reflected by the most recent sensory input. > 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). Except for our own pre-reflective intuition that we decide and act 'freely' all the time, there are no hints--and certainly no pieces of evidence provided by the methods of science--pointing to self-determination in the usual sense of 'being able to act otherwise than we actually do'. Nobody escapes that intuition (the illusion may be an important part of the survival kit); but from the observers' vantage point the causal network is often more easily seen than by someone involved in a particular situation and busy trying to survive or at least to improve his lot. [For 'his' read 'his/her'. Some languages have political limitations.] > 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". This point can be made only by ignoring the brief question which my brief statement was meant to answer. > Truth compels in a way different from the law of gravity. Both truth and laws of nature require evidence to be compelling. > To begin with, it only compels those who are to the requisite degree > self-determined, i.e. _rational_. "...self-determined, i.e. _rational_"?? If this equality is a serious claim, its truth would make Ted Winslow's statements self-refuting. In short, the contradiction construed and claimed by Ted Winslow does not exist--neither in the real world of which we and our thoughts are part, nor in the abstractions we derive from it in our thoughts. Greetings! Rudi Borth ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:01:58 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Latour on Ramses II (part 1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Norm: I have a problem and I need your help. I don't know if I am going crazy or what. During this semester that I am spending in Paris, I decided to read work by some distinguished French thinkers, and one of my very first readings has been an article by Bruno Latour, in the French magazine "La Recherche" (No. 307, issue of March 1998). I was aware, of course, that you and Alan and Jean had said some things about Latour that weren't entirely favorable, but I didn't find what you said believable, because you made him sound so utterly ridiculous that I was sure that it couldn't be that bad, and I thought you must have been overstating your case. The problem I have now, having read the article, is that it is so much worse that I had ever imagined, that I cannot believe my own eyes. So I need you to help me answer some questions, such as, for example, whether Bruno Latour really exists and is the author of the things that are published under his name, or perhaps you and your friends are great humorists, and Latour is just a figment of your imagination, a joke that you and your friends are creating, a pen name you use to test the gullibity of academics, or just to have a good laugh? Let me tell you about the article, so that you will appreciate my problem. I am sure you will see when I am through with my story that it is hard to believe that someone who writes such things truly exists. In the article, the author seems to be discussing ---seriously--- the following profound and challenging scientific-philosophical question: how is it possible for Ramses II to have died of tuberculosis 3000 years ago, given that the Koch bacillus was only discovered in 1882? I am NOT joking! I have puzzled during most of my adult life over all kinds of philosophical and scientific questions about the universe and its mysteries, things like whether anything at all can be known with certainty, whether moral norms can be derived by reasoning without invoking religion, how the brain works, whether superluminal speeds are attainable, whether string theory is true, how life originated on Earth, and even more mundane questions such as why the Heaven's Gate guys killed themselves, why TV programs are so bad, and what exactly went on between Bill and Monica. Yet, in spite of the amazing breadth of these intellectual interests of mine, it would never have occurred to me to ask a question such as Latour's. Paraphrasing Orwell, one could say that "you have to belong to the French Intelligentsia to ask a question like that; the average person in the street, and the average scientist or philosopher in any country other than France, would never have thought there was anything worth discussing there." And I certainly wouldn't have thought so either, so please believe me: I haven't made this up, I couldn't have, I don't have enough imagination to think of a question like that. Latour is aware of the existence of what he calls a "sensible [bon sens] answer," namely, that "Ramses II died of tuberculosis 3000 years ago, but we only found out that it was so in 1976." But he discards this answer, by saying that elle n'a, comme on va le voir, que l'apparence du bon sens [Transl: "this answer only appears to be sensible, as we shall see."] I have read the whole article (which is completely self-contained and only about a page and a half long, so one can read it and reread it and make sure that one hasn't missed anything). But I am still puzzled by those words "comme on va le voir." Normally, one would expect that, having made a statement and then added "as we shall see", the author would later in the article take the trouble of giving at least one argument in support of that statement. But either I am crazy and don't know how to read this very sophisticated product of the Parisian Thought industry, or the argument isn't there. What Latour does, after presenting the "sensible" answer and announcing that he will make us see later that it isn't that sensible, is assert that there is another "radical" answer, which, he says, only APPEARS to be radical, and he adds, once again, "comme on va le voir." At this point, two rather strong statements have been made, namely, 1. that the "sensible" answer isn't really that sensible, and 2. that the truly "radical" alternative isn't really so radical after all. Moreover, in both cases we have been told that "on va le voir." So you can imagine how interested I became in reading forward, hoping that I would get to see how Latour was going to make us "voir" those two things. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:03:18 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Latour on Ramses II (part 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII First, of course, we need to know what Latour's "radical" answer is. He refers to the headline of a Paris-Match article ---"Nos savants au secours de Ramses II tomb'e malade 3000 ans apres sa mort," i.e. "Our scientists help Ramses I, who fell ill 3000 years after his death"--- and writes: "La reponse la plus radicale ... consiste a dire que Ramses II est bien tomb'e malade 3000 ans apres sa mort. Il a fallu attendre 1976 pour donner une cause a sa mort et 1882 pour que le bacille de Koch puisse servir a cette attribution." [Translation: "The most radical answer consists of saying that Ramses II indeed fell ill 3000 years after his death. It took until 1976 for a cause to be given to his death, and until 1882 for it to be possible to use the Koch bacillus for this attribution." I am sorry for the very bad English of my translation, but this is the best I can do. I don't know exactly how to translate "donner une cause" into English, other than by saying "give a cause." I realize that "to give a cause" is awful English, but I have talked to a couple of French friends and they tell me that they don't understand the meaning of "donner une cause," that it is not good or even understandable French, that what one would say in French is "trouver la cause", which translates easily into English as "find the cause," showing, incidentally, that a statement in any language, if it conveys a clear thought, can be translated into any other language, resulting in a statement that conveys the same thought with equal clarity, and it's only when statements are vague or ambiguous or nonsensical that translating them becomes difficult. Of course, if Latour had said "trouver la cause," then he would have contradicted the whole point of this article, which is precisely to say, or at least suggest, in a truly scoial-constructivist way, that the cause somehow didn't exist until 1976, that the cause wasn't FOUND in 1976 but was somehow CREATED, constructed, invented, made up, or something like that, in 1976.] So now Latour has two propositions to defend, namely, Nos. 1 and 2 above. Moreover, he has announced by means of two "comme on va le voir" ["as we shall see"] that he is indeed going to make a case for them. How does he do it? He states that, under the radical "hypothesis," researchers don't just "discover": "they produce, manufacture, construct" ["ils produisent, ils fabriquent, ils construisent"]. So "to state without any further analysis that the Pharaoh died of tuberculosis amounts to committing the historian's cardinal sin of anachronism." To illustrate the concept of "historical anachronism" Latour uses the statements that A. Ramses II was killed by machine-gun fire and B. Ramses II died of stress caused by a stock-market crash. In both cases, he says, we would have found the statement ridiculous. And he asks why this is so, and why the statement about tuberculosis is not in the same category. He then tells us what "the answer" is, but he doesn't tells us what is wrong with the "common sense answer" (namely, that in 3000 BCE there were no machine guns or stock markets, but there were Koch bacilli, even if the people at the time didn't know it). What Latour does tell us is this: a. that to determine that Ramses II died of tuberculosis it was necessary to wait until 1976, exhume his body, take it to Paris, take it to a hospital, and use X rays and microscopes, b. that without these 20th century techniques, we might have BELIEVED that when Ramses II coughed he spit Koch bacilli, but we wouldn't KNOW FOR SURE, c. that this is similar to what we all experience when we are ill: when we are far from the hospital, we are never sure of exactly what ails us; we know something itches or something hurts, but that's it; it's only when we get to the hospital and go through lots of tests that we get a diagnosis with some degree of certainty. At this point, I start to feel uneasy: Points a, b, c above are of course true. More than that, they are in fact trivially true platitudes, and it is somehwat annoying to be treated like a moron by an author who deems it necessary to point out such things. But, since I want to see how the author makes his case, I am still willing to go on reading. As far as I can tell, Points a,b,c have nothing whatsoever to do with the two theses that Latour said that "on va voir" ["we will see"]. To my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed that the Egyptians of 3000 BCE knew about the Koch bacillus, so a fortiori nobody would dispute that the Egyptians couldn't possibly have known at all ---let alone know with absolute certainty--- that Ramses II died because of the Koch bacillus. On the other hand, the Egyptians' ignorance of machine-guns and stock-market crashes is of a different nature: the Egyptians didn't know anything about machine-guns and stock markets because at that time there weren't any, whereas Koch bacilli ---like, for that matter, cells, protons, penguins, kangaroos, the planet Pluto, the rings of Saturn, and spiral galaxies--- were there but the Egyptians just didn't know it. This is, of course, a view that may be called by its detractors "naive realism" (or maybe naive something else, but certainly naive, perhaps too naive for sophisticated French minds). But that doesn't make it wrong. (For example: I happen to believe that Bruno Latour works at the Ecole des Mines; and my belief is based on the fact that the article in La Recherche says so. That's certainly naive, but I don't think Bruno Latour would object to it on the grounds that it is naive.) If Latour wants to argue that the "naive", "sensible" view is wrong, he'd better give some reasons. He has said he would ["comme on va le voir"], but will he? I am beginning to wonder. We are close to the end of the article, and no signs of an argument yet... Latour then moves into a more "scientific" mode, obviously making use of what he must think is his vast knowledge of Einstein's theory of relativity, so perceptively analyzed in the Sokal-Bricmont book. The answer, he tells us, is that Toute la difficulte de cette affaire revient a comprendre que le deplacement dans le temps obeit aux memes regles que le deplacement dans l'espace. [Transl: All the difficulty here reduces to understanding that displacement in time obeys the same rules as displacement in space.] Wow! Really? For example, one "rule" I know about displacement in space is that I can make choices and move in different directions. So that must mean that I can do the same in time!!!! Wonderful!!! All I have to do now is to ask Mr. Latour to explain to me how to do it!!! Maybe he doesn't really means that both "obey the same rules." Maybe he means that there are SOME rules that they both obey. Which rules? Only Latour knows, I guess! Let's see. Let's suppose that what Latour says about space and time displacements was an intelligible statement (which is already a big thing to suppose), and let's even suppose it was true. How would that establish the two theses that Latour said that "on va voir"? (And, by now, we are through about 4/5 of the article, so Mr. Latour had better hurry.) Latour explains: De meme que je ne peux pas deplacer une maladie dans l'espace sans etendre le reseau medical ou me rapprocher de lui, je ne peux pas deplacer une decouverte du present dans le passe sans un travail supplementaire d'extension de ce meme reseau. [Trans: "Just as I cannot move an illness in space without extending the medical network or approaching it, I cannot move a discovery from the present to the past without some supplementary work to extend that network." Again, please forgive my poor English, but I think that only with poor English is it possible to do justice to the deplorable quality of the French original.] Now I am really confused. First of all, I didn't know that illnesses moved in space, perhaps because I didn't know that illnesses were the kind of entities that are supposed to have a location in space. (My rudimentary readings of Anglo-Saxon philosophy ---so much despised by French philosophers--- teach me that illnesses ---like physical laws, colors, mathematical equations, poems--- are abstract concepts, maybe members of what Popper liked to call "The Third World", but certainly not things with a location in physical space. So tuberculosis is not located in a particular place in space, any more than the U.S. Constitution, the law of gravity, the number 6, French history, or social constructivism are.) ILL PEOPLE (who should not to be confused with the illnesses themselves, although perhaps Mr. Latour is not aware of this extremely subtle distinction), on the other hand, are indeed located (at least approximately) in a specific place in space, and can therefore move in space. But even there I am not following Mr. Latour: let us be kind to him and grant that when he talks about "deplacer une maladie" (to move a disease) what he really had in mind was "deplacer un malade" (to move a sick person). Is it really true that I cannot do this "sans etendre le reseau medical ou me rapprocher de lui" [without extending the medical network or getting close to it]? Really? Two weeks ago I had a cold and I traveled from Paris to London. Wasn't that an instance of "deplacer une maladie"? And, if so, how did that displacement "extend the medical network or get me closer to it"? ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:05:32 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Latour on Ramses II (part 3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Second, even if we granted that illnesses have a location in space, and cannot move in space "without extending ...", how would that have any implications about the displacement of discoveries in time? (Latour says that "the same rules apply ..." If he had said that "Just as I cannot move an illness in space without extending the medical network or approaching it, I cannot move an illness in time without extending the medical network or approaching it," then I would still not understand what on Earth he may be talking about, but at least I would see that he is "applying the same rule." But in his "application of the same rule," he takes an (untelligible) statement relating ILLNESSES to SPACE and says that, by "applying the same rule" one gets another (equally unintelligible) statement relating DISCOVERIES to TIME. (Norm: do you understand what one might possibly mean by "displacing a discovery from the present to the past"? And when he says that this cannot be done "without a supplementary work of extension of that same network," could it be that "the same network" means "the medical network", as one would naively think it does, considering that he says it's "the same" network"? That would give things like "we cannot displace the discovery of the top quark from the present to the past without extending the medical network." Am I getting it right or am I missing something? I have tried other examples of possible applications of Latour's theory of space and time, and sometimes it does seem to work. For example: "just as a cow wouldn't be glad to be shrunk to the volume of a bee, Proust wouldn't have liked it at all if someone had summarized `A la Recherche du temps perdu' in less than one minute." Gee! That sounds right! So maybe Latour is on to something after all? Maybe the famous French Cartesian logic still has things to teach us?) Next, having stated his "principle" that displacement in time obeys the same rules as displacement in space, Latour tells us that it is this principle that the Paris-Match journalist had understood so well: "3000 ans plus tard, `nos savants' rendent enfin Ramses II malade et mort d'une maladie decouverte en 1882, diagnostiqu'ee en 1976." [Transl: 3000 years later, `our scientists' finally make Ramses II get ill, and die of an illness discovered in 1882, diagnosed in 1976.] (Norm: I don't want to nitpick, but please tell me frankly whether you think it is possible that someone who is supposed to be a professional philosopher, specializing in issues related to science, could seriously assert that TUBERCULOSIS WAS DISCOVERED IN 1882. The KOCH BACILLUS may indeed have been discovered in 1882, but I was under the impression that tuberculosis ---maybe under other names such as consumption--- had been known since earlier times. Didn't Francois II, king of France some time in the late 1500's, die of tuberculosis? Didn't Chopin die of tuberculosis, certainly before 1882? Am I missing something? I know that, once again, I may be accused of trying to use an "Anglo-Saxon positivistic linguistic philosophy" kind of approach, and try to make distinctions ---such as the distinction between a disease and the cause of a disease or, more concretely, the distinction between tuberculosis and the Koch bacillus--- that are too fine and subtle for the mind of a French philosopher, trained as he is in reading Hegel, Lacan, Derrida, Virilio, and other truly profound thinkers who never wasted any of their valuable time worrying about stupid things such as trying to use language with precision. But is it possible that, within reason, some of these subtle distinctions that we sometimes try to draw in the Anglo-Saxon world may be of some use to clarify meanings and to avoid saying obviously idiotic things? And I know that is unfair to judge Mr. Latour's use of language according to the standards of a "professional philosopher." He is a "professional French philosopher", and the operative word here is "French". French philosophers, as Pascal Bruckner explained so well in his eloquent reply to Sokal-Bricmont in "Le Nouvel Observateur", are not interested in being right but in being brilliant, as opposed to those stupid, boring, Anglo-Saxon simpletons who think it matters whether what you say is right. Since the statement that tuberculosis was discovered in 1882 is certainly not right, do you think Latour may just have been trying to be "brilliant"? Personally, I don't see what is so "brilliant" about such a statement but, not being French, maybe I shouldn't be passing judgement on such matters, unless I am ready to be labeled a "censeur venu d'Amerique" by the followers of Latour, Kristeva and Baudrillard.) Next Latour ---without appearing to be troubled by the fact that he has less than 1/7 of the article to get to the end, and he hasn't yet come even close to making us "voir" the things that he had said "on va voir"--- goes on to say that time, really, is sort of two-dimensional. He even includes a diagram with two axes (the horizontal one being labeled "dimension lineaire du temps," while the vertical one is called the "dimension sedimentaire du temps"). As far as I can tell, the first one of these time coordinates of an event is what we would call "the time when the event happened," while the other coordinate is the time when we are talking about it. For example, the death-of-Ramses-II event of the year 1000 BCE, talked about at that time, is different from the death-of-Ramses-II event of the year 1000 BCE, talked about in 1998 CE, and for the latter ---but not for the former--- it is true that the Koch bacillus was involved. He then goes on to say that history advances not only along the horizontal axis but along the vertical one as well, and in both cases it is down and one cannot go back. This is it, this is all that the article says, and the author concludes by proclaiming how strange it is that it should take Paris-Match to teach us a philosophy lesson. Now, Norm, maybe I am truly stupid, but I cannot find a single place in the article where Latour gives any argument at all supporting the theses that I stated above with the numbers 1 and 2. He said "on va le voir", and we get to the end of the article and we haven't "seen" anything! I still don't know what is wrong with the "naive" view, and why it "only has the appearance of being sensible", "as we shall see"! And Mr. Latour certainly hasn't told us! But maybe I am asking the wrong question. Maybe Latour didn't feel that, if he states that something "only has the appearance of being sensible, AS WE SHALL SEE", he then has to make us "see", by giving at least some argument. Maybe he doesn't feel that, in order to make a case for a theory, it is not enough to STATE it. We simple-minded Anglo-Saxons have this belief that one has to give some EVIDENCE, if you pardon me for using another one of these concepts that French philosophers so profoundly dislike. But maybe a professor of French philosophy (which is not at all the same as a French professor of philosophy) doesn't care about evidence. Naturally, with my Anglo-Saxon philosophical background, I have a further problem: I don't see what could possibly count as evidence in favor ---or against--- Latour's "theory", because I cannot figure out what is the nontrivial scientific content of the theory. Suppose I were to say that statements about events in time really have THREE coordinates, namely, the two of Latour's theory, plus the number of letters of the statement itself. Or maybe four: the three we have already described, plus the first time the statement was uttered. SO WHAT? What difference would it make one way or the other? This last question of mine I think must have something to do with Latour's strange belief that he understands the theory of relativity, maybe even better than the physicists themselves. That must be why he thinks that the answer to the question about Ramses II lies in a "radical" new hypothesis about the nature of time, and about time being very much like space, exactly as in Einstein's theory. But Latour's theory of space and time fails to be like Einstein's in at least one fundamental point. Einstein didn't just say "let's declare time to be a fourth dimension and label events by four coordinates." Any illiterate ignorant idiot could have done that, and claimed to have made a profound discovery and to have finally solved the problem of the fourth dimension. What Einstein did was to come up with a theory that required the intertwining of space and time in a crucial way, by associating to pairs of events an invariant ---the Minkowski distance--- that only makes sense when you use a 4-dimensional space-time language. And the statement that this invariant is indeed an invariant leads to testable predictions that clearly differentiate between Einstein's theory and Galilean relativity. Latour's "theory," on the other hand, is, at best, a proposal that we take something we do every day ---when, for example, we say that it was found out in 1976 that Ramses II had died of tuberculosis 3000 years before--- and make a pompous and uselees change of terminology, by talking instead about two time coordinates in order to say exactly the same thing. One can do that, sure, why not? But why should one? I can understand why pseudophilosophers who make a career out of pretending that they know something about science, even though they don't understand a word, could see some use for this type of activity, in the sense that it may help their own advancement, even though it adds nothing to anybody's understanding of anything. If you take something eveybody knows (for example, say, that literary texts usually have more than one interpretation, or that a psychologist cannot talk to a patient without being somehow personally involved) and succeed in persuading people that this is so because of some profound scientific fact that you understand and others do not (for example, that it is thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity that we now finally understand that the interpretation of literary texts is relative and not absolute, or that psychologists cannot be totally detached because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle), then you haven't said anything new or worth saying, you haven't added one iota of clarity to the situation, and you have in fact managed to confuse a clear issue by getting people to focus on a completely irrelevant dimension of the problem. (For another example, there is a paper that Jacques Derrida presented to a conference about the arms race. The paper begins by saying that the arms race is a dynamic phenomenon, that it takes place in time, so if we want to understand the arms race we have to start by reading everything that philosophers ---from Aristotle through Kant to Bergson--- have written about time.) So the community of serious scholars, the people who really want to understand and explain things, haven't gained anything. But you, our pseudophilosopher, have, because, when you get people to believe you, then they become dependent on you. They don't understand Einstein's theory, any more than you do, but they don't know this, so they are going to ask for your help and guidance. Et voila, you have become their guru, and that gives you power. Please tell me, Norm, could this be what is going on here, or am I missing something? Cordially, ---Hector, from Paris ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:07:24 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Petition on behalf of Scientists, Engineers, and Physicians in the People's Republic of China (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Member; The New York Academy of Sciences Committee on Human Rights is jointly co-sponsoring with the Committee on International Freedom of Scientists of the American Physical Society, Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the Committee of Concerned Scientists a petition on behalf of scientists, engineers, and physicians in the People's Republic of China who are imprisoned or are thought to have been imprisoned (have disappeared) because they have engaged in the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article 35 of China's Constitution. Please ACT NOW on-line < http://www.nyas.org/china98.html > because this form will not be available after Thursday, April 30, 1998. This is the date after which the number of signatures and forms collected will be tallied, and will be mailed to Government officials in the People's Republic of China. Please sign the web petition OR send e-mail with your name and affiliation to humanrights@nyas.org. Register your support in only ONE of these two ways. Thank you for your support. ____________________________________________________ Petition on behalf of Chinese Scientists: TO: Jiang Zemin, President, People's Republic of China Li Peng, Premier, People's Republic of China Song Jian, Chair, Science and Technology Commission Qiao Shih, Speaker, Congress of the People's Republic of China Professor Zhou Guang Zhao, President, Academia Sinica We are extremely concerned about fellow scientists and students of science who have been imprisoned or have disappeared for having exercised their rights to freedom of expression and association. Attached is a list of 9 individuals who are serving prison sentences and 9 who are known to have been detained, but whose current status is unknown to us. It is troubling to us that our colleagues and students of science have been imprisoned or have disappeared because they engaged in the peaceful expression of their beliefs. These actions clearly violate the rights of individuals as granted in Article 35 of your Constitution and as outlined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We call upon your good offices to investigate the plight of these individuals and take actions to insure that they are released immediately and unconditionally on the grounds that they were imprisoned solely for engaging in the peaceful expression of their opinion. We believe that science is an endeavor that knows no national boundaries, which is why this matter is of great importance to us. It is critical that scientists and students of science in China be given the freedoms to which they are entitled--for their work affects our work, and more broadly, the global state of scientific knowledge and advancement. ________________________________ LIST OF 9 IMPRISONED SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS, AND PHYSICIANS IN CHINA NAME DISCIPLINE STATUS CHEN Lantao Marine Biology Sentenced in August 1989 to an eighteen-year prison term on charges of "counterrevolutionary propaganda and "disturbring the social order and traffic". His major "offense" was a speech he made on June 8, 1989 in which he demanded greater democracy and called upon the Communist Party to step down. He is imprisoned in Shandong Provincial Prison No. 3 in Weifang. His sentence was been reduced to sixteen years in December of 1994. GUO Haifeng Political Science Sentenced to 4 years imprisonment in 1989, freed, resentenced to 5 years in 1996. JAMPA Ngodrup Medicine Tibetian physician sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment December 1990. KANG Yuchun Medicine Researcher, Dept. of Psychiatry, Anding Hospital in Beijing; arrested in May 1992; sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment in December 1994. LI Lifu Medicine Graduate student at Nanjing China Medical College; detained in October 1990; tried and sentenced to eight years' in prison. PENG Wanquan Medicine Graduate student at China Medical College; detained in October 1989; tried and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Prison term expired; release not confirmed. WANG Dan History Former Beijing University student leader, who is serving the second prison term for his pro-democracy activities. Currently serving an 11-year sentence meted out in 1996 in connection with his publishing articles in the foreign press and receiving donations from abroad for humanitarian aid to dissidents. WANG Xinlin Engineering Arrested in Jinggangshan City in June 1989; tried in November 1991 and sentenced to eight years in prison. Prison term expired; release not confirmed. ZHU Xiangzhong Physics Sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment in 1989; brutally beaten by a common criminal; denied proper medical care. Prison term expired; release not confirmed. LIST OF 9 MISSING PERSONS: SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS AND PHYSICIANS IN CHINA NAME DISCIPLINE STATUS CHEN Xuezhao Sociology Graduate student at Nankai University; arrested in August 1989. GUO Luxiang Geology Student at Beijing University of Science and Technology; arrested in June 1989. LI Shi Biology Graduate student; Nankai University (Tianjin); arrested in June 1989; detained without charge or trial. LI Yan Geology Graduate student at Beijing University; detained in June 1992. LU Yanghua Physics Graduate student at Lanzhou University; detained in April or May 1992; believed to have been secretly tried and sentenced. WANG Haidong Social Sciences Employed at Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Ministry of Justice reported his trial and imprisonment in 1991 only to renege in October 1994, stating that "There is no record of this person having served or presently serving a sentence in prison". WANG Xuezhi Medicine Worked at Beijing College of Chinese Traditional Medicine; arrested in June 1989. ZHANG Shen(g)ming or Engineering ZHANG Xingming Engineer at a farm machinery plant in Guiyang City; arrested on June 24, 1989 and subsequently tried; outcome unknown; Ministry of Justice stated; "There is no record of this person having served or presently serving a sentence in prison". ZHENG Yaping Computer Science Graduate student at National Defense Science and Technology University; detained in 1989. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:15:13 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Piotr Szybek Organization: Lund University Subject: Re: Petition on behalf of Scientists, Engineers, and Physicians In-Reply-To: <9803102236.AA02831@nomina.lu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I am very grateful to dr. Levitt for having given me the opportunity of signing the petition etc. I also want to remind of another example of oppression, from (for people of my age) recent history. In the sixties, Boris Pasternak was awarded the Nobel prize in litterature. The Soviet authorities saw this as endorsing the picture of the bolshevik "revolution" and ensuing civil war, presented in "Doctor Zhivago", which they didnt like (it was, in fact, a matter of breaking their monopoly of presenting pictures of reality). A letter-writing campaign was started, and media were flooded with expressions like: "I haven't read the book by Boris Pasternak, but I want to condemn his denigration of the Great October Revolution etc." Now, I havent read the article by Bruno Latour in "La Recherche" and I WILL NOT endorse the campaign organized by dr. Levitt. Although he organizes it not in the name of a murderous regime, but in the name of that noble enterprize, science, still, there is something repulsive to me in the way he presents this matter. Nevertheless, thank you, dr. Levitt for directing my attention to this article. I am going to read it and try to form my own opinion. This is the approach I have been taught in my contact with both science and philosophy. Yours sincerely Piotr Szybek Department of Education, Lund University Box 199, 221 00 Lund, Sweden tel +46462224732, fax +46462224538 email Piotr.Szybek@pedagog.lu.se ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:49:17 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: Destroyer of Worlds Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Brad, please tell me more about the Kantian\Husserlian constituitive synthesis of productiveeimagination. What Jung has to do with this discussion is that I read once that he predicted this UFO phenomemon in the early part of the century. Anyone else ever read this? And yes Jung was "spacey". Some of his writing was actually channelled through his own "spirit guide", named Philemon. In Christian terms we would call this a demon. I do think that the UFO phenomenon represents a real spiritual hunger in people, and can be taken as evidence of man's (and the world's) spiritual nature. For this reason I think we can't dismiss mythology so easily. For I think many "myths" contain some truth, and truth can be represented best in the symbolic language some call "myth". Think of a quantum wave function, which like Proteus takes no definite form until "captured", pinned down, by the act of observation. Also, I don't think we can "completely" get away from the archetypes, although I don't necessarily mean Jungian archetypes. But I'd like to discuss the archetypes and mythology in more detail later, and their relationship to truth. For now consider these excerpts from an article on genetics in Scientific American, and tell me if you don't see the new archetypes everywhere. It also seems a bit mysterious and mythic-as in "proteins specified by genes that in a conventional sense (i.e. your definition of truth) don't exist. "We must pay much more attention to the diversity of detail in ways that organisms play out the basic properties of DNA, RNA, and proteins," says Joshua Lederberg, pioneering molecular geneticis and Nobelist. " We are discovering intriguing twists to the traditional, more simplistic models of DNA's behaviour. Contrary to expectations, genes sometimes leap from one chromosome to another or expand and contract like accordiions. Chromosomes seem to carry chemical tags that identify whether they originaed in an organism's mother or its father-(showing the archs of uniqueness, diversity, differentiation). Proteins can sometimes be specified by genes that, in the conventional sense, do not exist. Workers have even found evidence that organisms may be able to respond to changes in the enviornment by altering their genes." Recent advances in cancer therapy also reveal the new archetypes at work. More on this next time. And since you qouted Oppenheimer, I will end with him. When Oppenheimer witnessed the first detonation of an atomic bomb, he quoted from Hindu mythology "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" This most dramatic and defining moment in our history was preceded by an equally dramatic and fundamental change in our cosmology, and our cosmogony. For it is here that worlds are first created and destroyed. Jon MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > Wasn't it Carl Jung who first predicted this phenomenon-of belief in > ET's, as a psychological experience. And isn't this also related to > Toynbee's notion of "futurism", that tends to appear in eras of > social\cultural disintegration. > > Jon Well, Jung was rather "spacey", wasn't he? Or is mainly that his followers are? But, if the latter, then what in the former made the latter possible? On the subject of demythification, consider the following excerpt from an address by J. Robert Oppenheimer to a 1965 UNESCO gathering honoring Einstein on the 50th anniversary of the general theory of relativity: "I thought it might be useful, because I am sure that it is not too soon---and for our generation perhaps almost too late---to start to dispel the clouds of myth and see the great mountain peak that these clouds hide. As always, the myth has its charms; but the truth is far more beautiful." (SCIENCE, 16 May 1980, p. 698) (What does this have to do with Jung? *We* can go beyond "archetypes", to the Kantian/Husserlean notion of constitutive syntheses of the productive imagination) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:03:05 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Is "Hector from Paris" real or a fictional entity? The e-mail return addresses do not indicate this was forwarded. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:04:16 -0500 Reply-To: Norman Levitt Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Petition on behalf of Scientists, Engineers, and Physicians In-Reply-To: <199803110913.EAA13074@u1.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Piotr Szybek wrote: > I am very grateful to dr. Levitt for having given me the opportunity > of signing the petition etc. > > I also want to remind of another example of oppression, from (for > people of my age) recent history. > > In the sixties, Boris Pasternak was awarded the Nobel prize in > litterature. The Soviet authorities saw this as endorsing the picture > of the bolshevik "revolution" and ensuing civil war, presented in > "Doctor Zhivago", which they didnt like (it was, in fact, a matter of > breaking their monopoly of presenting pictures of reality). A > letter-writing campaign was started, and media were flooded with > expressions like: > > "I haven't read the book by Boris Pasternak, but I want to condemn > his denigration of the Great October Revolution etc." > > Now, I havent read the article by Bruno Latour in "La Recherche" and > I WILL NOT endorse the campaign organized by dr. Levitt. I am deeply puzzled, in that I am not engaged in any "campaign" except that of encouraging discussion and critique of a certain range of ideas. Obviously, I have my own strong, sometimews scornful, views, but I have not called for any action against Latour (or anyone else) except to scrutinize what he has to say. As it happens, I have not read the Latour "La Recherche" piece either, because it is hard to get hold of that publication in the US. Hector Sussmann is a friend and colleague and sometime collaborator of mine, of 30 years standing, and I know him to be an almost obsessively meticulous and scrupulous man. So I tend to respect his judgment. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to do so. The obvious course, if you want either to criticize or defend Latour, is to read the piece. I will try to see if it can been downloaded from somewhere on the Web, and if so I shall be delighted to repost it. I do point out, however, that Sussmann quoted extensively from a rather short essay, so the likelihood that his comments constitute a complete misrepresentation is rather slim. Moreover, those of us who have read Latour extensively will not, I trust, find it implausible that his statements are just as extravagant, and his logic just as fugitive, as Sussmann suggests. > Although he organizes it not in the name of a murderous regime, but > in the name of that noble enterprize, science, still, there is > something repulsive to me in the way he presents this matter. Ah, but a certain symmetry inheres herein. Frankly, there is something repulsive to me in the way Latour presents his own ideas, if we may thus dignify his oracular pronouncements. Let me assure Dr. Szybek that Latour is in no immediate danger from me and people who think like me, even if we were to call for his dismissal--which, emphatically, we don't. Latour is quite secure in his various academic posts--he has thousandas of admirers in the academy who, having committed themselves thus far, are unlikely to recant any time soon. Indeed, my correspondents point out that Latour has a substantial influence over the French science-technology policy bureaucracy (a fact I frankly find alarming). He is also, moreover, a man of considerable private wealth which in this culture confers virtually total immunity to any criticism. I can't help observing, finally, that Dr. Szybek's remarks invite the interpretation that any strong critique of someone's ideas constitutes persecutioin in the fascist or Stalinist mode. Surely that is not what he meant to say? > > Nevertheless, thank you, dr. Levitt for directing my attention to > this article. I am going to read it and try to form my own opinion. > This is the approach I have been taught in my contact with both > science and philosophy. > > Yours sincerely > > > > Piotr Szybek > Department of Education, Lund University > Box 199, 221 00 Lund, Sweden > tel +46462224732, fax +46462224538 > email Piotr.Szybek@pedagog.lu.se > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:09:56 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Destroyer of Worlds In-Reply-To: <199803110950.EAA04524@u1.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > Think of a quantum wave function, which like Proteus takes no definite > form until "captured", pinned down, by the act of observation. > Well, actually, no. The quantum wave function is definite enough--it's the physical interpretation that's puzzling. The standard one--upon which everyone agress for operational purposes. is that the square of the magnitude of the functiion is a probabililty distribution producting the outcome of many observations under identical conditions. It is the single observation that must be "pinned down", and is not "definite" until then. Thus, the celebrated "Measurement Problem" (or Schrodinger's Cat paradox. See S. Goldstein in the current "Physics Today" for an insightful debuniing of much of the nonsense that has been spun around this theme. Norm Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:46:12 +0000 Reply-To: "K.E. Kocher" Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "K.E. Kocher" Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II (part 1, 2, 3) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I'm sorry. I'm not sure who to address this reply to--I suppose to the person who signed their name at the end of the 3 part message, "Hector." In any case, I would like to respond to a few points in his diatribe against Bruno Latour and his article (which I must say I haven't read--I don't read French.) Let me say from the outset that I am a simple master's student studying the history of medicine for just one year without, at this moment, designs on entering into the sordid world of academia. But, I have read Latour's most famous, controversial, and influential book, _Science in Action_, and it sounds like the basis for many of his ideas in this article would be more fully explained in this work. First of all, let me start out by saying that whoever wrote this three part mini-series on Latour's article on Ramses II (Hector someone?) seems to have an especial dislike for what he calls the "professional French philosopher" as opposed to the "clearer and more lucid" "Anglo-Saxon philosopher." This certainly might be getting in the way of understanding. By the way, although I do not read French, I am pretty sure that Latour (given that he is French) chose his words very carefully and that it was no accident that he would use phrases like "give a cause" or "create a cause" (rather than "find a cause") for the disease of tuberculosis. Anyway, let me now offer a few points that immediately struck me and perhaps will help to elucidate what Latour is (maybe?, since I haven't read the article) saying. The author (Hector) wrote: >Of course, if Latour had said "trouver la cause," then he would have >contradicted the whole point of this article, which is precisely to say, >or at least suggest, in a truly scoial-constructivist way, that the cause >somehow didn't exist until 1976, that the cause wasn't FOUND in 1976 but >was somehow CREATED, constructed, invented, made up, or something like >that, in 1976. You have it exactly correct here. Latour is no doubt arguing that the cause of Ramses II death from tuberculosis was created and constructed in 1976. Ramses II, who died in what, around 1000 BC?, could not have died of TB because it did not exist yet (the bacillus which re-defined the disease of TB, or better yet, constructed the new disease of TB as a germ disease with a specific etiology wouldn't be discovered by Koch until 1882). I know this is a potentially baffling statement, but perhaps this will help: What did people at the time of Ramses II's death believe he died of?--certainly not of a disease-causing bacteria. Ramses II died of whatever the Egyptians said he died of and not Koch's or our current day tuberculosis. That is what people at the time thought he died of, that is how they acted when he died, and that was how history was played out. Say you are able to go back in time and tell the ancient Egyptians that Ramses II died of a germ that he caught because someone coughed in his face or something like that. Would they believe you? They would think you were crazy. Say you even brought a microscope back in time with you to show them the bacillus as well as all of Koch's laboratory notes and the x-rays that were taken in 1976. They would still lock you up as insane. Perhaps this will help explain another of your questions/tirades: >(Norm: I don't want to nitpick, but please tell me frankly whether you >think it is possible that someone who is supposed to be a professional >philosopher, specializing in issues related to science, could >seriously assert that TUBERCULOSIS WAS DISCOVERED IN 1882. The KOCH >BACILLUS may indeed have been discovered in 1882, but I was under the >impression that tuberculosis ---maybe under other names such as >consumption--- had been known since earlier times. Didn't Francois II, >king of France some time in the late 1500's, die of tuberculosis? >Didn't Chopin die of tuberculosis, certainly before 1882? Am I >missing something? Just like with Ramses II, it would be unhistorical (remember, I am a historian) to say that these people died of TB before the bacillus was discovered. Consumption is certainly NOT the same disease as tuberculosis. It had a different set of symptoms. It was treated differently. It was transmitted differently. It had a different origin. If we say that these people--you name some king in France and Chopin--died of TB, then we are guilty of projecting our present concerns onto dead people (who cannot defend themselves) who believed, behaved, acted, and spoke of a disease they called and held was "consumption." It was not a disease that was caused by a tiny germ that could only be seen in a microscope. It was not defined by whether or not you had the presence of this bacillus in your sputum or an x-ray showing excessive mucous in your lungs. It was not conveyed from person to person in the water droplets coughed up by someone suffering from this disease. Our tuberculosis simply did not exist back then. Now, I may part ways with Latour at some point in this story because I am pretty sure that he believes that there is no independent reality out there, that everything we see and everything that we believe goes on is really a construct, usually of ourselves, that we create. He is, after all, in the business of debunking science as just a power game of shifting alliances--that those who are able to write the science (and thus construct the reality) are the ones who are able to bring the most forces to bear (from instruments, to scientific papers, to funding, to governments, to other scientists, etc.). Thus, he is able to say and believe that the TB bacillus did not really exist until Koch "constructed" it and that Ramses II didn't die of TB until we constructed this reality in 1976. I, myself, am still not sure whether to be a fully converted post-modernist and jump into the camp that says there is no independent, unchanging reality. So, the TB bacillus, as something that existed, could have killed Ramses II. But, for the historian and for anyone else who uses history (which is all of us), Ramses II could not have died of TB. The people at the time did not know what TB was and their actions and thoughts and relationships were all governed by some other concept of the disease that killed Ramses II. Let me pre-empt some of your scoffing here. This is not some mind-game, some mumbo-jumbo wordplay, or the trick of a philosopher looking to promote himself. This is all about how to write good history. How to get history right--as much as this is possible within the constraints of us constructing our own present-centered realities--especially of how the past occurred. If we say Ramses II died of TB, we are creating a past that did not happen. Keith Kocher MPhil History of Medicine University of Cambridge ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 19:37:02 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II (part 1, 2, 3...) X-To: "K.E. Kocher" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think Mr. Kocher made a quite lovely statement -- perhaps apposite for his own name -- here (but then what's the point of carrying coals to Newcastle?) I would like to make one little change to Mr. Kocher's remarks: K.E. Kocher wrote: [snip] > I know this is a potentially baffling statement, but perhaps this > will help: What did people at the time of Ramses II's death believe he > died of?--certainly not of a disease-causing bacteria. Ramses II died of > whatever the Egyptians said he died of and not Koch's or our current day > tuberculosis. That is what people at the time thought he died of, that is > how they acted when he died, and that was how history was played out. [snip] Here's my proposed change: Ramses II probably died of whatever the most highly educated and professionally pedigreed Egyptians -- the Rockefeller (or Ramses) University Professors of his time -- said he died of, and not what any ignorant Egtyptean man-in-the-street may have thought happened. The crux of the matter is not the superstitions the lay persons of Ramses' time held, but the limitations of the most rigorous scientific findings of every *now*. Oh! But the ancient Egypteans didn't practice "rigorous science" but rather some kind of muddle-headed mixture of "scholarship" and theology? I keep trying to assert that Husserl's work in _The Crisis of European Sciences..._ similarly subsumes the "rigor" of "our" "scientific" praxes. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm trying to tell Egyptians about bacilli (mutatis mutandis!!!).... \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, 11 Mar 1998 20:50:29 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Destroyer and Creator of Worlds MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MR JON J BENNETT wrote: > > Brad, please tell me more about the Kantian\Husserlian constituitive > synthesis of productiveeimagination. Surely any tenure track university professor *should* be able to do a better job of answering this question than I. If she's still alive, Suzanne Bachelard would be one person whom I *would* trust to handle the task. I can only say that I have read and *studied* some of Husserl's writings, and that I *love* them -- they "go with me" in my daily life, and have made a difference in my life, by "re-gestalting" my ambient surround even where I could not change it. I think the basic point is that every "thing" is an imaginative construct. Does this mean that we "create the world"? Obviously not, since I would never have created the world I have had to live in. The obvious, "cliched" answer is that we create what our world means: One man's pointless torture is another man's triumphant martyrdom. One person's testimony to have been a victim of witchcraft is another's evidence for ergot poisoning.... But let's consider a can of cat food -- a 3-1/4 ounce(?) can of Fancy Feast Salmon for cats. I have just described an "eidos": an eternal form as ideal as anything in Plato. As such, it cannot be anything merely empirical, for the realm of the empirical consists, at best, of probablilties, not *universal timeless essences*, such as the eidos: 3-1/4 ounce can Fancy Feast Salmon for cats. What is the pobability that my idea is of a can of cat food? 96.654%? No: I have in mind the notion of a can of cat food, period! -- not just maybe a can of cat food or maybe something else (that would be a *different* eidos!). Now: The eidos "can of cat food" can never be fully presented in experience. (I see a can of cat food, but I can never be sure....) This idea, like all ideas, has infinite "internal" and "external" *horizons*, which, since they cannot all be either perceived or remembered, must include the imagined. What does that mean? It means that the idea of a can of cat food is a rule ("an armature") for the production of an open-ended infinity of aspectual presentations of the can itself, and of relations between it and everything else in the world. The eidos "can of cat food..." is a product of the constitutive imagination. In no way can it be exhaustively "filled out" by experience. But we apply this eidos to experience (I structure my experience in terms of it). I open the kitchen cupboard (another eidos...) in expectation that there I will find the can of cat food I put there a couple days ago (another eidos...).... And, Voila!, I open the cupboard and there it is! What do I see? some gray and orange "sense data"? No. I see that open-ended infinity of internal and external horizons, there on the shelf. What if a burglar suddenly appears? If this is a can of cat food, I can either throw it at him, or quick pull the flip top and try to gouge his eye out with the edge of the lid. All these possibilities and more (like the thought of my cat quiverring her tail like an excited salmon in anticipation of the orangish blob in the can...) form an "aura" around the "can of cat food". And the more I learn about everything from paleontology to industrial sociology to microbiology to Andy Warhole's art..., the more extensive and nuanced that aura can become. But wait. All of a sudden I find myself in a hospital bed, and somebody is telling me through a fog of morphine that I was a belated victim of the Unabomber. How do you think I will imaginatively pre-constitute the next gray and orange 3-1/4 ounce shperical.... I see (presuming I ever get to see another)? Everything we see is an infinitely rich imaginative construction. Perhaps the richest of all are not Shakespeare and Murasaki Shikibu's great literary works, or Hieronymous Bosch's "Garden of Earthlyu Delights"..., but the boring distributions of silver salt particles on the photographic plates that astromoners and particle physicists spend a lot of time and money making. I doubt if anybody not on acid ever saw the universe in a grain of sand. But quite sober physicists see it in a few grains of silver halide on a photographic plate (etc.). Up until the 19th century, when astronomical techniques became sufficiently complexified to detect certain very small changes in relative positions of a few point sources of light in the night sky (which they interpeteded as stellar parallax), there was still no compelling reason to believe the earth went around the sun. And what on earth could "the earth going around the sun" mean, when, obviously, a bright little blob moves across the landscape every day...? If the universe of the physicists is "real", it's in a way far more dependent on imagination than any common sense "doxa" (the greek word for naive belief). Does this help at all? > > What Jung has to do with this discussion is that I read once that he > predicted this UFO phenomemon in the early part of the century. Anyone else > ever read this? And yes Jung was "spacey". Some of his writing was actually > channelled through his own "spirit guide", named Philemon. In Christian > terms we would call this a demon. I do think that the UFO phenomenon > represents a real spiritual hunger in people, and can be taken as evidence > of man's (and the world's) spiritual nature. "Spiritual" is a word that means different things to different persons. I doubt Husserl was talking about OUIJA boards, metempsychosis, etc. when *he* asserted: "For the spirit alone is immortal". I rather think he meant something like that, in conversation, when we engage ourselves with essences (as per above), all of space and all of time, and everything/event in them, become *objects* for us, and, thereby, in a way, we transcend the passing away of all that-which-is. > > For this reason I think we can't dismiss mythology so easily. For I think > many "myths" contain some truth, and truth can be represented best in the > symbolic language some call "myth". Surely myths "contain truth". But maybe, instead of believing in received myths, we can use those myths as semiotic raw material to create our own new images. If it was good for God to create the world, maybe it's good for us to do so too, even if, in our case, imaginative capacity exceeds brute force (viz. The Tower of Babel). How could G-d's creation of the universe exceed our enunciation of a relevatory sentence? [snip] > Also, I don't think we can "completely" get away from the archetypes, > although I don't necessarily mean Jungian archetypes. I have an "archetype". It's from the Unitarians. It's a kind of meta-archetype, which, thought deeply, both moderates (governs according to rational measure) and always exceeds (goes beyond the limitations of) itself: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The museum conservator, e.g., combines the most rigorous critique and the most protective nurturance in a single act. [snip] > And since you qouted Oppenheimer, I will end with him. > > When Oppenheimer witnessed the first detonation of an atomic bomb, he > quoted from Hindu mythology > > "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" The only reason this assertion has any merit, in my opinion, is that it is only a grain of sand in a massive scholarly as well as "scientific" beach[head] of erudition. Neils Bohr also said something pretty good: "You should take every assertion I make as a question." (this too connects with mankind's self-awareness as productive imagination). All that-which-is is question -- as shown by my can of cat food (errrh -- letter bomb...) above. Of course, this includes even the act of a teacher grading a student, and other social subjects which must not be questioned by their objects.... > > This most dramatic and defining moment in our history was preceded by an > equally dramatic and fundamental change in our cosmology, and our > cosmogony. For it is here that worlds are first created and destroyed. Nicholas of Cusa got it right. The center is everywhere and there is no periphery. Conversation -- even that of a condemned person in the enforced solitary abandonment of his or her own "head" -- is, truly, *universal* (again, see Kohut's article "On Courage"). That is *my* faith. [snip] To conclude with one more remark about the imagination. Abel Gance, the great film diector, in his later years, once remarked that the only thing which could somewhat compensate for the degeneration of aging was: to create. I know this myself, and I also have a retired professor friend with intractable pain who agrees from his reflection on his experience too. \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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 02:02:23 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II (part 1, 2, 3) X-To: "K.E. Kocher" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I wasn't intending to enter this latest fray, but the email by "K.E. Kocher" has nudged me in. (Sorry, but that's the name that appears in the "To:" line of my message header, and since I don't know if "K.E. Kocher" exists or not, never having met the person, I will use the quotation marks here.) `:-) I actually enjoyed the message very much -- it's encouraging to see that such a snide and insightless submission as the one sent (forwarded, I assume) by Professor Levitt can elicit a serious and intelligent response. All the more reason, though, why I want to respond to the caricature (perpetuation of a caricature, really) of Bruno Latour's views that's presented in Kocher's response. "K. E. Kocher" wrote: > Now, I may part ways with Latour at some point in this story >because I am pretty sure that he believes that there is no independent >reality out there, that everything we see and everything that we believe >goes on is really a construct, usually of ourselves, that we create. He >is, after all, in the business of debunking science as just a power game >of shifting alliances--that those who are able to write the science (and >thus construct the reality) are the ones who are able to bring the most >forces to bear (from instruments, to scientific papers, to funding, to >governments, to other scientists, etc.). You say you are "pretty sure"; fair enough. But Latour, in many of his writings, argues against the sort of dichotomy that you are invoking here: i.e., that either "there is an *independent* reality *out there*," or that "everything that we believe goes on is really a construct, usually of ourselves, that we create." I wonder, and I am pretty sure Latour would ask this as well: Who is the "we" that does the believing, the constructing, the creating? How did the distinction arise between those who get credited with the ability to "believe," "construct" and "create" -- in other words, credited with agency -- and those who/which are the (one suspects) inert and passive constituents of that "independent reality out there"? As an anthropologist of "the Modern Constitution," these are the sorts of questions that interest Latour. According to Latour's actor-network theory, humans (scientists among them) are actively intertwined within networks of actors or "actants," some of whom are not human at all. These networks, as he puts it, are "simultaneously real, like nature, narrated, like discourse, and collective, like society." By tracing these connections through the real world, we can arrive at useful descriptions of that world (a world in which, Latour argues, what used to be called 'nature' and 'culture' have become so thoroughly intertwined and hybridized as to render their assumed dichotomy practically irrelevant). Social constructivism, on the other hand, when taken to its extreme (i.e. not merely as a methodology, but as an ontology that assumes humans to be the only active agents) does tend to reduce the rest of the universe into a kind of passive, lumpy matter that is shaped by "us" into the forms into which we construct it. This is not Latour's stance, however. You're correct in stating that Latour "debunks" science "as a power game of shifting alliances"; but these "alliances" would be made up of networks of actors that include scallops, scanners, and other things (maybe even "scientific laws" among them). In other words, reality is a process that involves interactions among all of these. Much of the value of actor-network theory, in my opinion, comes from the fresh perspective it offers on the interactions between humans, machines, animals, et al. -- a perspective that avoids the Cartesian dichotomizing that assigns any and all agency to humans alone, or, on the other hand, the reifications of biological or genetic determinists, structuralists, and others who ignore the social and discursive determinations upon our collective realities. I'm not surprised when this point gets lost on the "Hectors" of the world (as it always does), but I am disappointed when it gets lost on more sophisticated thinkers who, perhaps, may be getting scared away from Latour by the rants of those "Hectors" (or by Latour's own occasional rhetorical overstatements). You continue: > I, myself, am still not sure whether to be a fully converted >post-modernist and jump into the camp that says there is no independent, >unchanging reality. Here again, as so often happens, Latour is being lumped into an amorphous camp of "post-modernists" -- a term I am sure he would reject. (For instance, see his *We Have Never Been Modern*.) Will anyone who believes there is "no independent, *unchanging* reality" please stand up? Independent from what? Unchanging in relation to what? Changeably & interdependently yours, ~ Adrian Iwachiw (Ivakhiv), Ph.D., Faculty of Environmental Studies / Dept. of Science & Technology Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada ======================================= ai@yorku.ca ~ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3112 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:50:51 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: BL and science In-Reply-To: <199803120809.IAA13060@mcmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Adrian Ivakhiv wrote: Social constructivism, on the other hand, when taken to its extreme (i.e. not merely as a methodology, but as an ontology that assumes humans to be the only active agents) does tend to reduce the rest of the universe into a kind of passive, lumpy matter that is shaped by "us" into the forms into which we construct it. This is not Latour's stance, however. ========= REPLY: I think this is disingenuous in the extreme. Social constructivists on the whole crave to be anti-realist, and I notice that you do indeed go on to say that Latour has "a perspective that avoids the Cartesian dichotomizing that assigns any and all agency to humans alone, or, on the other hand, the reifications of biological or genetic determinists, structuralists, and others who ignore the social and discursive determinations upon our collective realities." In other words our knowledge of the world consists solely of things as they are represented through the influence of social and discursive determinants. No one denies that we have socially constructed representations of things, or that such representations have import for our socio-cultural institutions. Certainly scientific metaphor and language can be "phallocentric" or "conservative" but what is really interesting and important about science is that it can draw a line between "causally efficacious real world events or processes on the one hand, and on the other those practices of humanly contrived intervention and control that in some way affect what is there to be 'captured' and 'framed' (Norris, 1997) If you don't draw this distinction between the products and objects of scientific practice, or between what Frege would call the sense and the reference, then how on earth do you explain how science can be endowed with predictive power and the capacity to produce sophisticated technologies? It's perfectly legitimate to say that the TB bacillus caused the death of Rameses II and that our representations of this event have varied, isn't it? What's the big deal? I think the lack of reflexivity in the works of Latour and others is truly staggering. My favourite quotation on this comes from Barry Gower: "The conviction that observations and experiments are shot through with theoretical allegiances, and the belief that paradigms, conceptual schemes, etc. have an all-pervasive power, can be understood as signifying a rejection of empiricism..So, too can the claim that although scientific theories disclose reality, it is a reality socially and ideologically constructed so as to serve as a subject matter for the discourses and narratives in which some people elect to participate. But those who subscribe to these newer views find that the empiricism they eject through the front door returns surreptitiously by the back door. For they base their claims, including their dismissal of traditional accounts of scientific method, on facts about what scientists actually do. They 'observe' the 'behaviour' of scientists in their laboratories and explain it using favoured theories in psychology, sociology and anthropology. (Gower, 1997, p259)". In my view social constructivism relies on a deliberate conflation of sense and reference for political ends; that's why it's such a conceptual and epistemological junkyard - social constructivism is nothing to do with knowledge as such. Best wishes 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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 06:58:37 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: BL and science, and the owl of Minerva that flies at dusk.... X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: > [snip] > In my view social constructivism relies on a deliberate conflation of > sense and reference for political ends; that's why it's such a > conceptual and epistemological junkyard - social constructivism is > nothing to do with knowledge as such. > > Best wishes > [snip] I have read a bit of Latour, and did not find it particularly edifying (or particularly bad). Perhaps, Mr. Pitchford, you are making progress in finding more Aronson's (or whoever is that postmodernist professor at New York University who goes for walks in the middle of the day because he is not chained to an assembly line). But there is no end to fools (whether or not you have found any of them...), whereas there is an end to what each of us can attend to in our span of life on earth. I would really like to see you tackle some more substantial targets, like Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jurgen Habermas and Cornelius Castoriadis, Alfred Schutz and Emmanuel Levinas (or his translator: Alfonso Lingis). Jerome Ravetz, Stephen Toulmin. And, well, why not Kant? I'm trying to think of someone in your own "field", that's difficult, since most psychologists don't seem to know much about critical philosophy. So I'll have to settle here for Donald Winnicott, the great pediatrician/psychoanalyst who appoached the social construction of reality more from the prospective perspective of the infant, rather than, as we need to do, "retrospectively", in terms of *re*constructing and grounding our already constituted experience. On the other hand, _Playing and Reality_ isn't *only* about toddlers. Can we raise the level of this discourse to the point where we begin to catch up with the owl of Minerva? \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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:24:50 -0500 Reply-To: Norman Levitt Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II (part 1, 2, 3) In-Reply-To: <199803120812.DAA20419@u2.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Prof. Ivankhiv reminds us that B. Latour, in recent years at least, piously abjures strict "consatructivism" in favor of "actant-network" theory in which, presumably society and nature are dialectically entwined in the production of "science." (See O. Kenshur, "The Allure of the Hybrid: Bruno Latour and the Search for a New Grand Theory;" in PR Gross, N Levittt and MW Lewis, eds, "The Flight from Science and Reason," Johns Hopkins, 1997, for a critique of this move, and of those who have been susceptible to it.) I also indulge in self-quotation. "From the example above, it is easy to see why Latour has frequently been classified as an unreconstructed constructionist. Nonetheless, to say this is to miss an important aspect of his intellectual cunning and his seductive charm. Latour is always ready to recast and, in effect, retract what he has previously said. In other contexts he will, with an apparently straight face. admit that there is a natural universe "out there" and that scientific theories are shaped by it in important ways. Simultaneously, he will censure rigorously the dogmatics of strict social constructivism. Just as he pictures (literally) the mind-set of science as a Janus-faced dualist, he too is constantly springing from one side of a dichotomy to the other." [PR Gross and N Levitt, "Higher Superstition," Johns Hopkins, 1994, 59.] Latour's quick-change act has since been noted by a number of other unbeguiled students of his career, Sokal and Bricmont among them (Latour has been accorded the dubious honor of his own chapter in "Impostures Intellectuelles" [Editions Odille Jacob, 1997].) It is clear that his tactic has been energized by the fact that, although Bruno Latour doesn't take ideas very seriously, Bruno Latour takes Bruno Latour very seriously indeed. The remarks of I. Pitchford are also very much to the point. Disciples of science studies, quite eager to debunk empiricist views of how science works, and to contest whether it really works at all, solemnly, and with no sense of apparent irony, cite such works as Latour and Woolgar, "Laboratory Life" as evidence that their views are grounded in unimpeachable empirical studies. (See, for an example of this tactic, the work of S. Jasanoff.) Of course, anyone who thinks Latour and Woolgar undertook their "study" without having their conclusion firmly in hand far in advance of their "evidence" had best avoid people who try to sell hot stocks over the phone. N. Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:24:32 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Evitts Subject: Re: BL and science, and the owl of Minerva that flies at dusk.... X-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As a longtime lurker, I have to say that I find Brad's name-dropping truly irksome, especially (but understandably) when it's coming from someone 'older' who has just recently returned to and discovered the joys of academia. Pretentious, superficial, glib and artfully smart responses that demonstrate that (like Aronson) someone has too much time on their hands do NOT constitute a significant or even interesting contribution to some of the discussions in this list. Please, more from Levitt and a sensible silence from Brad. Unless, of course, Brad has personally made some real contributions to the field that he would like to share - rather than name dropping and prissy retorts. Or perhaps Brad should merely send in a snidely commented reading list, with a time frame and exam questions? Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: > > Ian Pitchford wrote: > > > [snip] > > In my view social constructivism relies on a deliberate conflation of > > sense and reference for political ends; that's why it's such a > > conceptual and epistemological junkyard - social constructivism is > > nothing to do with knowledge as such. > > > > Best wishes > > > [snip] > > I have read a bit of Latour, and did not find it particularly > edifying (or particularly bad). Perhaps, Mr. Pitchford, > you are making progress in finding more Aronson's (or whoever > is that postmodernist professor at New York University who goes for > walks in the middle of the day because he is not chained > to an assembly line). But there is no end to fools (whether or not > you have found any of them...), whereas there is an end > to what each of us can attend to in our span of life on earth. > > I would really like to see you tackle some more substantial > targets, like Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jurgen > Habermas and Cornelius Castoriadis, Alfred Schutz and Emmanuel > Levinas (or his translator: Alfonso Lingis). Jerome > Ravetz, Stephen Toulmin. And, well, why not Kant? > I'm trying to think of someone in your own "field", > that's difficult, since most psychologists > don't seem to know much about critical philosophy. > So I'll have to settle here for Donald Winnicott, > the great pediatrician/psychoanalyst who > appoached the social construction of reality more from > the prospective perspective of the infant, rather than, > as we need to do, "retrospectively", in terms of > *re*constructing and grounding our already constituted > experience. On the other hand, _Playing > and Reality_ isn't *only* about toddlers. > > Can we raise the level of this discourse to the point > where we begin to catch up with the owl of Minerva? > > \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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:17:04 +0000 Reply-To: "K.E. Kocher" Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "K.E. Kocher" Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II (part 1, 2, 3) (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Well, I suppose I should be proud of all the intense reactions I have helped provoke on this list. It has almost immediately gone way beyond my current base of knowledge and so I really don't feel qualified to answer specifically any of these most recent claims. I have, of course, enjoyed reading the responses. I will offer only this one observation: It is just funny (ironic) to me as a historian-in-training how, as the stakes in this debate have been raised, people's reputations have been brought into the fray, and the comments offered have become more personal, that this discussion has turned into a contest--a contest between who is, essentially, more powerful (and, perhaps the one side which is, indeed, "true" might win out?). In other words, which side can invoke, call upon, marshall, and use as support the most important/influential scholars, the great works of our era (or past eras), the various anecdotal references and quotations. Also, just as important in this discussion is who is best able to debunk the other side's spokesmen, whether in attacking the opponent's points or laying out personal and political attacks on the personalities of the various scholars involved on either side. Like I said, as a current non-academic, as this point, this discussion has become way too sophisticated, way too esoteric, way too over my head for me to be able to weigh judgement on which side is right. So, who will end up being right?--and thus be the view that I am told and taught is true, whose textbooks and other sacred texts become required readings that show me the correct knowledge to believe. It has helped confirm a very valuable historical lesson for me: that often what is taught and passed on as truth and correct knowledge is the one that has been able to squash the opposition in a sort of scholarly arms race. Just adding to the debate. Keith ("K.E.") Kocher MPhil History of Medicine University of Cambridge ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 17:27:11 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: Evitts Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:24 AM 3/12/98 -0800, you wrote: >As a longtime lurker, Mr. Evitts, do the list a BIG favor, go back to lurking. Asia Lerner ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 10:36:05 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II (part 1, 2, 3) X-To: kek22@hermes.cam.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <199803111720.MAA29542@mail1.panix.com> from "K.E. Kocher" at Mar 11, 98 04:46:12 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Kocher writes: > 1882). I know this is a potentially baffling statement, but perhaps this > will help: What did people at the time of Ramses II's death believe he > died of?--certainly not of a disease-causing bacteria. Ramses II died of > whatever the Egyptians said he died of and not Koch's or our current day > tuberculosis. That is what people at the time thought he died of, that is > how they acted when he died, and that was how history was played out. Say What do you think of the idea of using two separate terms: illness for the social and cultural and psychological phenomena relating to health, and disease for the biochemical phenomena? That allows us to recognize the great diversity in the experience and description and construction of illness, including the experience of entirely different symptoms, while nicely eliding the question of the relation of biochemical disease to illness. Maybe also important is to recognize the different meanings of cause: it might be a good idea to distinguish between causation, in the sense that temporally separate events cause other events mechanically, and causation, in the sense that the properties of an entity at one level of analysis cause (or give rise to) the properties of the same entity at another level of analysis. Paul ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:58:54 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Adrian Ivakhiv Subject: Re: BL and science X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" You wrote (quoting my earlier email): >Social constructivism, on the other hand, when taken to its extreme >(i.e. not merely as a methodology, but as an ontology that assumes >humans to be the only active agents) does tend to reduce the rest of >the universe into a kind of passive, lumpy matter that is shaped by >"us" into the forms into which we construct it. This is not Latour's >stance, however. >========= >REPLY: I think this is disingenuous in the extreme. What, precisely, is "disingenuous in the extreme"? >Social >constructivists on the whole crave to be anti-realist, and I notice >that you do indeed go on to say that Latour has "a perspective that >avoids the Cartesian dichotomizing that assigns any and all agency to >humans alone, or, on the other hand, the reifications of biological >or genetic determinists, structuralists, and others who ignore the >social and discursive determinations upon our collective realities." > >In other words our knowledge of the world consists solely of things >as they are represented through the influence of social and >discursive determinants. To what does your "In other words" refer? Your last sentence sounds pretty reasonable to me - to paraphrase your words, you're saying that our socially and discursively influenced representations mediate all of our knowledge of the "things" that make up the world (things which, I assume, may include birds, DNA, "TB bacilli," scientific instruments, and humans who die of "illnesses" and "diseases"). But it's not clear if you are paraphrasing ("in other words") Latour here, or the "Cartesian dichotomizing," or the "determinists, structuralists, et al." >It's perfectly legitimate to say that the >TB bacillus caused the death of Rameses II and that our >representations of this event have varied, isn't it? What's the big >deal? It's perfectly legitimate within a late-20th century scientific understanding of the way TB bacilli work; indeed within that specific understanding it's *more* legitimate than most other accounts would be. Latour, it seems to me, is trying to "bracket" that understanding and contextualize it within its social and historical milieu, i.e., pointing out that our understanding of TB bacilli is historically and culturally situated, and that ancient Egyptians believed nothing of the sort. When he says the TB bacilli explanation is not as "sensible" as it appears (note he doesn't say it's "wrong", does he?), he is doing what an anthropologist does: contextualizing our understanding of things within its particular social & ethnographic world, in part, to suggest that different human communities make sense of the world in very different ways. I see nothing wrong with that - it's an interesting tactic with potentially useful results. I'm sure it hasn't (and won't) result in scientists and medical practitioners suddenly dropping their tools, leaving dying bodies scattered on hospital beds in emergency wards, and taking up studying ancient Egyptian medical manuals instead. So why the big fuss? >I think the lack of reflexivity in the works of Latour and others is >truly staggering. > >In my view social constructivism relies on a deliberate conflation of >sense and reference for political ends; that's why it's such a >conceptual and epistemological junkyard - social constructivism is >nothing to do with knowledge as such. Reflexivity is something we could all get a bit better at. In fact, I'm surprised to hear you touting its virtues -- usually it's been the social constructivists, hermeneuticists and other non-positivist social theorists & philosophers who do that. Best, ~ Adrian Ivakhiv (Iwachiw), Ph.D., Faculty of Environmental Studies / Dept. of Science & Technology Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada ======================================= ai@yorku.ca ~ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3112 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 15:00:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Cartmill in "Discover" X-To: Stephen Straker In-Reply-To: <35080F6A.2525@unixg.ubc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I don't know if Cartmill's piece is available on-line. I got it the old-fashioned way. NL On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Stephen Straker wrote: > Norman Levitt wrote: > > The new issue of "Discover" (March 1998) has a ... piece by physical > > anthropologist Matt Cartmill ... > > Is Cartmill's piece available "on line"? > > -- > > Stephen Straker > Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 > University of British Columbia > Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 > CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:38:02 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Straker Subject: Re: Cartmill in "Discover" X-cc: Norman Levitt MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Norman Levitt wrote: > The new issue of "Discover" (March 1998) has a ... piece by physical > anthropologist Matt Cartmill ... Is Cartmill's piece available "on line"? -- Stephen Straker Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 20:19:30 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: BL and science In-Reply-To: <199803121858.NAA29436@sungod.ccs.yorku.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Adrian Ivakhiv wrote: Latour, it seems to me, is trying to "bracket" that understanding and contextualize it within its social and historical milieu, i.e., pointing out that our understanding of TB bacilli is historically and culturally situated, and that ancient Egyptians believed nothing of the sort. =========== REPLY: This seems accurate but completely unremarkable and I don't know why Latour or anyone else should consider it an insight. We all know that representations are influenced by prevailing socio-cultural perspectives. What's interesting about science is how, despite being culturally embedded, it does come to accurately represent aspects of the real world. That it does so is evident from its success in producing predicitions and technology. Causal realism, not social constructionism, is the only perspective that makes any sense of this as far as I can see, and as I tried to show through my quotation from Barry Gower about the methods of social constructivists, they too implicitly recognise this by their covert recourse to a realist ontology. Best wishes 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: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:07:30 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Anachronistica Ramsesiana (cont.) (part 1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Perhaps B. Latour would like to comment further on the impermissibly present-minded study of Ramses II. Below, an interview with Ed Sanders, chief conspirator of the Fugs, an anarcho-pacifist rock group of the '60's. Note the discussion of the band's famous Country 'n' Western song, "Ramses the Second is Dead, My Love" Norm Levitt ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Goblin Homepage Issue Three Going Out In A Blaze Of Leaflets An interview with Ed Sanders, former lead singer of the radical poetry folk group the Fugs and author of Tales Of Beatnik Glory, The Family (about Charles Manson) and a biography written in verse on Anton Chekhov. By Wesley Joost _________________________________________________________________ GOBLIN MAGAZINE: Were the Fugs ever busted for obscenity at major rock concerts? Ed Sanders: No, but we had trouble returning to venues. We had a free speech attorney on retainer. We had to pay him a monthly fee. When we played Santa Monica auditorium and other places we were picketed by right wingers. The Fugs were never arrested for obscenity however. GM: Were the Fugs educators in a sense, as they were trying to teach uneducated hippies about classical poetry through Rock? ES: We weren't specifically didactic. I always liked the section from Atlanta and Caledonia because the meter is interesting to me. That was one of the first songs we worked up. It wasn't really a song it was a chant and we didn't have to learn any chords. Tuli and I were poets to begin with, and brought it with us, to create folk/satire rock with sense of poetry. But we weren't trying to teach people anything. GM: Was it a coincidence that the Fugs and Frank Zappa where the only ones using comedy in live shows? ES: I met Frank at a benefit for the San Francisco Mime Troop in '65, and then we stayed with Don Preston (from The Mothers) at his home in LA. Our theaters were right around the corner from each other so we saw each other quite a bit. Our humor was a little different, but I guess you could say we were the two groups involved in that level of satire. We played together a few times but not much. I knew Frank Zappa fairly well in the 60's I didn't have much to do with him after the FUGS broke up. GM: Did the Fugs get together because you were starving poets who figured you could make a living doing Rock N' Roll? ES: I had just graduated from College and I opened up a bookstore for something to do. Then it occurred to me to start a satire band because it was the age of Happenings and Civil Rights. The acoustic music movement was prevalent. But they would blend in one or two amplifiers so it was easy to mix acoustic with amplified music. We came out of the happening movement, out of Alan Capro, and the happenings of the Judge and Church, and various theaters in New York city. We came out of the Civil Rights movement; that concept of singing in churches as the Klan marches up the street to get you. The concept of singing to danger. It was something I was very used to as a participant in the non-violent struggle. Tuli came out of Hasidic, and knew all the Hebrew melodies, He knew a lot of labor songs and those left-wing anarchist songs. I knew a different kind of song. So we weren't in it for making money but we quickly learned that it was possible to earn enough to get by. The impetus was to party and have fun. We came out of the dada-ist, the surrealists, and the concept of the beatnik spectacle. GM: Who thought of the ancient Egyptian country and western themes like Ramses II? (Ramses the II is dead my love/ he's left from Memphis to heaven/ Ptah has taken him on his solar barge/ And walked him to Nut's celestial shores). ES: I knew of Ramsey II because he was immortalized by Shelley in the poem Ozymandius. He was a very famous Egyptian king who lived a long time and built much. I thought I would write a country and western song about his procession down the Nile. GM: What were the circumstances of the Fugs break-up? ES: They say for a rock band if you can last five years then it's forever. It's not natural to have five testosterone crazed young men traveling around together in busses and airplanes. We were very controversial and were always getting into trouble. It was very difficult to keep it together. By the end of it we were on Reprise records and they treated us pretty well and we were playing bigger venues. I was working ten to fifteen hours a day just to make the nut. We had to make two of three thousand a week just to give people basic salaries. I decided I didn't want to be a beatnik business person so I broke it up in '69. I hadn't read in a few years, so I just sat around, read, rested, and had fun. Then I started writing my book on the Manson family. So I went from the FUGS to Charley. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:08:28 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Anachronistica Ramsesiana (cont.) (part 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII GM: Why did you choose to write about Charles Manson? ES: This case came along and seemed interesting and I was looking for something to do, so I contracted and assignment from Esquire magazine and decided to take a look at things to see what was going on. I thought originally that they might be innocent but I learned that they were very, very, guilty. There was sympathy for them in the underground at that time and I wanted to tell the story in a way that would lessen the sympathy. There was some danger. I haven't gotten any knock on wood threats in some time, but Manson still sends me hostile post cards. I think he's a fan of mine. GM: Was there tension between straight and gays during the sexual revolution, like awkwardness during orgies? ES: Sure, there were truck drivers whistling at long haired boys thinking they were girls. Things have improved, gays and lesbians are much more organized now. They have much more underground culture. There was more hesitance then. It was pre-Stonewall. Although the gay poets were much more overt, like Ginsberg. But then there wouldn't be any one like KD Lang. She would've been a little more hesitant to "come out." GM: Was there any feminist backlash to songs like Boobs a lot? (If you like Boobs a lot tag along/ If you have a long flagon on ...) ES: Not much. We never performed that one. The only reason it wound up on the record was that it came out of the one jam session that created the first album. We just worked it up on the spot. I could think of worse songs, and I don't think it injurious to women to celebrate their breasts. In ancient Greece they used to have a cup of gold molded on Helen of Troy's breast. There is a temple of Isis devoted almost entirely to her breasts. America was caught up in a breast worship when I grew up. I didn't write the tune, you'd have to talk to Steve Webber who's a folk star in the northwest. There was only a little backlash, and we were very sensitive to the freedom of everybody including women. We had a lot of women fans, my God, they were ripping off our clothes. GM: How do you feel about the fall of Communism? And what do you think will happen to the old lefties who used to be thought of as the salt of the earth. ES: If you mean by communism, totalitarian Socialism as it developed in Russia, it was doomed to failure because it did not have built within it the gradual withering away of the state that Marx predicted in the Communist Manifesto. But the spirit, and the desire to set up rules whereby working people are taken care of with medical care, pensions, and housing for their whole life. I always thought the basis of Communism was the state intervening in the economy on the behalf of regular working people. From that stance it has not fallen at all. About old lefties, I guess they're out there singing the old lefty blues. The good leftists that believed in a world where working people are taken care of are busy in other things: getting funding from HUD for day care centers. There might be a literacy volunteer in a library teaching a poetry class or helping farm workers organize. Maybe helping writers organize in the internet era so they get a better deal. There are millions of people who want to help, and have extra time to share their good vibe. The concept of a more benign and peaceful life is in the minds of millions of lefties at the moment, and they're all singing the left wing blues right now. It's like a watermelon, man, pink on the inside, green on the outside. [INLINE] GM: What is your new magazine going to be about? ES: Basically it's a regional newspaper. The threat of damage from the right wing is so great, so one of the things we're going to do is confront all these right wingers that are rising up. We're going to use humor and ridicule and we'll do a lot of investigations. There is a lot of organized crime, illegal dumping and plenty of environmental issues. So we're going to take a stance to protect the earth, air, fire, and water. We're near the big city so land developers just love to come and carve up the hills. We'll work on establishing a non-polluting business environment so people's work don't kill them. And we'll print a lot of poetry. I have many friends, Gary Snyder sent me a poem and I'll get Allen Ginsberg. So I'll print humor, poetry, and a lot of investigative pieces. We'll also join various data bases. There's a lot of nice Alternet papers that we're joining so we'll be able to pull stories from around the country off Alternet. I'm just going to cover my drainage base. I'm just a poet, I don't have any illusions about making an impact. But I've decided to go out in a blaze of leaflets. I'm an activist. I'm more active now than I ever was, I go to meetings constantly. But I have no illusions. I don't care about fame or any of that stuff. I'm a poet that has a mission. I put out my poems and books, I still write a lot of songs, and guys like you call me up who are a lot younger than I am. I'm honored you thought of calling me but I'm just a skin covered, desperate mammal living in the mountains here. I heat with wood, I make maple syrup, my wife has twenty pet deer . . . GM: How much connection did you have with the Andy Warhol scene? ES: He used to come to a considerable number of early Fugs concerts and hang out. We were making underground films at about the same time. I was always grateful for the silk-screen flower banners he made for the opening of the Peace Eye bookstore in February of 1965. I saw him quite often when the Fugs began but not much after the early 70's. We would go to his parties at the Factory sometimes. It always illicited a fascination from the monied classes as well as a fascination from the bohemian crowd. GM: Were your parents bohemians? If not how did you come to your unfettered freedom? ES: No they were not. My mother was creative but not a bohemian, she taught a Sunday School class. But in the context of where I was raised in the midwest my parents were liberal. I came to unfettered freedom through good luck, through "Dame Fortune." My parents instilled in me that I should be an independent thinker and learn for myself through direct experience. I decided to come to New York to become a little more, "unfettered," let's put it that way. I hitch-hiked out of the midwest to the East Coast and joined the Beat underground where there was a lot of personal freedom. I was thrilled by this change in my life, and I immediately plugged into the avante garde and was ready to go. GM: What angles are you taking on Chekhov in your new book? ES: It's 240 pages long, it traces his life from 1860 when he was born to 1904 when he died. It has a considerable amount of information on the cultural milieu in which he lived: the rise of the Bolsheviks, and the rise of conflict in Russia in the late Nineteenth century. It's in poetry form, and I had to be selective with what I put in, because with poetry you could write a book about Chekhov 10,000 pages long. So I narrowed the focus down to tracing his life in verse clusters. I don't take any tack other than to honestly trace his life, and give some flavor of the radical ferment of Russia at that time. I want to tell a good story understandably so people can pick up on what I'm saying. I wanted to make it easy to read. [INLINE] Writing a biography in poetry form is something that's never been done. I think it will set up a new literary path. One of the tenets of my book "Investigative Poetry" was to urge poets to write about real things, and do biographies in verse. I've always encouraged it so I thought I should get on the ball and practice what I preach. I hope it starts a genre. GM: Do you think much of the youth today, with their MTV 30 second attention span, could be reached by classical poetry and art? ES: No. They're reached by a new virtual art, or gestalt art, art from the over all perception. I don't have a lot of faith in art reaching their minds and lives and making them better people. Art is a consolation for people who's heart has been broken by the world. I'll tell you why: A: Art is a great way for getting through the hideousness of life. B: If everyone was an artist there probably wouldn't be very much war. Art is a pacifying function, and if everyone was an artist the world would be less brutal. C: As to whether Generation X, or Generation Y, can be transformed by art, that's a dicey question. I wouldn't count on art, or museums or performances to keep the Oklahoma bombings from occurring. Literature will go on, however. All you need is one person at the end of the apocalypse with a piece of charcoal and a Bolder and you'll have literature. The human brain evolved to facilitate literature, so it's tied into the actual form of the brain. There will be writing always. GM: What was in your FBI file? ES: It was quite extensive. I didn't get all of it but I got enough of it to know that they exceeded their mandates. They kept calling the Fugs the Fags. It was an inside joke, there were probably a few guffaws over it. They justified it with a typo a newspaper made once. I was under surveillance and at certain points they must have tapped my phone because they certainly knew some intimate things. There must be a lot more to it, but I already have a couple hundred pages. GM: What was the story behind you trying to perform an exorcism on the pentagon? ES: It goes back to October 1, 1967. The concept was to exorcise the Pentagon and try to levitate it so we rented a flat bed truck and a sound system, and we chanted "demons out." It's on the Tenderness Junction album. The idea was for a formal exorcism that would exorcise the evil spirits from the Pentagon. It didn't work because the war went on for another seven years. We hoped it would work but we weren't prepared to crawl under if it levitated. GM: What's Tuli Kupferberg doing these days? ES: He just sent me a bunch of songs. We're considering doing another record. He's still turning out interesting tunes. I saw him a couple of days ago and he's doing all right. He has a lot of political cartoons, does art shows. The Fugs might do a final studio album. We recorded some tunes when we did this thing called The Real Woodstock festival last year. We went into the studio a couple of days later and recorded a couple of tunes. It'll be our final statement, we're calling it Final Anarcho Syndicalist Post-Futurity Social Democratic Folk Rock Civil Rights Salute. More About Sanders Issue Three Goblin@sonic.net ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:46:48 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Why is is that those attacking "social constructivists" seem by their words to illustrate what they seek to refute - that the development of common perceptions of reality are influenced by social interactions - in this case, attacks on persons instead of discussion of ideas and concepts, overuse of emotion-laden adjectives, and even appeals to blatant nationalism (Anglo-Saxon vs. French philosophers)? Perhaps it is a sign of progress that, with the end of the Cold war, some physcisists are turning from defending us by designing nuclear weapons to defending us from French philosophy by writing parody (eg. Sokal), but I fail to see why the rhetoric must be so extreme. Its depressing to think that American intellectual discourse has sunk to the level of talk radio, where a target is chosen, demonized and attacked, instead of engaging others with quite different perspectives in a constructive dialogue from which both can develop new insights, even without reaching a consensus. Concerning the cause of death of Ramses II himself, I'd be curious to know if anyone on the list is familiar enough with the biology involved to help us understand the complex steps involved in concluding that "Ramses died of TB": 1. the method of extracting DNA from an ancient mummy without contamination 2. the method of selecting the DNA segments to be tested 3. the method of amplifying and comparing the DNA strands from the mummy with selected segments from the current bacteria 4. the definition of "identity" used in the comparison (every base pair, or only a set %?) 5. the degree to which "identity" of these segments is evidence that the entire DNA strands were identical (i.e. that the bacteria are the same type) 6. whether the presence of these bacteria are coupled with any signs of the symptoms of TB in the mummy - and whether such symptoms as are known today are such as would have been preserved 7. and finally, as a bit of a puzzle to me, is there any speculation on how Ramses, if suffering from an active infection of TB bacilli, lived to such a ripe old age - outliving close to 100 children. Could he have had an unusual resistance, which his rpedeceased children lacked? Or was the infection brought on late in life - perhaps by a journey or campaign? The above questions are also intended to illustrate that delving into the details of how a judgment (Ramses died of TB) was actually made may be both more fun and less contentious than arguing over the fine points of an English summary of a French article none of us seem to have read. Gilbert Whittemore, Esq., JD, PhD ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 19:40:35 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Paul Evitts' opinion about Brad McCormick's postings on this list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Paul Evitts wrote: > > As a longtime lurker, I have to say that I find Brad's > name-dropping truly irksome, Am I a "name dropper", or am I someone who at least tries to provide references for what he says, and, yes, sometimes try to shorten postings by naming persons who have already cranked out the relevant argument, etc? Do I sometimes get a bit carried away by my own rhetoric? Yes (see Emmanual Levinas, _Totality and Infinity_, p. 30, for a beautiful statement on this point of the relation between rhetoric and truth). > especially (but understandably) when > it's coming from someone 'older' who has just recently returned > to and discovered the joys of academia. Who's the older person: you? me? Mr. Pitchford? Latour? other? I certainly do not wish to take any innocuous pleasure away from anyone. I've had far too hard a time finding any pleasure for myself. In my own case of pursuit of formal education in adult life (between ages 37 and 48, give or take a few...), I found far more joy in books than in academia per se (with the exception of a few professors who acquitted themselves in varying degrees better than the norm, and without whose kindness, empathy, tolerance, etc., I would never have gotten any "advanced degree"). But maybe your experience of the academicians is more serendipitous and synergistic "in general" than mine was. > Pretentious, superficial, > glib and artfully smart responses that demonstrate that (like > Aronson) someone has too much time on their hands do NOT > constitute a significant or even interesting contribution to some > of the discussions in this list. Yes, perhaps barbed humor is a bad idea most of the time, and I probably do too much of it. Edward Tufte, in a lecture I attended last Monday, made a good point: "Don't offend people with disposable jokes, but rather offend them with the substance of your argument." I keep trying to improve myself -- I promise to continue to do so. But, in the present case, Mr. Pitchford made a big point a while back (in a rather long sequence of postings) of mocking this Prof Aronson (or whoever he is), and I have yet to see Mr. Pitchford come out and say anything substantive. OK, sir, I promise to stop trying to "bait that bear". It has proven not worth the effort. > Please, more from Levitt and a > sensible silence from Brad. Unless, of course, Brad has > personally made some real contributions to the field that he > would like to share - rather than name dropping and prissy > retorts. Or perhaps Brad should merely send in a snidely > commented reading list, with a time frame and exam questions? Here's a reading list, which, however, is meant seriously, and adorned with two pictures which might be of interest to some scholars/bibliophiles: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/bibliography.html But, now, sir, you show that your barbs are not well aimed: For 30 years I have been struggling against such things as school examinations, because they hurt me deeply in my life, and at a fairly early point I began to figure out that was happening. I would invite you (and Everyman, woman, child...) to submit a *masterwork* for public evaluation of your accomplishments. But I do *not* test people -- it's demeaning, to begin with... (see also: "The Tale of Foolish Curiosity", in _Don Quixote_). As for me, my dissertation and a lot of other material which will enable you to "situate" and judge me can be found on my web site (see bottom of this message for URL). Finally, I am not enamored of my name, but I find your so easy familiarity in the use of it somewhat unseemly, Mr. / Dr. / ... Evitts. Well, sir, may all our endeavors, however seemingly divergent, contibute to making our shared social world a better place for each and all of us to live in.... \brad mccormick > > Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote: > > > > Ian Pitchford wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > In my view social constructivism relies on a deliberate conflation of > > > sense and reference for political ends; that's why it's such a > > > conceptual and epistemological junkyard - social constructivism is > > > nothing to do with knowledge as such. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > [snip] > > > > I have read a bit of Latour, and did not find it particularly > > edifying (or particularly bad). Perhaps, Mr. Pitchford, > > you are making progress in finding more Aronson's (or whoever > > is that postmodernist professor at New York University who goes for > > walks in the middle of the day because he is not chained > > to an assembly line). But there is no end to fools (whether or not > > you have found any of them...), whereas there is an end > > to what each of us can attend to in our span of life on earth. > > > > I would really like to see you tackle some more substantial > > targets, like Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jurgen > > Habermas and Cornelius Castoriadis, Alfred Schutz and Emmanuel > > Levinas (or his translator: Alfonso Lingis). Jerome > > Ravetz, Stephen Toulmin. And, well, why not Kant? > > I'm trying to think of someone in your own "field", > > that's difficult, since most psychologists > > don't seem to know much about critical philosophy. > > So I'll have to settle here for Donald Winnicott, > > the great pediatrician/psychoanalyst who > > appoached the social construction of reality more from > > the prospective perspective of the infant, rather than, > > as we need to do, "retrospectively", in terms of > > *re*constructing and grounding our already constituted > > experience. On the other hand, _Playing > > and Reality_ isn't *only* about toddlers. > > > > Can we raise the level of this discourse to the point > > where we begin to catch up with the owl of Minerva? > > [trailer snipped] -- 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, 11 May 1994 02:12:49 +0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Basuki X-To: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." In-Reply-To: <199803130126.IAA03863@uicsgtw.cs.ui.ac.id> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Dear Brad and all here, Help me to out from this list. will move to seek topic about HOSPITAL SOCIAL WORK, so to avoid so much letters to my INBOX I want to stop from this list and another that are not relevant to my raesearch for this time. Thank you for help. Basuki Office : Humas Dep. Sosial RI. Jl. Salemba Raya 28 Jakarta 10430. Indonesia. Phone/Fax : 062 - 021 - 3100470 Residence : Jl. Sarikaya II; CC 31/22; Rt. 02/25; TWA; Telukpucung; Bekasi Utara 17121. Indonesia. Phone : 062 - 021 - 8877215. ============================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 02:30:52 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: Ye Of Little Faith Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Ian Pitchford wrote: > What's interesting about science is how, despite being culturally embedded, it does come to accurately represent aspects of the real world. That it does so is evident from its success in producing predicitions and technology. Causal realism, not social constructionism, is the only perspective that makes any >sense of this as far as I can see... > "The conviction that observations and experiments are shot through with theoretical allegiances, and the belief that paradigms, conceptual schemes, etc. have an all-pervasive power, can be understood as signifying a rejection of empiricism..So, too can the claim that although scientific theories disclose reality, it is a reality socially and ideologically constructed so as to serve as a subject matter for the discourses and narratives in which some people elect to participate. But those who subscribe to these newer views find that the empiricism they eject through the front door returns surreptitiously by the back door. For they base their claims, including their dismissal of traditional accounts of scientific method, on facts about what scientists actually do. They 'observe' the 'behaviour' of scientists in their laboratories and explain it using favoured theories in psychology, sociology and anthropology. (Gower, >1997, p259)". >In my view social constructivism relies on a deliberate conflation of sense and reference for political ends; that's why it's such a conceptual and epistemological junkyard - social constructivism is >nothing to do with knowledge as such. Reply: Science cannot predict, as it once thought it could-the history of prediction has gone from a belief in an absolute prediction, to probable predictions, to full blown unpredictability, as in complex systems. This has been a progression in the history of science* and reflects a progression in our understanding of the way the world is. *(Look for a soon to come posting on the stages of science) Also remember that Ptolemy could make very good astronomical predictions, and this was based on extraordinary empirical data. But nevertheless, he had it backwards. The world is rich, varied and complex. The problem isn't with empiricism per se. Science and scientific truth have never been totally based on empiricism. Look at the vast empirical knowledge of ancient China, which also had a rich, but different theoretical base. But the chinese would never have developed calculus, or discovered the laws of motion. This is because of a different conceptual base-which is surely related to a different religious/mythic/philosophical system. Consider Pitirim Sorokin's idea that truth systems (scientific or otherwise) are always a composite of empiricism, rationalism, and intuition, or the (truth of faith). And these 3 are mixed in a very specific way in different ages, which also have very specific ideas about space, time, causality and number. The point is that if you look at the larger social-cultural pattern, you will see certain consistent themes emerge, themes obscured to the tunnel vision of the reductionist-themes that prove without a doubt , the reality of underlying conceptual frameworks that drive all our thought and action. I'll try to do justice to Sorokin in the coming days, it's really unfair to make only a passing reference to him. But for those who speak of this view as a conceptual and epistemological junkyard, all I can say is that this is one junkyard dog, I dare you to spar with. We may discover a scientifically valid, empirical truths, say the laws of motion. The problem is that when we explain these truths we make other assumptions about the nature of reality which can be limiting in different contexts. (say that reality is corpuscular, linear, or simple). Atomic theory may be fruitful in explaining certain aspects of the reality, but field theory may be needed for others, and joining these versions may yet explain other aspects of the world. And even other aspects of reality can only be explained by a further refining of time tried concepts. Just look how atomic theory has evolved. Is an atom an empirical reality? Then which concept of it is the real one. Hurry with your answer because this is still an evolving entity, an evolving truth to take in ever widening dimensions of reality. One conceptual theme can never deal with these multiple dimensions, although in its place and time it's indispensable to our burgeoning understanding. We explain empirical realities by conceptual frameworks that may imprison reality, and our understanding of it. We attach and interpret the empirical with theories about nature that we absolutize. We confuse the two. Remember that technology, and the fruits of the scientific enterprise (in this century anyway, through Edison) came at the same time as science was having it's "existential crisis"-when the theoretical foundations were being shaken to its core (Heisenberg, and before that Einstein). Technology and science are separate animals. But this is too bog of a problem to do justice to now. The fact that science can find out real things about the world does not annul the idea of a conceptual or pardigmic milieu. Paradigms, conceptual schemes, change in order to keep this process of discovery going. Certain concepts and theoretical assumptions, though useful, become exhausted in time. Jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 03:05:02 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: Times are a'Changing Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII My interest in this subject began about 14 years ago. The influences have been many and varied. Pitirim Sorokin's "Social and Cultural Dynamics", was the most important. This is a an incredible, colossal, 4 volume work which describes the history of all cultures as a waxing and waning of of 3 different types cultural super- systems:the sensate,the ideational, and the idealistic. I'll try to describe them in more detail later. In a sensate culture, the physical world is seen as primary, and spiritual phenomena, are believed either not to exist, or are explained in as manifestations of the physical world. A sensate culture subscribes to relative values, and a specific brand of art,literature philosophy,science music, even architecture, as well as particular ideas about space, time, causality and number. The past 5 or 6 centuries we have been in a sensate age-and it is now believed to be disintegrating. An ideational culture believes that the spiritual realm is the primary reality and that the physical world is illusory or a manifestation of the spiritual. An ideational culture also has its own kind of art, lit., phil, music...etc, as well as different conceptions of space, time causality and number-and subscribes to absolute values. The middle ages was an example of an ideational age. An idealistic age is a mix of the two, and the renaissance is an example of this cultural super-system. Ancient Greece and Rome also passed through all 3 stages, as well as other cultures-according to Sorokin. What really influenced me was the idea that the 1st principles of thought also oscillated with each age -in a consistent way. Some of these first principles of thought are: determinism-indeterminism, reductionism-wholism, realism-nominalism, being-becoming, mechanism-vitalism, the linear-the cyclical. Joseph Campbell had an influence on my understanding of the solar-lunar mythological systems, but not as much as a little book called,"Alpha-The myths of Creation, by Long. The interesting thing, and a difficult thing, is that this topic is so huge-touching on the entire contents of the culture, now and in past ages, and in different cultures. It gives a new way of understanding "everything". This can be a blessing and a curse. I look forward to trying to develop this theme, and all comments. Jon Bennett ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 03:04:55 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: Stages of Science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi All, I'd like to return again to the conceptual roots of science. I get the idea from some of the comments that some think there are no conceptual roots. It's as if we awoke one morning and went out to find a tree and its fruit, without ever giving thought to the soil in which it grew, or the seed, or roots. I don't see how you can discuss the conceptual roots of science without discussing ages, or phases of history, and science. Do we go back to ancient Greece, or earlier, to the 17th cent. If we wish to discuss modern science, and can agree it began in the 17th. cent, then when did this period end, or has it. Is science itself, and its history, one thing or many? Let's assume it developed in stages,( although I'm sure this reveals a pardigmic bias). As I have said, I believe the pardigm we are in does not like classifications, definitions, categories-as it does not really believe in any one version of things. If you disagree with me, you prove my point. And though this may seem as double talk, or semantical games, it was this same kind of logical contradiction that ushered in this new phase in science-and culture. As in Russell's paradox, Godels theorem. I believe Husserl ran into the same problem as did Heisenberg. I know these are separate issues, but on a fundamental level they are the same problem. Warren Weaver co-founder of information theory said that "science used to be concerned with two-variable problems, cause and effect stimulus-response, and the like. This was the prototype of thinking in classical physics. Somewhat later, the problem of "unorganized complexity" appeared which is essentially answered by statistical laws. Now, however, we are confronted with problems of "organized complexity" at all levels." Is this true? And if so does it represent one, two, or three phases science has passed through since the 17th century. I believe it represents two. The first is the mechanistic paradigm. The other two stages are really one. The stage which which dealt with "unorganized complexity" is the probabilistic paradigm of quantum physics. The stage which deals with "organized complexity", is the paradigm dealt with in systems theory. These last two stages can be thought of as one, at least insofar as they are a break with the mechanistic paradigm and its archetypes. In addition these two, the quantum probabilistic, and the general systems paradigm, share many of the same archetypes. But this will take time to explain, time which I don't have right now. What do you think? Jon ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 11:18:25 +0000 Reply-To: pyp96ip@sheffield.ac.uk Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Organization: Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies Subject: Re: Ye Of Little Faith MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT JON J BENNETT wrote: Science cannot predict, as it once thought it could-the history of prediction has gone from a belief in an absolute prediction, to probable predictions, to full blown unpredictability, as in complex systems. === REPLY: This is just plain wrong. Chaos theory is of such interest precisley because it does allow predicitons to be made where they couldn't previously. To give the story a local flavour, the Institute of Spring Technology here at the University of Sheffield is helping industry to predict the viability of springs using chaos theory. So not only is it determinsitic and predictinve but also useful in technology. 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 2976 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 Burying Freud - The WWW Site http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/burying_freud.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:37:03 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: New Topic: A phenomenological refutation of solipsism X-cc: mgregory@concentric.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have been asked offline if I might wish to share with the list some thoughts about "phenomenology". I do have one thought on this subject which I feel is important, and which I do not seem to have seen stated anywhere quite the way I have worked it out "in my head". I'm not even *sure* everybody would call it a phenomenological description, but maybe placing it on the table will have some constructive effect. "Solipsism" seems to be one of the classic issues of philosophy. How do I know that other minds exist and that "the person I am talking to" is not a robot or whatever? That's the "issue" I wish here to [begin to] address. My answer is as follows, and please bear in mind that I will be using words in the discussion that bear on the discussion before their place in the discussion has been grounded/situated by the discussion (this is an e-mail note, after all, not a "big book"): If we look at our experience as we experience it, we find that we are thinking something or other. We find ourselves immersed in a stream of strands of speech. Sentences, sentence fragments, longer chains of argument / free association, etc. *Now* all these chains of words are experienced directly as meaningful. If the sentence appears: "The cat is on the mat", there may be no cat and no mat (etc.), but there is little question that it is not an issue of dogs eating bagels (that possibility can be dealt with by an elaboration of the present remarks -- which remarks, please note, whether you agree or disagree with them, you are in either case understanding *as* an argument about solipsism, cats, mats, dogs, bagels, etc. --> there is *your* "phenomenological evidence"). Here is where the issue of "solipsism" and "the reality of other minds" comes in: It is certain *what* the conversation (if only with oneself in one's head) is about. What is not certain is the vast problematic of where the words are coming from (which is not immediately given). I propose that *both* the notion of "self" *and* the notion of "other" are empirical constructs (hello, empiricists!), which are equally subject to falsification (or Kuhnian paradigm shift re-interpretation) in the course of experience. I attribute certain symbols which appear in my expeience as "things I said", and I interpret other symbols as "things [whoever] said" (said, wrote, etc.). But I can be wrong about this. It is far more doubtful *who* said what, than what was said. As Geoge Steiner wrote (quoting Schiller): "No man knows where the words come from." There are even simple physical analogies here: All one needs to do is suddenly "find oneself paralyzed" (or to sever a tendon, etc.), to realize that even the control of "one's own" fingers is an unfathomable mystery. And Freud's notion of unconscious motivation at least begins to make us wonder who/what is the origin of at least some of the words that come out of "our own" mouths. Now: this argument has also a kind of metaphysical side. Consider the infant. Infants have organized experience, but they do not at first clearly differentiate "self" from "other". Every bodily gesture is as good as another. But, not so! When one arm moves, it alomost always tries to reach for what the infant wants (even if often the reach fails in clumsiness -- time to bawl!). When another arm moves, it reaches far more surely for the desired object (e.g., a brightly colored ball to play with), *but* it reaches for the ball only sometimes (time to bawl again!). How to deal with this frustrating quality of the *field of meaning* (the phenomenological given)? Who knows how many ways there are to deal with it, and maybe some exotic culture has come up with a different answer than we (I, etc.). But, "for us", the solution is generally to assign the one arm to "baby", and the other arms to "mommy", "daddy", "poppop", "nana", "kitty" (the pet cat), etc. In this way the child keeps from going crazy in the face of the largely illogical way logical operations play themselves out in its experience. The precise content which accrues to these incipient notions of "self" and "other", over the course of a lifetime, is, of course, a highly complex matter, and perhaps, even in our culture, the results vary. Perhaps some postmodernists really do not have selfs (selves), for example.... So I experience myself as being always in the midst of an evolving sea of streams of symbols -- streams which each has its course, each has a beginning and an end, many have hiatuses (stop and then come back again later...), merge and split.... But "who said what" is, in varying measures, less clear. In the heat of a really heated (not necessarily adversarial, just *impassioned*) conversation, a lot of things will get said, and, both then and later, it may not be possible to decide who said what (there's more evidence for the thesis). In reading a book, I "argue" (again, not necessarily adversarial, just "engaged" with the words on the page), again, who said what may be far less clear that what is being said (thought, etc.). Replying to e-mail? You all know that I don't do a good job of assigning saids to sayers. End of presentation. You can continue the argument for yourself if you wish, or we can continue it here on the list or offline, if anyone is interested. But, as they say in business: What's the "net"? The "net" is that "we are a conversation", that the ultimate reality, what we cannot "get behind" or "get away from", what we cannot doubt (at least for as long as there is a we (I) that can doubt or do anything) is that there is a conversation: that theses get asserted, which "beg" for clarification, justification, etc., which "lead to" new ideas, desiderata for action, etc.... To devote ourselves, not "exclusively" but *focally* to the thematized cultivation of this conversation-which-we-are is to [well, fill in just about every philosophical and existential and practical (i.e., caring for persons and things) honorific you can think of]. Such a form of life comes as close as is possible for us to, e.g., absolute self-knowledge (the coincidence of the "in itself" with the "for itself"). It combines (and here's where the rabbit comes out of the hat, folks, so watch closely!) *is* with *ought*, because the existent process of caring for the existent conversation is directly the process of both eludicating (discovering / defining) and realizing (both in awareness and in fact) the ideal. It is the project of a radically transparent social world, where every symbolic form the individual experiences is backed up in unending depth by the project of making it be meaningful, both semantically and empathically. The final test of this theory is, of course, one which I have no desire to engage in, but which, unless I am even more unfortunate than the alternative, I believe I will have the unwelcome opportunity to have: dying. What is the self-closing phenomenology of dying? Hermann Broch provides two answers in the closing words of his two great novels, which illustrate in fiction what Heinz Kohut wrote in psychoanalytic theory ("On Courage"). _The Sleepwalkers_: Do thyself no harm for we are all here. _The Death of Virgil_ ...It was the word beyond speech. Truly, all, I have nothing more to say (except to say more of the same -- to elaborate and repeat myself...), and I hope to be able to continue the *pleasurable work* of further elaborating this "argument" which is its own project of self-actualization --> for an argument is both a logical presentation ("document"), and a social reality ("comaraderie"). \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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:42:27 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val dusek Subject: Latour debate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Concerning Latour, here is a letter which appeared in Physics Today. -Val Dusek SCIENCE IS A HUMAN CREATION Harvey Shepard, University of New Hampshire In recent months important and stimulating articles by David Mermin(1) and Sam Schweber (2) have appeared in Physics Today relating to the cluster of issues broadly termed the "science wars." Although Alan Sokal's spoof (3) may have brought the issue to the surface for many scientists and led them to speak out, it has been simmering for a very long time. Both Mermin's and Schweber's essays can be read as a plea for tolerance, moderation, and lack of defensiveness on the part of scientists in general, and physicists in particular, who are well known to others in the academic community for their "ex cathedra sneering" (to quote Mermin's lovely phrase) and general all purpose "arrogance." Schweber says: "I worry when we turn against our colleagues in other disciplines and breach their trust."(2) And Mermin states: "Fronts are opening in the science wars on which some scientists are misrepresenting and oversimplifying as egregiously as those at whom they direct their fire."(1) I believe that these pleas for better behavior will be ignored -- or the outward behavior may improve with the mind and heart unchanged -- unless specific examples, good reasons, and new ways of thinking about the issue can be offered to the community of scientists. This is the intent of the present brief essay. Mermin contributes to the new attitude by a careful and sympathetic reading of Bruno Latour's essay on relativity (4), especially in his discussions of Einstein's operational approach to the seemingly primitive notions of space and time. Schweber argues that a change of attitude away from the "extreme nature/culture dichotomy,"(2) which he attributes to many particle physicists, such as Steven Weinberg, is already under way and can even be justified by recent developments within physics, especially the weakening of the belief in reductionism and unification as ultimate goals. This, he argues (5), has been generated by theoretical work in recent decades on the theory of broken symmetry, the renormalization-group, and effective field theory methods. For Schweber the issue is a very broad and critical one: " . the current science wars and culture wars will make support for the humanities and the social sciences more difficult, and will result in giving ever greater control over academic matters to university administrators and boards of trustees. . . At stake is thus the future of the university as a unique agency of culture, . . " He calls for us " . . . to learn from one another what scientific knowledge is, what culture is and how one goes about trying to understand these matters."(2) For me the foundation for a change in attitudes can be based on the following observations (6): 1. Although we are usually trained to believe that fundamental scientific laws are impersonal and describe the world independent of human beings, it is significant to appreciate that science is a human activity -- like history, anthropology, sociology, or the arts and literature. It is we who are curious about the world and pose the questions, the puzzles and problems to be studied. And it is we who formulate answers to these questions and decide when the answers -- the explanations and understanding, the solutions to our puzzles -- are satisfactory. Surely, our questions and answers depend in some ways on being human -- our perceptual and cognitive neurobiology, as well as our culture and history. 2. Each area of human study or activity has its own unique questions, aims, and procedures -- and its own standards for success or satisfaction. To take an extreme example, a poet is generally not trying to solve a puzzle, to resolve or simplify or understand something. Rather the goal -- if that word can be applied to an art so varied and idiosyncratic -- is often to use the craft of language to stir us to see (with all of our senses) and feel deeply. 3. I am not arguing that scientific knowledge is the same as all other knowledge, or that all beliefs have equal truth claims.It is not easy to state a complete characterization of "science." I would include in my definition: the attempt to achieve the maximal objectivity possible (but see point 4. below) and something about science's validation by its efficacy in manipulating nature. What also distinguishes good science -- besides the unique nature of its questions, methods, and answers -- is the requirement of consensus achieved by rigorous rational discussion among the community of skilled practitioners. 4. I do not believe it is correct to view science as "objective" and all other culture based studies, including the arts, as "subjective." Rather, it seems clear that, like all creative activities, science -- though it seeks the greatest objectivity possible -- results from, and is created at, the intersection of the perceived "outside" external world, with the "inside" world of the individual. (D. W. Winnicott, the great British psychoanalyst, referred to this region as the "transitional" or "potential" space.(7) 5. Finally, let us agree with David Mermin and not let our seriousness become a liability. Of course we have a responsibility, when it is appropriate, to point out blatant scientific errors, misrepresentations, and faulty reasoning. But let's not forget (as Winnicott also reminds us (7) ) that it is the quality of playfulness that connects us to the source of much of our creativity and to the pleasure and meaning we find in our lives.(8, 9) References & Footnotes 1. N. D. Mermin, Physics Today 50, 11 (October 1997). 2. S. S. Schweber, Physics Today 50, 73 (March 1997). 3. A. Sokal, Social Text 46/47, 217 (1996); LinguaFranca 6(4), 62 (May/June 1996). These and other related articles can be obtained at Sokal's website: www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/ 4. B. Latour, Social Studies of Science 18, 3 (1988). 5. S. S. Schweber, Physics Today 46, 34 (November 1993). 6. Of course the following is merely an outline, which needs much elaboration and discussion. 7. See, for example, D. W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (Routledge, London & New York, 1982), pages 95-110. 8. I am grateful to Kathleen Brownback, Val Dusek, Steve Heims, Hildred Krill, and Don Murray for helpful comments on the manuscript. 9. A greatly abbreviated version of this essay appears in the Letters section of Physics Today (February 1998). Harvey Shepard Department of Physics DeMeritt Hall University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824-3568 phone: 603-862-1980 email: shepard@curie.unh.edu Fax: 603-862-2998 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:02:20 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Ye Of Little Faith X-To: pyp96ip@sheffield.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: > > JON J BENNETT wrote: > > Science cannot predict, as it once thought it could-the history of > prediction has gone from a belief in an absolute prediction, to probable > predictions, to full blown unpredictability, as in complex systems. > === > REPLY: This is just plain wrong. Chaos theory is of such interest > precisley because it does allow predicitons to be made where they > couldn't previously. To give the story a local flavour, the Institute > of Spring Technology here at the University of Sheffield is helping > industry to predict the viability of springs using chaos theory. So not > only is it determinsitic and predictinve but also useful in technology. > > Best wishes > > Ian [snip] I know nothing about chaos theory, but if it is empirical science, then its aim should likely be *predictability*. (Note: I personally do not question the power of Galilean natural science to discover lawlike connections in the physical universe, and neither do I denigrate the immense intellectual and humane value of such work -- my "only" issue is with *the place of such endeavor in the human Lifeworld / society / etc.*) Even statistical "prediction" is no less deterministic than Laplacian mechanism -- it's just that we lower our expectations of the granulatity of forecasting. The consequential issue is not whether the universe is deterministic and predictive (*perhaps* it would be much the *worse* for us if it isn't!). There are actually two consequential issues: (1) What is the ontological (etc.) relation of the community of scientific investigators to the domain of objects of scientific investigation? (2) What are the implications of assigning particular human persons to inclusion in: (a) the community of scientists qua investigators? (b) the domain of objects of scientific investigation qua investigated? Generally speaking, one seeks to explain the behavior (expressivity) of a lab rat, but to interpret the meaning of the expressivity (behavior) of the lab director. \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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 07:48:01 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: Ye Of Little Faith In-Reply-To: <199803131128.GAA14574@u1.farm.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > JON J BENNETT wrote: > > Science cannot predict, as it once thought it could-the history of > prediction has gone from a belief in an absolute prediction, to probable > predictions, to full blown unpredictability, as in complex systems. This is just plaon wrong, and a little bit silly. Unpredictability we have always had with us. Check Newton, Laplace, or Maxwell on this point. The revelation of "chaos theory" is two-fold: first, that chaotic behavior can be observed in apparently simple systems--no one would have been surprised if the systems themselves were complicated--and, further, chaotic behavior can have its own kind of predictability and order. All this is mathematically rather interesting, but of rather minimal philosophical import, not withstanding claims that have been made by such as Prigogine, who ought to have known better. Frankly, the discovery of non-collision type singularities in Newtonian mechanics is much more startling, although this doesn't involve chaos theory per se. It's a more-or-less direct proof that Newtonian cosmology can't really be right, apart from its directly-observed empirical inadequacies. The moral of the story is: watch out for popularizations with pretty pictures. Norm Levitt Dept. of Math, Rutgers. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:19:31 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: BL and science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 08:19 PM 3/12/98 +0000, Ian Pitchford wrote: > What's interesting about science is how, >despite being culturally embedded, it does come to accurately >represent aspects of the real world. That it does so is evident from >its success in producing predicitions and technology. Causal realism, >not social constructionism, is the only perspective that makes any >sense of this as far as I can see, and as I tried to show through my >quotation from Barry Gower about the methods of social >constructivists, they too implicitly recognise this by their covert >recourse to a realist ontology. > Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. Predictive power does not in any way imply "truthfullness" or "reality". How could it, when any number of theories positing very different "real" entities could be formulated to account for the same observables? Newton's theory was quite successful in predicting movements of stellar bodies, until replaced, to quote one classical example. As for Gower's quote, I would like to make two points. Firstly, there are social constructionists who will accept the fact that they are producing time bound and culture-relative descriptions. Secondly, the parallel critique of realism is rather similar - that it cannot prove it's own claims but the only way it proclaims as valid. That is, it certainly cannot give any empirical or logical proves to the claims that certain kind of theories are reflecting the real, unvarnished and unmediated truth. The only thing you can do is to take this on faith, or make it your guiding principle when writing history of science. Best, Asia Lerner ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:32:46 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stanley Jeffers Subject: Re: BL and science In-Reply-To: <199803131319.IAA29277@comet.ccs.yorku.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Asia Lerner wrote: > At 08:19 PM 3/12/98 +0000, Ian Pitchford wrote: > > What's interesting about science is how, > >despite being culturally embedded, it does come to accurately > >represent aspects of the real world. That it does so is evident from > >its success in producing predicitions and technology. Causal realism, > >not social constructionism, is the only perspective that makes any > >sense of this as far as I can see. Asia Lerner replies:- > > Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. Predictive power does not in any way > imply "truthfullness" or "reality". How could it, when any number of > theories positing very different "real" entities could be formulated to > account for the same observables? Newton's theory was quite successful in > predicting movements of stellar bodies, until replaced, to quote one > classical example. > The claim that Newton's theory has been replaced when calculating the movements of stellar bodies will come as a surprise to my many colleagues who work in the area of celestial mechanics almost all of which to this day is based on Newtonian ideas. General Relativity has not replaced Newtonian mechanics but shows that Newtonian mechanics is an extremely good theory under appropriate circumstances. In low gravitational fields when the curvature of space-time can be ignored ie for most of space-time Newtonian theory makes predictions in accord with observations. Incidentally the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity concerning the rate at which the periods of binary pulsars slow down agrees with observations to within one part in at least 10 to the power 12.In what possible sense is this agreement socially constructed? For me it speaks powerfully to a law governed reality independant of our perceptions. Stanley Jeffers, Department of Physics and Astrnomy, York University, Toronto ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:52:39 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ted Winslow Subject: Re: BL and science In-Reply-To: <199803131319.IAA29277@comet.ccs.yorku.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The ontological premises of orthodox science cannot provide a coherent account of science itself. They have no logical room for a real subject, i.e. a person able to reach beliefs through reason. Moreover, they produce a conception of experience which makes it impossible for experience so conceived to ground any belief but solipsism of the present moment, a conclusion adumbrated by Hume (as in his account of the problem of induction) and fully demonstrated by Santayana and Whitehead (see Whitehead's little book _Symbolism_). This is a reductio ad absurdum of these premises. Obviously (to me at least) there is science and this science has produced an enormous amount of positive content. The sensible implication to be drawn is that the premises in question need revision in a way that eliminates these problems while at the same time preserving this positive content. Proposals for doing this can be found in Whitehead (see, in addition to _Symbolism_ and the books I mentioned in a previous post, his _The Function of Reason_ and _Modes of Thought_). An essential aspect of Whitehead's argument (this is also true of Husserl's phenomenology) is that conventional accounts of "empiricism" mistake a particular and in important ways mistaken _interpretation_ of experience for direct experience itself. Ironically, the same problem exists for "social constructionism" if by this term is meant the claim that there is no real subject and/or the claim that experience is constructed by language and belief in a way that makes it impossible for experience to provide an independent check on the truth of language and belief. This premise about experience also leads, as a logical matter, to solipsism of the present moment and does in social constructionism of this kind as a framework from within which it is possible to ground other claims such as claims about science. That some social constructionists admit this latter point while at the same time continuing to make what they appear to believe are grounded claims about science shows only that, like some scientists, they are unable to obey the law of non-contradiction. Ted Winslow Division of Social Science York University ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 10:51:48 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: Shepard's Physics Today Letter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Congratulations to the person who posted this letter to the list. It is far more interesting and rewarding than, for example, interviews with 60s rock groups which are somehow related to Bruno Latour, though I am not sure how. Gilbert Whittemore ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 19:00:35 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: Re: BL and science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:32 AM 3/13/98 -0500, Stanley Jeffers wrote: >On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Asia Lerner wrote: >> Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. Predictive power does not in any way >> imply "truthfullness" or "reality". How could it, when any number of >> theories positing very different "real" entities could be formulated to >> account for the same observables? Newton's theory was quite successful in >> predicting movements of stellar bodies, until replaced, to quote one >> classical example. >> > > The claim that Newton's theory has been replaced when >calculating the movements of stellar bodies will come as a surprise to my >many colleagues who work in the area of celestial mechanics almost all of >which to this day is based on Newtonian ideas. General Relativity has not >replaced Newtonian mechanics but shows that Newtonian mechanics is an >extremely good theory under appropriate circumstances. In low >gravitational fields when the curvature of space-time can be ignored ie >for most of space-time Newtonian theory makes predictions in accord with >observations. I never ment to claim that Newtonian theory (or flat earth theory, for that matter) are not used or usefull. Point is, Einstein's theory offers a very different understanding about the nature of time/space. Hence, both Newton's and Einstein's theories cannot be both true at the same about things "as they really are". So the fact that Newton's theory for a long time offered the best predictions around clearly cannot mean that it was also true in the sense of describing "the trully real". > Incidentally the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity >concerning the rate at which the periods of binary pulsars slow down >agrees with observations to within one part in at least 10 to the power >12.In what possible sense is this agreement socially constructed? For me >it speaks powerfully to a law governed reality independant of our >perceptions. This is equivalent to claiming that there is some magical number beyond which precision must mean truth. I truly doubt that this is the case. Again, see above. Newton's theory was considered surprisingly precise at its time. Social construction is not really the source of this dilemma. A great number of philosophers who were not at all social constructionists (e.g. Kant, Hume) came to similar conclusions simply because it seems impossible to either logically or empirically show that predictions lead to something tangibly real. Best, Asia Lerner ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:46:09 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dewey Dykstra, Jr." Subject: Re: BL and science In-Reply-To: <199803131706.KAA24330@bsumail.idbsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Asia Lerner wrote: > >I never ment to claim that Newtonian theory (or flat earth theory, for that >matter) are not used or usefull. Point is, Einstein's theory offers a very >different understanding about the nature of time/space. Hence, both >Newton's and Einstein's theories cannot be both true at the same about >things "as they really are". So the fact that Newton's theory for a long >time offered the best predictions around clearly cannot mean that it was >also true in the sense of describing "the trully real". > ... > >This is equivalent to claiming that there is some magical number beyond >which precision must mean truth. I truly doubt that this is the case. >Again, see above. Newton's theory was considered surprisingly precise at >its time. Social construction is not really the source of this dilemma. A >great number of philosophers who were not at all social constructionists >(e.g. Kant, Hume) came to similar conclusions simply because it seems >impossible to either logically or empirically show that predictions lead to >something tangibly real. > > Isn't the upshot here that "truth" as to what "things really are" is not actually what our explanatory efforts (thinking up and testing explanations for our experience) can yield? Dewey +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105 Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775 Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330 Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld, 1938. "Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence." --E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958. "Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in There Are No Electrons, 1991. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:00:19 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: General Relativity and social construction Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Prof. Jeffers wrtoe in a recent e-mail: "Incidentally the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity concerning the rate at which the periods of binary pulsars slow down agrees with observations to within one part in at least 10 to the power 12.In what possible sense is this agreement socially constructed? For me it speaks powerfully to a law governed reality independant of our perceptions." At the risk of venturing into waters over my head, let me attempt a response (not a rebuttal). First, separate the question of belief in a "law governed reality independent of our perceptions" from whatever might generally be called "social construction." Personally, when students have become enamored of believing reality is entirely a construct of social interactions, I advise them to watch a movie of a hydrogen bomb exploding, but the predictions of general relativity work just as well if they have the patience to listen. Second, there are intriguing questions one can ask about how the prediction and its confirming measurements came about in terms of the human story. Pursuing such questions does not in any way require one to abandon belief in a "law governed reality independent of our perceptions", but does reveal how our perceptions are dependent upon social relations, for example: 1. the personal creativity of Einstein to ask a type of question about the relations of space, time and mass in a way which drew upon existing conceptual tools and perceptions, yet also went well beyond them - what roles are played by his earlier education? his discussions with his contemporaries?, etc. 2. the history of how other scientists responded to these ideas initially - remember Einstein's Nobel Prize was not for relativity, which was still too controversial, but for Brownian motion and photoelectric effect - how and why did relativity become a respectable field of research? 3. the history of the rise and fall of interest in research in General Relativity - peaking in the early twenties, declining through the thrities, almost disappearing (like much othe rresearch) during WWII, and then rebuilding from the late 1950s on 4. in addition to the above questions, which might be regarded as purely a history of ideas, one can ask about where the funding and institutional support for the efforts came (Einstein in his most creative years was almost self-funded, being employed as a patent clerk - would he have had the freedom topursue such novel ideas in a more structured setting? who knows?) This does not require one to believe that the binary pulsars would behave differently if a patent clerk on a tiny planet had been fired early on, but it does raise the question of the contingency of our own understanding of the larger reality - in other words, science is a fragile social activity which, without support of various kinds, however varied, will not thrive 5. finally, one can ask questions about the details of the prediction and measurement, looking at both intellectual and material "necessary conditions" for the confirming measurements: development of intellectual tools in math to make the predicitons, development of astronomical devices to make the observation, persuasion of someone somewhere to put up the money for both, and, perhaps mosfun, any debates among scientists themselves over (1) the accuracy of the predictions and measurements (one part in 10 to the 12 is not very helpful unless one knows the units and error bars) and (2) whether General Relativity was a unique solution, or whether other theories may have been equally accurate. The point of the long-winded discussion is simply to illustrate that one can uncover a truly interesting human story of how our scientific beliefs have come about without having to adopt an extreme view that "reality" is purely a social construct. One of the ironies of the debate over social constuction is that, if one insists that any attention to the social aspects of doing science is somehow bad, one encourages the notion that science is "autonomous" and, it will soon follow in the public political debate, in no need of public support. Gilbert Whittemore ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:24:11 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Latour on Ramses II In-Reply-To: <199803122257.WAA06403@mcmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Gil Whittem wrote: Why is is that those attacking "social constructivists" seem by their words to illustrate what they seek to refute - that the development of common perceptions of reality are influenced by social interactions - in this case, attacks on persons instead of discussion of ideas and concepts, overuse of emotion-laden adjectives, and even appeals to blatant nationalism (Anglo-Saxon vs. French philosophers)? ==== REPLY: I think this is the opposite of the truth. Social constructionists seek to debunk the science, but seem to think they do this by formulating hypotheses, testing them through observations of the actions of scientists, and by making inductive generalizations as to the nature of science and its place within a theoretical framework., i.e. they employ the scientific method, thus reasserting its validity. Best wishes 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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:45:43 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: General Relativity and social construction In-Reply-To: <199803132201.WAA22355@mcmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT GilWhittem wrote: One of the ironies of the debate over social constuction is that, if one insists that any attention to the social aspects of doing science is somehow bad, one encourages the notion that science is "autonomous" and, it will soon follow in the public political debate, in no need of public support. ======== REPLY: Absolutely! In my view social constructionism lets science off the hook completely because of its failure to provide a credible critique of the scientific enterprise. I also share the concerns of the author of the piece forwarded by Val Dusek. I would hope that criticism of social constructionism is not viewed as an attack on the humanities and the social sciences as a whole. I am mainly interested in human universals, but consider all enquiries into human nature and hermeneutics to be of utmost importance. Certainly our most intractable problems seem to be connected with our understanding of ourselves, and not our understanding of the natural world. If it were in my power I would definitely be seeking increases in funding for the human sciences. Best wishes 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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:08:21 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: BL and science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Asia Lerner wrote: > > At 08:19 PM 3/12/98 +0000, Ian Pitchford wrote: > > What's interesting about science is how, > >despite being culturally embedded, it does come to accurately > >represent aspects of the real world. That it does so is evident from > >its success in producing predicitions and technology. Causal realism, > >not social constructionism, is the only perspective that makes any > >sense of this as far as I can see, and as I tried to show through my > >quotation from Barry Gower about the methods of social > >constructivists, they too implicitly recognise this by their covert > >recourse to a realist ontology. > > > > Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. Predictive power does not in any way > imply "truthfullness" or "reality". How could it, when any number of > theories positing very different "real" entities could be formulated to > account for the same observables? Newton's theory was quite successful in > predicting movements of stellar bodies, until replaced, to quote one > classical example. > > As for Gower's quote, I would like to make two points. Firstly, there are > social constructionists who will accept the fact that they are producing > time bound and culture-relative descriptions. Secondly, the parallel > critique of realism is rather similar - that it cannot prove it's own > claims but the only way it proclaims as valid. That is, it certainly cannot > give any empirical or logical proves to the claims that certain kind of > theories are reflecting the real, unvarnished and unmediated truth. The > only thing you can do is to take this on faith, or make it your guiding > principle when writing history of science. > > Best, Asia Lerner Why cannot we all learn from Hegel, that every advance in knowledge of the object changes the object of knowledge, and that every discovery of error is a discovery of truth.... The earth *is* flat, and that's a *big* advance over no earth at all (primitive humanity's embeddedness in the local space of the tribe). A spherical Ptolemaic earth is true too, as is also its superiority over the flat earth -- once one has some notion of a starry heaven in which the sun is so far away that the difference of its elevation in the sky at noon at Alexandria and Thebes (or wherever) is attributed not to its closeness but its distance.... Kepler's solar system is another step forward, etc. But even Ptolemy's ideas would have been beyond the imaginative horizon of the tribal primitives, etc. One step at a time.... This all is pretty much commonplace. Once again, I am reminded of something Heidegger said (quoting from memory): "I have given up a previous position, not to adopt a new position, but rather because it was a step along a path. What endures in thinking is the way [of thinking]." ("Das bleibende im Denkens ist der Weg" -- or something close to that). Where we get into trouble is either in thinking that "the social construction of the human world" implies the free reign of hallucination and other untethered semiosis, or in thinking that we ever have a decontextualized [extra-semiotic] "final answer" to anything. Or, to quote someone less politically infelicitous than Heidegger, Willa Cather: "The way is everything; the end is nothing." \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: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:43:22 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ron Roizen Subject: Re: General Relativity and social construction X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Myself, I always feel conflicted about social constructionism. On the one hand, there is the bottomless maw of postmoderism seemingly lying inevitably at the end of its road--a destination wonderfully and disturbingly described in Frederick Crews's "Grand Theory" essay in his book, Skeptical Engagements. I don't like what I see down that road. And yet, on the other hand, my own work lies pretty squarely in the middle of a social constructionist idiom. I was interested in how the "disease concept of alcoholism" came to be scientific orthodoxy in the U.S. in the two or three decades following the repeal of national prohibition (1933). What I discovered was a classic tale of social constructionism--to wit, scientific self-promotion uninformed by any substantive scientific discovery or breakthrough, engineered by entrepreneurs along a seam between zeitgeist and funding circumstances, and embraced/marketed as if it were a scientific truth on the order of Copernicanism or Darwinism. I didn't sit in my armchair to do this work; I didn't get much help from Latour, Foucault, Derrida, et al. No, I went to the library, by mail or in person--lots of them--and slowly pieced together a history. So, what I DID conformed (I hope and believe) to the classical norms of scholarship--e.g., I was always on the lookout for documentary evidence disconfirming my evolving perspective--but what I PRODUCED was mint condition, 90-weight social constructionism. I've long harbored the suspicion that "strong programme" sociology of science (i.e., aimed at interpreting the CONTENT of scientific knowledge claims and not merely sociocultural aspects of science--like scientific social organization, norms, etc.) is a real possibility. And I'm persuaded that a strong-programme approach is just as appropriate to "good" scientific knowledge (the earth probably is roughly round, it probably does revolve around the earth, etc.) as it is to scientific tomfoolery. And yet the meaning of the social construction case I made re alcoholism cannot but serve as a warning that science (a) has palpable potentials to overreach its grasp, (b) can offer to a fawning public packages of would-be knowledge that are more self-serving PR than sound understanding, and that, as such, (c) its knowledge-claims are definitely subject to explanation in terms of the surrounding sociocultural context and its various needs, demands, and support-giving inclinations. I happened to muckrake where there was a lot of muck TO rake. But my enterprise was tethered no less on that account to what I regard as the traditional touchstones of scholarship. It's a circumstance perhaps not entirely unlike that the detective in hard-boiled American detective fiction, who inhabits a world filled with seedy characters but nevertheless himself operates as if his principles sacrosanct. As such--and for the particular instance of social constructionist endeavor I know best (my own!)--the enterprise takes on a distinctly conservative, even reactionary, flavor re scholarly and scientific norms. Ron Roizen Wallace, Idaho SPAM URL: For more, see ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:39:46 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: "truth" and social construction In-Reply-To: <199803132351.XAA18059@mcmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Ron Roizen wrote: And yet, on the other hand, my own work lies pretty squarely in the middle of a social constructionist idiom. I was interested in how the "disease concept of alcoholism" came to be scientific orthodoxy in the U.S. in the two or three decades following the repeal of national prohibition (1933). ======== REPLY: I agree with your perspective. There is so much of the scientific enterprise which can only be explained in terms of social constructionism, and in my view the impact of such valuable enquiries is simply devastated by the claims that all scientific knowledge is a social construction produced by a particular interpretative community. That's why I think Frege's distinction between sense and reference is relevant here. As I remember the example he used was that of the senses Morning Star and Evening Star, which we now know both have the referent Venus. Certainly you can study the importance of these representations for the cultures that produced them, and as I said before the particular representations produced by science, together with their socio-cultural accretions, are of enormous importance for our social institutions, but that scientific representations do have referents in the real world is evidenced by predicitions and technology, notwithstanding some of the strange comments sent to the list over the last couple of days. I also agree that the term "truth" is perhaps of little use in science. However, the conventional view that science produces successively more accurate approximations of reality is borne out by evidence- evidence which is not satisfactorily explained by social constructionism, postmodernism, or anything else. Best wishes 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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:12:36 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Stephen Straker Subject: Re: BL and science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I write to pass on some comments from a colleague not on our list. ****** FORWARDED *************** Subject: Thoughts on Latour Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 From: David Ritchie To: Stephen Straker I think that the point that Latour was making might have been this. I'll express it backwards. No one today can die of consumption. We can die of tuberculosis, which would mean that we were diagnosed in a doctor's office, treated with antibiotics and finish up in a hospital. While the organism that we die of is related to the organism that people died of in the past, dying of consumption meant being diagnosed in one's living room, being made beautiful by the disease, traveling to sunny climes, fading with the light. Like you I am puzzled by the stuff about Leviathan. But I think I understand, "Les faits sont fait." A phrase that so nearly means "the facts are the facts," a very Germanic sounding phrase to my ear, actually means "the facts are constructed." I apply my usual measure--what do you see if you allow this to be true? If you allow our standard reading of history you can take practical steps to prevent disease. The prize when you follow Latour is the possibility of learning something about the link between two forms of representation -- political representation and how we represent the world. Quite the prize. In a full day's work I managed thirty five pages. Two hundred is a reasonable target. This is indeed frustrating. My response was to play, as Latour does, with words- L'Annee 2000 Les faits sont fait Les fetes seront celebre Tout est pret Mais pour quoi? The facts are made (or the die is cast) The holidays will be observed Everything is ready But for what (or why?) btw Latour writes a bit like DeGaulle. LATER: He is a modern in that he reduces complex things to diagrams and tries to get at the essence of a problem. He says as much. But he finds stupid the way in which we put things in the intellectual equivalent of laboratory jars, say that those things are preserved essence of the real thing and then argue with each other about their similarities and differences. The world circumscribed is not the world described. ********************************* Stephen Straker Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C. FAX: (604) 822-4520 CANADA V6T 1Z1 home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 08:59:25 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: General Relativity and social construction and salesmen... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit GilWhittem wrote: > > Prof. Jeffers wrtoe in a recent e-mail: > "Incidentally the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity > concerning the rate at which the periods of binary pulsars slow down > agrees with observations to within one part in at least 10 to the power > 12.In what possible sense is this agreement socially constructed? For me > it speaks powerfully to a law governed reality independant of our > perceptions." > > At the risk of venturing into waters over my head, let me attempt a response > (not a rebuttal). > First, separate the question of belief in a "law governed reality > independent of our perceptions" from whatever might generally be called > "social construction." Personally, when students have become enamored of > believing reality is entirely a construct of social interactions, I advise > them to watch a movie of a hydrogen bomb exploding, [snip] The people of Hiroshima "had no idea what hit them". I believe it was Fichte who spoke of the "X that shocks". The problem is to constellate some *object* (eidos) to integrate the *SHOCK* into *experience*. Shocks may be loud, but they are also generally inchoate (at best). They may even be *so* loud that we don't hear them.... Perhaps it is better to come at this issue of the social construction of reality from a "third person" perspective, after all (despite all the *philosophical* questions such an approach raises!). Every successful salesman operates on an implicit philosophy of radical social constructivism. Whatever "reality" *is* ("in itself") is only obliquely relevant to making a sale (and I am not just being cynical or Marxist here). What matters is *what the potential customer* believes is real. If I am going to sell the customer my product, I have to somehow get the customer to change their view of the world to see my product as a desirable purchase. Even if my product is Kant's "Ding an sich" incarnate, that is of no direct use to either the salesman or the customer, who, unlike the salesman, has access only to "appearances". Try to get around Protagoras's "show stopper": What seems to a man is for him. That means *me*, and, I would propose, *you*, too. It is not necessarily a cause for despair, but it surely provides ample reason for humility, reflection and tolerance. There were one or two Japanese, I seem to have read, who were sufficiently far from the epicenter, and sufficiently knowledgeable about physics, that they were able to form "the correct" hypothesis about what happened in Hiroshima. But they could also have been the victims of a "Mission Impossible" "setup".... \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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 09:13:02 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: BL and science MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote: [snip] > >A > >great number of philosophers who were not at all social constructionists > >(e.g. Kant, Hume) [snip] I have no idea what to label Hume, except that he was apparently a fine human being who sustained his greatness of character through both the dark night of his intellectual skepticism and also a long and painful death. As far as Kant is concerned, isn't he the fellow who started all this trouble in the first place? No, he wasn't a "social constructionist", but he provided the strategy for the social constructionists (et al.) to become such: the "end run" play, of reflecting on what we're doing, whatever it is, instead of just continuing to try to bull our way through the center of the defensive line by doing more of whatever it is we've been doing. Kant was perhaps even worse than a social constructionist: he was a *transcendental constructionist*: For Kant, every object of experience is a construct of the transcendental imagination, which takes its place in a world which is irrecusibly human (space and time are "in us", not "in themselves"). And every Philosophy 101 student learns that, for Kant, "what things may be in themselves" is unknowable on principle. As Madonna didn't say: She's a phenomenal girl, living in a phenomenal world.... \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: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 14:12:17 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Some US internet statistics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >From our friends at Find/SVP Emerging Technologies Research Group (which is now Cyber Dialogue) ... According to the fourth-quarter 1997 results for the American Internet Usage survey update: - 41.5 million adult Internet/online users in the United States - 24.2 million men - 17.3 million women - 21 percent of all U.S. adults are online - 27 percent of all U.S. adult males are online - 17 percent of all U.S. adult females are online The younger an adult you are, the more likely you are to be online: - 33 percent of all U.S. adults 18 to 29 years old are online - 38 percent of all U.S. adult males 18 to 29 are online - 27 percent of all U.S. adult females 18 to 29 are online - 27 percent of all U.S. adults 30 to 49 are online - 31 percent of all U.S. adult males 30 to 49 are online - 22 percent of all U.S. adult females 30 to 49 are online - 12 percent of all U.S. adults 50-plus are online - 16 percent of all U.S. adult males 50-plus are online - 9 percent of all U.S. adult females 50-plus are online More people use the Net from home than from work: - 70 percent of all online U.S. adults use Internet at home* - 46 percent of all online U.S. adults use Internet at work* - 27 percent of all online U.S. adults use the Internet at both home and work* __________________________________________ 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 Mar 1998 10:41:08 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: Re: BL and science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 12:46 PM 3/13/98 -0700, Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. wrote: >>>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Asia Lerner wrote: >> >>This is equivalent to claiming that there is some magical number beyond >>which precision must mean truth. I truly doubt that this is the case. >>Again, see above. Newton's theory was considered surprisingly precise at >>its time. Social construction is not really the source of this dilemma. A >>great number of philosophers who were not at all social constructionists >>(e.g. Kant, Hume) came to similar conclusions simply because it seems >>impossible to either logically or empirically show that predictions lead to >>something tangibly real. >> >> > >Isn't the upshot here that "truth" as to what "things really are" is not >actually what our explanatory efforts (thinking up and testing explanations >for our experience) can yield? > Yep. This is how realism gets replaced with instrumentalism (= theories are conceptual tools that allow people to make sense of their observations). You are actually conceeding my point. Best regards, Asia Lerner ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:32:06 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: Re: BL and science Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:13 AM 3/14/98 -0500, Brad McCormick wrote: >> >A >> >great number of philosophers who were not at all social constructionists >> >(e.g. Kant, Hume) >[snip] > >As far as Kant is concerned, isn't he the fellow who started all this >trouble in the first place? No, he wasn't a "social constructionist", >but he provided the strategy for the social constructionists (et al.) >to become such: the "end run" play, of reflecting on what we're doing, >whatever it is, instead >of just continuing to try to bull our way through the center of the >defensive line by doing more of whatever it is we've been doing. > Hello, Brad, I was the one who mentioned Kant. The reason I thinks that he is drastically different from present day social constructionists is that, imho, as many other 18th century thinkers, he assumed a homegenous and unchanging human nature. So even though he denied the possibility to get at the unmediated truth, I think his theory still envisaged only one reasonable way of seeing the world (=seen through the eye of a generic, non-culture or time specific human). I do not think he would have had much use for the notion that Europeans and Chinese could have different but equally viable pictures of the world, the last being the focal point of the theory for virtually all modern social constructionists. But Kant did supply a BIG bag of grist for the SC mill, no doubt about that. Best regards, Asia Lerner ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 07:57:15 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Husserl and us X-cc: bobsand@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit For those who have not had acquaintance with Husserl's writings, and, in particular, with regard to what I argue is the difference between his philosophical hope for a humanity renewed in universal self-reflection [and perhaps even ethically self-accountable *joy*!], versus this whole sorry and shabby mess of postmodernists, science wars, etc., I revisited today the Husserl web site, and found again the following URL, which gives probably as fine a brief introduction to Husserl as is possible, because it consists entirely of quotes from his work selected by persons to whom that work is "really important". It is not easy, but I propose it is worth while, and I would certainly try to clarify any questions anyone might have, within the limitations of my own (obviously) limited understanding: http://www.mesa.colorado.edu/~bobsand/hus_qold.html "lux in tenebris" (light in the darkness -- see, e.g., Ivan Morris, _The World of the Shining Prince_, pp. 11-15...).... \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, 16 Mar 1998 11:51:38 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val dusek Subject: Re: social constructionism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Brad McCormick writes: Kant was perhaps even worse than a social constructionist: he was a *transcendental constructionist*: For Kant, every object of experience is a construct of the transcendental imagination, which takes its place in a world which is irrecusibly human (space and time are "in us", not "in themselves"). And every Philosophy 101 student learns that, for Kant, "what things may be in themselves" is unknowable on principle. As Madonna didn't say: She's a phenomenal girl, living in a phenomenal world.... \brad mccormick Certainly one difference between Kant and social constructionists is that Kant thought that there is one universal "construction" so-to-speak that is made by reason as such, and would be valid for Maritans and angels if they existed, as well as for all other cultures. The cultural specificity of science is what most of the objectivist science-warriors are upset by, more than the idealist or non-realist issue, which they often confuse with the issue of cultural variability. The fact that the objectivist science-warriors don't attack positivists such as Schlick or non-realist empiricists such as van Fraaseen shows that their concern is really more with the universality of science than with the philosophical issue of realism vs. idealism, although the two are often confused in the objectivist rhetoric. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:29:41 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: social constructionism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Val dusek wrote: > > Brad McCormick writes: > > Kant was perhaps even worse than a social > constructionist: he was a *transcendental constructionist*: > For Kant, every object of experience is a construct of the > transcendental > imagination, which takes its place in a > world which is irrecusibly human (space and time are "in us", > not "in themselves"). And every Philosophy 101 student > learns that, for Kant, "what things may be in themselves" is > unknowable on principle. As Madonna didn't say: She's a phenomenal > girl, living in a phenomenal world.... > > \brad mccormick > > Certainly one difference between Kant and social constructionists is that Kant > thought that there is one universal "construction" so-to-speak that is made by > reason as such, and would be valid for Maritans and angels if they existed, as > well as for all other cultures. The cultural specificity of science is what > most of the objectivist science-warriors are upset by, more than the idealist > or non-realist issue, which they often confuse with the issue of cultural > variability. The fact that the objectivist science-warriors don't attack > positivists such as Schlick or non-realist empiricists such as van Fraaseen > shows that their concern is really more with the universality of science than > with the philosophical issue of realism vs. idealism, although the two are > often confused in the objectivist rhetoric. > > Val Dusek Let me speculate a bit, in hopes of making progress... Is the target of Sokal et al something like this: There are two observers sitting on a hill at a moment at least one of them calls "daybreak". Let's call that observer the scientist. Let's call the other observer X. Now, the scientist sees the sun rise in the East *and*, since he knows his history of science, he also sees how this experience can additionally, and for certain purposes better, be described as the horizon going down (-- Norwood Hanson's example, with modifications). Meanwhile, X asserts that the sun is rising or even bouncing up and down behind their backs, and that the scientist is mistaken to suppose that a photographic exposure meter pointed east would register a higher luminence than one pointed west and even stuffed into a light-tight bag? I do not know enough about Derrida, de Man, Lacan, et al, to have any basis for knowing whether even *they* would occupy X's position. (Do *they* have *any* position, other than to "play with themselves"?) Isn't the issue of universality one of universal*izing*? As Joseph Needham wrote concerning the Chinese' reception of Galilean natural science: The Chinese saw it as something genuinely *new*, because it wasn't only believable by persons who had been socially conditioned to believe it, but rather that its truth could be verified *by any person who took the trouble to learn it*. The universality of science is therefore in large measure a pedagogical and rhetorical activity (perhaps following Athena's injunction to Odysseus to go plant an oar in the land of people who had never heard of the sea). Isn't the meaningful problem of social constructivism that people talk past each other, more than that they directly contradict each other, at leasst within their immediate social suround (as opposed to one person believing the moon is made of goat cheese and another that it is made of vulcanized rubber, e.g.)? "I mean" there might be great difficulty in getting an aboriginal to appreciate what goes on in a physics lab the way the physicist appreciates it, but if the aboriginal says he is not in the same room as the physicist, whereas the physicist says he is, mustn't the two have different "agendas"? Certainly one form of social constructionism is a science student's endeavor to reconstruct important findings in his (or her) discipline -- which is what the Chinese, according to Needham, perceived (apparently better than the Jesuits, who argued that the Galilean natural science was just a by-product of a society accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, which contention the Chinese didn't "fall for" -- seeing Christianity as just one more belief system like the many they already tolerated in their great Kingdom...). I think the issue remains: what is the relationship between the domain of the objects to which scientific praxis applies itself, and the conversational living experience of the scientists *doing* their science? Is the latter part of the former, i.e., is the ongoing project of science itself merely more data waiting to be subsumed under scientific laws, like a man with a vacuum cleaner, who, determined to suck up *everything*, will eventually have to address himself to getting both himself and the vacuum to be sucked up through the vacuum's intake orifice? In this case, I really am looking for some clarification. \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, 16 Mar 1998 18:24:14 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Conevery Bolton Subject: leaving the list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" my apologies, but I can't find the instructions for un-subscribing. Could the list-owner please send them to me? thank you. Conevery Bolton ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:45:38 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: leaving the list In-Reply-To: <890091191.1216515.0@maelstrom.stjohns.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Could everyone please put this information somewhere handy for future reference, please. To unsbscribe from science-as-culture send a message to listserv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu Body of message: unsubscribe science-as-culture >my apologies, but I can't find the instructions for un-subscribing. >Could the list-owner please send them to me? > >thank you. > >Conevery Bolton __________________________________________ 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, 18 Mar 1998 01:05:52 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_890201152_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890201152_boundary Content-ID: <0_890201152@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_890201152_boundary Content-ID: <0_890201152@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from relay01.mx.aol.com (relay01.mail.aol.com [172.31.106.125]) by air29.mail.aol.com (v40.9) with SMTP; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:27:53 -0500 Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp4.netcom.com [163.179.3.4]) by relay01.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id SAA24760 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:27:52 -0500 (EST) From: POSTMASTER@sdoct.com Received: (from uucp@localhost) by netcomsv.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) id PAA14421 for archive1@aol.com; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:27:50 -0800 (PST) >Received: by sdoct.com id 0MMG302D Tue, 17 Mar 98 16:06:15 -0600 Message-ID: <9803171606.0MMG302@sdoct.com> Organization: Sound Doctrine Institute X-Mailer: TBBS/TIGER v1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 16:06:15 -0600 To: archive1@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit RETURNED MESSAGE ADVISORY - NO USER BY THIS NAME REGISTERED AT THIS SITE =======================================================================rom owner-rock-art@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Tue Mar 17 14:19:52 1998 Received: from lists.asu.edu (lists.asu.edu [129.219.13.98]) by uumail1.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) with ESMTP id OAA18813 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:19:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24145) id <0EPZ00901I67AE@asu.edu> for jason.peck@SDOCT.COM; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24145) with SMTP id <0EPZ00J8AI3AJG@asu.edu>; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:55 -0700 (MST) Received: by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via spool with SMTP id 6719 ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@ASUACAD) by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 5728; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:22 -0700 Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 8631 for ROCK-ART@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:21 -0700 Received: from ASUACAD (NJE origin SMTP3@ASUACAD) by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 5642; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:19:29 -0700 Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.37] by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:19:28 -0700 (MST) Received: from ARCHIVE1@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 8ZQSa03501 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:19:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:19:33 -0500 (EST) From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: graffiti-rock art Sender: Rock Art Discussion and Information To: ROCK-ART@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Reply-to: Rock Art Discussion and Information Message-id: <6d882b5c.350ef6f8@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows sub 74 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit partial comparative list between graffiti and rock art Due to some mailings that continually deny any comparable lines that could exist between rock-art and(today`s graffiti)some comments here: We have graffiti dating back hundreds of years b.C. that are older than some other petroglyphes....by the way Via following list you find similarities between those two fields that have a COMMON root and origin: 1.visible communication 2.set of signs/symbols(convention) 3.use of forms,outlines,colors(technology,developement) 4.wall signs show territory 5.signs display intention 6.expertise,technique(quality,quantity) 7.developement documentable(complexity etc.) 8.qualitative changes(signs,symbols,letters etc.) 9.differentiation(sign-graffiti-art-symbol-letters-global communication) 10.art(accepted,valuable)graffiti(denied,unwanted) 11.differentiation 12.graffiti-research going on now for over 200 years(archeology)+rock-art 13.next differentiation 14.graffiti-research(modern,since 1904,Anthropopytheia) 15.writing(American style) --part0_890201152_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:11:10 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_890201470_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890201470_boundary Content-ID: <0_890201470@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_890201470_boundary Content-ID: <0_890201470@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from relay10.mx.aol.com (relay10.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.10]) by air13.mail.aol.com (v40.9) with SMTP; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:28:03 -0500 Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp4.netcom.com [163.179.3.4]) by relay10.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id SAA20150 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:28:00 -0500 (EST) From: POSTMASTER@sdoct.com Received: (from uucp@localhost) by netcomsv.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) id PAA14433 for archive1@aol.com; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:27:59 -0800 (PST) >Received: by sdoct.com id 0MMH402F Tue, 17 Mar 98 16:06:17 -0600 Message-ID: <9803171606.0MMH402@sdoct.com> Organization: Sound Doctrine Institute X-Mailer: TBBS/TIGER v1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 16:06:17 -0600 To: archive1@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit RETURNED MESSAGE ADVISORY - NO USER BY THIS NAME REGISTERED AT THIS SITE =======================================================================rom owner-rock-art@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Tue Mar 17 14:19:55 1998 Received: from lists.asu.edu (lists.asu.edu [129.219.13.98]) by uumail1.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) with ESMTP id OAA18823 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 14:19:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24145) id <0EPZ00P01I644S@asu.edu> for jason.peck@SDOCT.COM; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24145) with SMTP id <0EPZ00J8AI3AJG@asu.edu>; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:52 -0700 (MST) Received: by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via spool with SMTP id 6710 ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@ASUACAD) by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 5705; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:21 -0700 Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 8630 for ROCK-ART@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:20:19 -0700 Received: from ASUACAD (NJE origin SMTP4@ASUACAD) by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 5640; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:19:28 -0700 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39] by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:19:27 -0700 (MST) Received: from ARCHIVE1@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 8CHUa08093 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:19:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:19:38 -0500 (EST) From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: verbal root rsearch:graffiti/writing Sender: Rock Art Discussion and Information To: ROCK-ART@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Reply-to: Rock Art Discussion and Information Message-id: <8c01985c.350ef6fc@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows sub 74 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit To help clear matters a little here some verbal(language-research)roots concerning writing and graffiti etc: Writing,drawing,painting and engraving have a COMMON language root in many languages and here some examples: GOTHIC:meljan(writing)=old high German malon,German(today)malen=Lithunian melys(blue color)Letticmelns(black)=Greek melas, German "schreiben"(write)=old high Germanscriban,Swedish skriva,very probable from Latin scribere,that has a root scratch,engrave,related to Greek skariphaomai,=scratch,engrave,also Lettic skripat(engrave,scratch),also maybe old Nordic hrifa(scratch) Greek graphein=write related to German kerben(cut,mark),old English ceorfan and today`s English"to carve",Lettic grebti(engrave,scratch) comparable to English write ,related to old Nordic rita(making Runes)and to German reissen(tear) Russian pisat=writing related to Latin pingere=drawing,old Indian(Asia)pinkte=he draws(Tocharic B:pinkam=he is writing)and again related to Greek poikolos=coloured.The old Indian(Asia)root likh=scratch,engrave,draw(lekha=letter) Want more? Assyrian root s-t-r=writing related to Arabic satur=large knife,the Semite root k-t-b=writing connected to Syrian word maktaba(kind of large,leather work needle) Finnic kirja means decoration,coloured adornment,writing,book.Uigurian(East Turkish)bicek=knife,bicik=writing,letters Buginese(celebes)uki=engrave and writing.Fidji tusi coloured cloth,Samoan tusi writing.. and if you know language experts they will show you some more.... These informations taken from: Hans JENSEN "Die Schrift" Berlin 1969 p:25 Axel Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html --part0_890201470_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 01:13:36 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_890201616_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890201616_boundary Content-ID: <0_890201616@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_890201616_boundary Content-ID: <0_890201616@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from relay27.mx.aol.com (relay27.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.27]) by air11.mail.aol.com (v40.9) with SMTP; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:12:28 -0500 Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp3.netcom.com [163.179.3.3]) by relay27.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id TAA05965 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 19:12:23 -0500 (EST) From: POSTMASTER@sdoct.com Received: (from uucp@localhost) by netcomsv.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) id PAA20446 for archive1@aol.com; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) >Received: by sdoct.com id 0NKJD02L Tue, 17 Mar 98 16:46:41 -0600 Message-ID: <9803171646.0NKJD02@sdoct.com> Organization: Sound Doctrine Institute X-Mailer: TBBS/TIGER v1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 98 16:46:41 -0600 To: archive1@aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit RETURNED MESSAGE ADVISORY - NO USER BY THIS NAME REGISTERED AT THIS SITE =======================================================================rom owner-rock-art@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Tue Mar 17 15:08:01 1998 Received: from lists.asu.edu (lists.asu.edu [129.219.13.98]) by uumail1.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v2.01)) with ESMTP id PAA27068 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:07:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24145) id <0EPZ00L01KHLDI@asu.edu> for jason.peck@SDOCT.COM; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:13:03 -0700 (MST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by asu.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #24145) with SMTP id <0EPZ006HBKGWM2@asu.edu>; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:12:57 -0700 (MST) Received: by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via spool with SMTP id 7321 ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:11:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@ASUACAD) by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 0818; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:11:41 -0700 Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with spool id 0370 for ROCK-ART@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:11:38 -0700 Received: from ASUACAD (NJE origin SMTP3@ASUACAD) by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2c/1.8c) with BSMTP id 0677; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:10:47 -0700 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.35] by ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R4a) via TCP with SMTP ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:10:46 -0700 (MST) Received: from ARCHIVE1@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id 8UXNa11553 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:11:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:11:07 -0500 (EST) From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: graffiti-list,part 2 Sender: Rock Art Discussion and Information To: ROCK-ART@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Reply-to: Rock Art Discussion and Information Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows sub 74 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable CONTINUATION: PREPRINT FROM: VOCABULARY OF GRAFFITI-RESEARCH,part 3(in prep.) 1840..............................P.Gavarni"Das Protrait des=0AGl=E4ubige= rs"(France) 1842 Grandville"On trouve un cours complete = de=0Apolitique sur les murailles",IN:Scenes de la vie privee et publique = des=0Aanimaux 1843 F.M.Avellino"Bulletino archeologico=0AN= apoletano"ff 1844 th.Hosemann" depicting a ceap bar with= =0Agraffiti 1845 P.Gavarni"Vor der Akademie der Inschrif= ten=0Aund sch=F6nen K=FCnste"(France,depicting graffiti) Marx/Engels"Die heilige Familie" 1847=0AH.R.Browne"/Cattermole(Boz=3DDickens)illustrations with graffiti 1848 revolutions in Europe,many graffiti in= =0AItaly(Garibaldi)also noticing Verdi(nationalism) A.E.Holmberg"Skandinaviens=0Ah=E4llr= istningar" 1849 H.R.Browne,illustrations(BOZ=3DDickens) P.Jannet/J.P.Payent/A,Veinant"Biblio= theca=0Ascatologica" 1850 Austria,F.K=FCschell noticing graffiti= =0A/latrinalia(Steierm=E4rkisches Landesarchiv,Dokument No.660) 1851 R.Garrucci"Tre sepolcri" 1853 L.J.Michelsen"Die Hausmarke" 1854 R.Garrucci"Inscriptiones gravees au tra= it=0Asur les murs de Pompei,clouees at interpretees" 1856 R.Garrucci"Un grafiti blasphemo nel pal= azzo=0Adei cesari" 1857 G.B.De Rossi"Antici mulini in Roma nel= =0Apalazzo dei cesari" 1858...............................Ave Lallemant/F.C.benedict"Das deutsch= e=0AGaunertum in seiner sozialpolitischen,literarischen und linguistische= n=0AAusbildung" 1860 E.Le Blant"Memoire sur l`autel de l `Eg= lise=0Ade Minerve" 1861 E.Berchon"recherches sur l`Tatouage" J.Bachofen"Das Mutterrecht" Wagner"Die Literatur der Gauner-und= =0AGeheimsprachen" 1861-1865......................America,Civil War 1862 V.Hugo"les miserables" 1863 G.B.De Rossi"Roma,graffiti nel palazzo = de=0A`Cesari sul Palatino" 1865 P.Rosa"Scavi del Palatino" T.Wright"History of carricature and= =0Agrotesque in litterature and art" 1866 F.Becker"Das Spott-Crucifix der r=F6mio= schen=0AKaiserpal=E4ste aus dem Anfang des dritten Jahrhunderts" 1867 C.Zangemeister"Inscriptiones parietaria= e=0APeompeianae,Herculanense,Stabianae" 1868 G.Semper"Die Sgraffitidekoration" Brunnius"F=F6rs=F6k till f=F6rklari= ngar =F6fer=0Ah=E4llristringar" 1869 SUEZ CANAL M.Twain"The innocents abroad"(comme= nting=0AHeidelberg`s university(karzer)graffiti 1871 Graffite/Dictionaire general de la lan= gue=0AFrancaise) 1872 P.Pufendorf"Kakamoja"(reprint 1983) 1874 Whitney-Jolly"Die Sprachwissenschaft" 1876 E.Maccari"Graffiti chiaroscuri e siste= ni=0Anell`esterno case di Roma" 1877 Martigny"Dictionaire des antiquites=0A= Chretiennes" H.S.Ashbee"Index librorum prohibito= rum" 1878...............................G.Kaibel"Epigrammata Graecae ex lapidi= bus=0Aconlecta" 1880 China,Wen Kang reflecting=0Agraffiti(l= itterature) 1881 G.Lacour.Geyet"Graffiti fugurees du te= mple=0Ad`Antonin et Faustine au Forum Romain" 1883................................Germany:social security becoming stat= e=0Amatter 1885 C.Bock"Le tatouage au Laos Occidental= " 1886 G.Mallery"Pictographs of the North=0A= American Indians" 1887 W.Joest"T=E4towieren,Narbenzeichen un= d=0AK=F6rperbemalen" 1888 E.Gautier"Le monde des prisons" 1889 P.Cotin""mes inscriptions(Restif de = la=0ABretonne) 1890 E.Laurent"Les habitues des prisons d= e=0AParis" G.Hofmeyer"Haus-und Hofmarken" 1891 J.G.Bourke"Scatologic rites of all= =0Anations" 1994 L.Correra"Graffiti di Roma III" 1895 R.H.Mathews"Australian rock pictures= " 1896 Bequerel discovering RADIOACTIVITY 1897 Hoffmann"The graphic art of the Eski= mos" 1898 R.W=FCnsch"Sethinanische Verfluchung= stafeln=0Ain Rom" 1899.................................Lombroso reflecting prison graffiti J.Gross"Freist=E4dter Handschrift= " 19.century KYSELACK does graffiti in the Alps 1900 basics of atomic theory(Freud,Planck= =0Aetc.) 1902 H.Marucci"Le Forum romain et le Pala= tin" 1903 Ch.Huelsen"Das sogenannte Paedagogiu= m auf=0Adem Palatin" 1904 F.S.KRAUSS ANTHROPOPHYTEIA 1906 W.Himmlisch(Vienna toilet woman doin= g her=0Amemoirs reflecting graffiti,too) 1907 H.Jordan"Topographie der Stadt Rom i= m=0AAltertum" Abbe Breuil"Exemples de figurees= =0Adegeneratees et stylisees al`epoque du renne" 1908 H.E.Luedecke"Abortinschriften aus=0A= Nieder=F6sterreich und B=F6hmen" Cartailhac/Breuil"Les peintures e= t=0Agravures murales de cavernes pyreennes" 1909 D.Cancogni"Le rovine del Palatino" E.Berger"Fresko und Sgraffito-= =0ATechnik" 1910 E.Diehl"Pompeianische Wandinschrift= en=0Aund Verwandtes" 1911 R.Cagnat"Inscriptiones Graecae ad r= es=0ARomanas pertinentes" 1912 Antrhopophyteia,F.S.Krauss ENDED Zille(Germany)taking=0Apictures(= photos)of childrens`graffiti C.G.Jung(archetypes)art-therapy 1913 cars muildt(Ford)modern ways 1914-1918 WW I,political wall texts(graffiti)at= =0Aberlin and trains,cars,shelters etc. 1914 German universities"Karzer"(prison)w= as=0Aabolished,no longer specific students graffiti Axel Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html =0A --part0_890201616_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 02:29:45 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: graffiti-list(continued)no.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_890206185_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890206185_boundary Content-ID: <0_890206185@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_890206185_boundary Content-ID: <0_890206185@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: ARCHIVE1 Return-path: To: rock-art@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Subject: graffiti-list(continued)no.4 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 02:26:14 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable PREPRINT FROM. VOCABULARY OF GRAFFITI-RESEARCH,Part 3(in prep.) 1939-1945.........................WW II,graffiti on tanks,airplanes and= =0Abombs(fat man) 1940 J.London"Railway stories"(hobos mar= ks) 1942 P.Levy"Les tatouage Laotiens" 1943 Munich resistance group"Weisse Rose= "also=0Ausing graffiti 1933-1945..........................anti-Jewish,hate-=0Agraffiti,swastika(= Hakenkreuz) 1945 victorious graffiti on Germany`s wa= lls C.Althin"Studien zu den=0Abronze= zeitlichen Felszeichnungen von Skane",Bd.2 A.Thiel born 1946 B.L.Brea"Gli scavi della caverna de= lle=0Aarene candide" 1947 J.London"Abenteuer des=0ASchinenstr= anges"in Germany 1948 R.Holzinger"Fresko und Sgraffiti" 1949 G.Orwell"1984" A.Smedley"China k=E4mpft" 1950 F.Behn"Vorgeschichtliche Felsbilder= in=0AKarelien und West-Sibirien" 1951 M.Griaule"/G.Dieterlen"Signes=0Agr= aphiques Soudanais" 1952 H.Field"Camel brands and graffiti = from=0AIraq,Syria,Jordan,Iran,Arabia" R.Guthrie"Graffiti" 1953 K.Herberts"W=E4nde und Wandbild" 1954 Wen Kang(China)translated from=0Ac= a.1880,graffiti"Die schwarze Reiterin" S.Pedersen"Eidetic obsession an= d=0Amodern art" 1955 A.Thiel moves from east to West Ge= rmany G.Goyon"Les inscriptions et gra= ffiti=0Ades voyageurs sur la grande pyramid Cairo" G.Nesbitt"Graffiti" 1956 Hungary,East Germany=0Auprising,p= olitical graffiti Henno Martin"Wenn es Krieg=0Ag= ibt,gehen wir in die W=FCste(Engl."The sheltering desert") Bateson et.al:double-bind theo= ry 1957 first Sputnik G.Klaffenbach"Griechische=0AEp= igraphik" 1958....................................M.Garducci"I graffiti soto la=0Ac= onfessione di San Pietro in Vaticano" 1959 F.Jobst"Von den Abk=FCrzungen in = der=0ASprache" L.Reau""Geschichte des Vandali= smus" 1960....................................Berlin wall buildt(to become larg= est=0Aprojection screen) Lindsay publishing inquery on= =0APompei A.Jimenez"Picardia Mexicana"(1= 00=0Aeds.already Axel Thiel(Germany) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html=0A --part0_890206185_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 10:49:32 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Mind on-line X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mind http://www.oup.co.uk/mind/ ISSN 0026-4423 Mind has long been a leading journal in philosophy. For well over 100 years it has presented the best of cutting edge thought from epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophy of logic, and philosophy of mind. Mind continues its tradition of excellence today. Mind has always enjoyed a strong reputation for the high standards established by its editors and receives around 350 submissions each year. The editor seeks advice from a large number of expert referees, including members of the editorial board and his international advisors. Mind is published quarterly. Full-text access to this electronic version of the journal is available through subscription. Contact Oxford University Press. Recent Contents: Propositions G Bealer pp. 1-32 Abstract Full-Text PDF (135 KB) Are declarative sentences representational? S Donaho pp. 33-58 Abstract Full-Text PDF (102 KB) Against the doctrine of microphysical supervenience T Merricks pp. 59-71 Abstract Full-Text PDF (52 KB) Actions, adjuncts, and agency PM Pietroski pp. 73-111 Abstract Full-Text PDF (163 KB) Quotation and the use-mention distinction P Saka pp. 113-135 Abstract Full-Text PDF (88 KB) Yablo's paradox and kindred infinite liars RA Sorensen pp. 137-155 Abstract Full-Text PDF (68 KB) Symposium: realism and truth. Wittgenstein, Wright, Rorty, Minimalism S Blackburn pp. 157-181 Abstract Full-Text PDF (90 KB) Comrades against quietism: reply to Simon Blackburn on truth and objectivity C Wright pp. 183-203 Abstract Full-Text PDF (75 KB) Reasons for forming an intention: a reply to Pink S Goetz pp. 205-213 Abstract Full-Text PDF (33 KB) Reply to Goetz T Pink pp. 215-218 Abstract Full-Text PDF (16 KB) Contact: Comments and feedback: www-admin@oup.co.uk -or- The Editorial Secretary, udty007@alder.cc.kcl.ac.uk __________________________________________ 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, 18 Mar 1998 12:29:42 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Necessary, Please Talk To Me Today. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I'd be interested to know what list members make of this - it seems that even psychics need PhD's now, and that spirits value valid credit cards! - Ian ================= I want you to know that the stress you are feeling right now will disappear just by talking to me today. I am KENNETH KINDSTEEN, Ph.D., a well known spiritualist, clairvoyant, and psychic. Please give me a call right now so I can give you some additional help and guidance that will assure you more success in your life. I can and I will predict your future. I can and I will ease your pain. I can and I will help you make decisions that are important in your life. I can and I will help resolve job anxieties. I can and will help you with you relationships and love. All of my specially hand picked psychics have the same capabilities as I because they have worked with me for more than thirty years. Stop worrying. Just pick up the telephone now and make this very important call. Why should you just keep "getting by" from day to day when I can and will make a difference for you and your family. I have helped millions of people all over the world to resolve the unknown. Please call and let us help you. We can give you the guidance you so desperately need in your life today. My psychic facility can be reached 24 hours per day and seven days per week including holidays. If you have a valid credit card, please call the toll free line: 1-800-767-6636 If you want to bill this call to your telephone, please call: 1-900-378-4848 Please ignore everything below this line @ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 11:02:54 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Martin Fichman Subject: Re: Necessary, Please Talk To Me Today. X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com X-cc: Bernie Lightman , Joan Steigerwald , Katharine Anderson , Luigi Bianchi , Michael DeRobertis , ksetter@splb.scarborough.on.ca In-Reply-To: <199803181237.HAA02338@comet.ccs.yorku.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ian, I am currently working on a biography of Alfred Russel Wallace and all I can say is, very interesting...! As you know, Wallace became a convinced spiritualist, and also spoke in defense of mediums who were often charged (in his opinion not always justifiably) with fraud. I myself remain to be convinced of the "authenticity" of spiritualist phenomena, but if Wallace is listening, his own response might be instructive... Martin Fichman Professor Humanities/History York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada please note that my new email is: mfichman@yorku.ca On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Ian Pitchford wrote: > I'd be interested to know what list members make of this - it seems > that even psychics need PhD's now, and that spirits value valid > credit cards! - Ian > ================= > I want you to know that the stress you are feeling right now > will disappear just by talking to me today. I am KENNETH KINDSTEEN, > Ph.D., a well known spiritualist, clairvoyant, and psychic. Please > give me a call right now so I can give you some additional help and > guidance that will assure you more success in your life. I can and I > will predict your future. I can and I will ease your pain. I can and > I will help you make decisions that are important in your life. I can > and I will help resolve job anxieties. I can and will help you with > you relationships and love. > > All of my specially hand picked psychics have the same capabilities as I > because they have worked with me for more than thirty years. Stop worrying. > Just pick up the telephone now and make this very important call. Why should > you just keep "getting by" from day to day when I can and will make a > difference for you and your family. I have helped millions of people all over > the world to resolve the unknown. Please call and let us help you. We can give > you the guidance you so desperately need in your life today. My psychic > facility can be reached 24 hours per day and seven days per week including > holidays. > > If you have a valid credit card, please call the toll free line: > 1-800-767-6636 > > If you want to bill this call to your telephone, please call: > 1-900-378-4848 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please ignore everything below this line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @ > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:10:15 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: graffiti-list(continued)no.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_890251815_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890251815_boundary Content-ID: <0_890251815@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_890251815_boundary Content-ID: <0_890251815@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: ARCHIVE1 Return-path: To: rock-art@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Subject: graffiti-list(continued)no.6 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:02:36 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable PREPRINT FROM: VOCABULARY OF GRAFFITI-RESEARCH(in prep.) 1978...........................Thiel/Beyer collecting industrial=0Agraffi= ti(first time) 1979...........................first publications at Kassel(Stdien zur=0A= menschlichen Sexuali- t=E4t) Thiel/Thiel(university graffiti,Kassel) M.Etter"Spraybilder in Z=FCrich" 1980 B.Dagrin"V=E4rlden =E4r skiti,leve graffi= ti" M.Spiess"Denk-Anschl=E4ge" 1981 Thiel/Beyer"Graffiti in Kassel,ein Bilder= -=0ABuch" Horndash"Abortkunst" 1982 U.Bracht(dissertation,Kassel)on graffiti C.Castelman"Getting up" 1983 Thiel"Graffiti-Bibliography","Introductio= n to=0Agraffiti- research"no.1 H.Naegeli"mein sprayen-mein revoltiere= n" P.G.Zimbardo(Psychology,10.ed)reflects= on=0Agraffiti 1984 La insurreccion de las paredes"(Nicagargu= a) S.Lievens"Graffiti op muren en toilett= en" 1985 graffiti move INTERNET writing global movement advertisement merchandizing=0Agraffiti= /writing Turk 182!(film,USA) 1986 P.Kreuzer"Graffiti-Lexikon" I.Eibel-Eibesfeld(human ethology)refle= cting=0Agraffiti 1987 Anonymus"Bild-Zeitung""Gaunerzinken" Bad Homburg"(legal graffiti walls) 1988 B.Suter"Rebellion der Zeichen" A.Silva"Graffiti-una ciudad imaginada" 1989 end of german Democratic Republic,Berlin = wall ca.200 graffiti-fanzines globally first e-zines(internet) film"Bombing"(USA) Paul Thiel(graffiti,in Lexikon der=0AK= unst,Leipzig) 1990 film"Videograf"(USA) graffiti-research at Kassel in full=0A= swing(network) 1991 film"Visual Grafix"(London) I.Miller"Night train-the power that ma= n=0Amade" A.Thiel"Graffiti-einst und=0Ajetzt",IN= :Universum,vol.107 1992 I.Riedel"Maltherapie" ca.300 publications at Kassel(Thiel) 1993 B.van Treeck"Graffiti-Lexikon" D.S.Baldajew"Gulag-Zeichnungen" J.Ferrell"Crimes of style" 1994 Schulze-M=E4uerle first excellent teacher= s guide=0Ato graffiti H.Kraus"Graffiti streeart CD"(first) A.Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html =0A --part0_890251815_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:12:20 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: Wtr: graffiti-list(ended)no.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_890251940_boundary" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_890251940_boundary Content-ID: <0_890251940@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_890251940_boundary Content-ID: <0_890251940@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline From: ARCHIVE1 Return-path: To: rock-art@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Subject: graffiti-list(ended)no.7 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:02:38 EST Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit PREPRINT FROM: VOCABULARY OF GRAFFITI-RESEARCH(in prep.)part 3 1995...........................Chauvette cave discovered(France) City of Hannover(Germany)"Hannover-New York Express http://www.x-com.de/graffiti/index.html 1995/1996 Bosmans/Thiel"Guide to graffiti-research"Gent 1996 S.Jacobson"Den spraymalade bilden" B.Bryan"Graffiti verite"(video documentation) D.Wright"Graffiti from Graceland" 1997 A.Thiel"Vocabulary of graffiti-research",1 part(1500 keywords) http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html http://users.aol.com/archive1 http://www.users.wineasy.se/m.i.c/graf/ B.Paul/P.Schuldt"exam-video"(Interview with A,.Thiel) 1998 A.Thiel"Vocabulary of graffiti- research",no2(1500 keywords) 500 students and writers used Kassel graffiti-archive in 20 years 3000 donators helped ca.40 000 documents in prep:"Vocabulary of graffiti- research"(no.3)1 500 keywords Axel Thiel(coordination) int.work-group on graffiti-research http://www.graffiti.org/axel/index.html ABBREVIATED PUBLICATION --part0_890251940_boundary-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:15:31 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dewey Dykstra, Jr." Subject: Re: BL and science In-Reply-To: <199803150841.BAA08174@bsumail.idbsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >At 12:46 PM 3/13/98 -0700, Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. wrote: >>>>On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Asia Lerner wrote: >>> >>>This is equivalent to claiming that there is some magical number beyond >>>which precision must mean truth. I truly doubt that this is the case. >>>Again, see above. Newton's theory was considered surprisingly precise at >>>its time. Social construction is not really the source of this dilemma. A >>>great number of philosophers who were not at all social constructionists >>>(e.g. Kant, Hume) came to similar conclusions simply because it seems >>>impossible to either logically or empirically show that predictions lead to >>>something tangibly real. >>> >>> >> >>Isn't the upshot here that "truth" as to what "things really are" is not >>actually what our explanatory efforts (thinking up and testing explanations >>for our experience) can yield? >> > >Yep. This is how realism gets replaced with instrumentalism (= theories are >conceptual tools that allow people to make sense of their observations). >You are actually conceeding my point. > > > Best regards, Asia Lerner I might say "agreeing" rather than "conceeding" since I did not disagree with you. ;^) Dewey +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105 Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775 Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330 Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld, 1938. "Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence." --E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958. "Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in There Are No Electrons, 1991. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:44:13 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Asia Lerner Subject: Re: social constructionism Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:51 AM 3/16/98 EST, Val Dusek wrote: >The cultural specificity of science is what >most of the objectivist science-warriors are upset by, more than the idealist >or non-realist issue, which they often confuse with the issue of cultural >variability. The fact that the objectivist science-warriors don't attack >positivists such as Schlick or non-realist empiricists such as van Fraaseen >shows that their concern is really more with the universality of science than >with the philosophical issue of realism vs. idealism, although the two are >often confused in the objectivist rhetoric. > I am not sure that "universality" is the best way to put it, after all most scientists are quite willing to accept some flavor of instrumentalism/pragmatism, which certainly implies that theories will vary in time and are not "universal". I think that there are two things scientists (pardon the stereotyping) find hard to accepr. Firstly, the notion that there is no theory-independend criteria of comparison that allows us to evaluate theories (hence the popularity of Kuhn among social constructionists) - this is the logical base for both claims of cultural variance and of lack of progress in science. Secondly, it's ethical critique of science (for example, the notion that science is involved in upholding racism). The combination of these two claims (lack of criteria which makes a theory change logically viable and ethical judgement which makes it desirable) is I think at the heart of most socio-relativist history writing, at least in America. The French, imho, are actually less likely to defend the downtrodden and are more interested in philosophical possibilities and limitations of knowledge. Best, Asia ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:13:29 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: social constructionism (Building, Dwelling, Thinking --Heidegger) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Asia Lerner wrote: [snip] > I am not sure that "universality" is the best way to put it, after all most > scientists are quite willing to accept some flavor of > instrumentalism/pragmatism, which certainly implies that theories will vary > in time and are not "universal". I think that there are two things > scientists (pardon the stereotyping) find hard to accepr. Firstly, the > notion that there is no theory-independend criteria of comparison that > allows us to evaluate theories (hence the popularity of Kuhn among social > constructionists) - this is the logical base for both claims of cultural > variance and of lack of progress in science. Secondly, it's ethical > critique of science (for example, the notion that science is involved in > upholding racism). The combination of these two claims (lack of criteria > which makes a theory change logically viable and ethical judgement which > makes it desirable) is I think at the heart of most socio-relativist > history writing, at least in America. [snip] Slowly things come to light. Yes, I've seen both these points made. The second point seems to me the easier to deal with, since, often, it is true enough in fact. No, I don't mean to assert that most scientists uphold racism. But surely such exploitive "-isms" as the ab-use [any "use" of an other person other than as a peer ethical agent in free relations of mutual respect is abuse] of lower rank lab staff and students (in their roles both as learners and labor power) by the higher level scientists are endemic although by no means universal. I'm not sure to what extent this can be attributed to the fact that scientific praxis is merely "technical" (in Arnold Gehlen's / Habermas's... sense) and therefore has no relation with political reasonableness, and to what extent it can be attributed to such facts of the history of science as The Roman Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo, which definitely did nothing to provide for scientists the kind of "holding environment" which would facilitate their maturational processes to become self-confident contributors into the ethical amelioration of their social surround (there are echoes of Winnicott and Kohut in this sentence). But this does not seem to me to be a problem *intrinsic* to science, unless one is examining science from a kind of transcendental standpoint and asking how it is possible that scientific praxis could *not* necessarily result, over time, in the universal enlightenment and liberation of humanity -- somewhat in the same way as Elizabeth Eisenstein argued that the coming of uniform printed editions made the status of the advance of knowledge of nature change from being nearly impossible to almost inevitable. This is, in my opinion, an important and urgent question (for the patient seems to be dying...), but I think that, stated this way, it's a bit different than some simplistic accusation that "science is racist [ /sexist / etc.]". The first point seems to me more "difficult", because less empirical (it's easy to compare salaries, etc.). Is it possible that science (and mathematics) is arriving at conclusions which are increasingly approaching the condition of being unintelligible by anybody? My concern here comes from a superficial (New York Times level) acquaintance with the recent proof of the 4-color map problem and Fermat's last theorem, coupled with personal frustration in attempts to follow Godel's incompleteness theorem through the course of several metamathematical texts (including the original publication). A second desideratum is that, just like an army advances on its stomach, science advances on the basis of the oral and kinesic (body-language) transmission of the meaning of its otherwise dumb [incommunicative] symbols through the social intercourse of teachers and learners (those who already know and those who desire to come to know). There will be a "day of wrath" if self-styled scientific educators ever completely formalize the ultimately affective and imaginative process of the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. Multiple-choice tests are steps on a path leading to the end of the world ("babel", not in the sense of mutual incomprehension, but breakdown of the eidetic process *within* and consequent loss *of* the individual subjectivity). At least that's the position I'd be willing to argue for. But to address this issue of "science not making progress" directly. I think that "test cases" (at least as "thought experiments") can easily be imagined, and, where possible, the relevant "experiments" need to be carried out. What sense might it make -- in what situations might it be true -- etc., that, e.g., astronomy as practiced today is no better than the astronomy of the classical Greeks or of Tycho Brahe? We place a classical Greek astronomer, and/or Tycho himself, and a contemporary astronomer, together in a room (the Athenian agora? Uraniborg? Cal Tech?...), and we let them talk and show each other their respective experimental setups, etc. Can we predict the outcome of this experiment? To use a phrase from Jacob Bronowski: Of course we can't -- because this is not some "third person" scientific experiment [belonging to the domain *in front of* the one-way mirror...], but an event of living human conversation, which always discovers, criticizes and negotiates what is true, as an emergent, inescapable and unsurpassable (except through its own further self-elaboration) process of mutual en-light-enment. So how many of the persons who say science is not progressive have engaged in such depth-hermeneutic studies as participant observers (I volunteer to get on a plane tomorrow, at personal expense, if necessary, if a serious proposal is made in a disciplinary area where I feel I might be able to contribute as a student of "communication theory")? Do the preceding thoughts advance this process of understanding? What next? \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: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:24:34 -0800 Reply-To: wderzko@pathcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Walter Derzko Subject: Did we all descend from one tribe ? X-To: List Discovery X-cc: List Cybermind , List -Creativity , Quirks & quarks MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Clues to where we come from. (from One Eve to One Tribe). Could this change of perception mitigate some of our current conflicts ? In a McLuhanesque way we can ask: What does our knowledge of descendence from one tribe enhance ? What does our knowledge of descendence from one tribe obsolesce ? What does our knowledge of descendence from one tribe retrieve ? What does our knowledge of descendence from one tribe flip into at the extreme ? Walter Derzko Director Brain Space (formerly the Idea Lab at the Design Exchange) Toronto (416) 588-1122 wderzko@pathcom.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....from Science-Week Part 3 19/3/98 GENETIC TRACES OF ANCIENT DEMOGRAPHY The term "haploid loci" refers to genome locations that derive from only one parent. Mitochondrial DNA (sometimes denoted as mtDNA), found in the mitochondria of all eukaryotes, is believed to evolve in parallel with nuclear DNA, but since sperm lose their mitochondria, it is inherited only in the maternal lineage in animals. Mitochondrial DNA has been greatly exploited in studies of the evolution of humans. A "nonrecombining" part of a genome is a part that does not vary when the entire genome is replicated during reproduction. The Pleistocene is the geological time period from about 2 million years ago to about the end of the last glaciation about 10,000 years ago. Modern man is believed to have evolved during the Pleistocene. .... ... Harpending et al (6 authors at 3 installations, US), in a study of the demographic history of the human species as revealed by patterns of gene differences, report that haploid loci like mitochondrial DNA and the nonrecombining part of the Y chromosome show a pattern indicating expansion from a population of only several thousand during the late middle or early upper Pleistocene. The authors suggest our ancestral population size during nearly the whole Pleistocene was of the order of 10,000 breeding individuals, and that genetic evidence denies any version of the multiregional model of modern human origins, and implies instead that our ancestors were effectively a separate species for most of the Pleistocene, a small population probably occupying an area the size of Swaziland or Rhode Island rather than a whole continent. The authors further suggest that archeologists should find and identify this population. QY: Henry C. Harpending harpend@ibm.net (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US 17 Feb 98) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:09:50 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: Re: Godel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Re Brad McCormack's comments on the unintelligibility of modern math: Ernst Nagel's book on Godel's incompleteness theorem is well-written, clear and enjoyable. It is by no means "social constructionist", but does present a highly theoretical matter in a detailed but comprehensible fashion. Another aspect of making science and math understandable is to bring to the surface the story in detail: the purposes of various concepts, mathematical techniques, etc. - i.e., why are you doing it this way? what is your purpose? why would (or did) you fail in reaching your purpose when trying something different? Those who work actively in any field understand such issues from their training and informal interactions with colleagues - not so the rest of us, who do not have those opportunities. One contribution of those studying the history and sociology of science and math is to bring these implicit aspects of the activity to the surface. It was, after all, Peter Medawar, himself a successful scientist, who several decades ago wrote an article "Is the scientific paper fraudulent?" arguing that, confined as it is to a specific format in professional publications, a scientific paper tells you very little about how the science was actually done. Gilbert Whittemore ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 18:04:56 -0500 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Godel (who studied Husserl...) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit GilWhittem wrote: > > Re Brad McCormack's comments on the unintelligibility of modern math: Ernst > Nagel's book on Godel's incompleteness theorem is well-written, clear and > enjoyable. It is by no means "social constructionist", but does present a > highly theoretical matter in a detailed but comprehensible fashion. May I elaborate? Gilbert Whittemore is entirely right that Nagel's is a fine book. However, it *is* a book *about* Godel's theorem, not a step-by-step hand-holding walk through the *details* of the proof. Should such a book exist? Should any non-mathematically schooled (I got thru linear algebra @ Yale in 1966 with an 87%, which was one of the better grades in the class, but I didn't really *understand* the stuff, but only persevered in being one of the few students to attend the classes and do the homework...) non-mathematical genius attempt to auto-didact the path through Godel's incompleteness theorem? Well, for better or worse, I tried, and *that* is what I was referring to. I have read the book I believe Gilbert Whittemore is referring to, and I would recommend it to persons interested in learning *about* this matter. What I needed was a *mathematical* constructionist book on the subject.... I had the fantasy of following *both* Godel's and Husserl's/Heidegger's paths of thinking.... [snip] \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: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:47:55 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Conference: Medicine and the Public Sphere Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" [Apologies for cross-postings.] MEDICINE AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE (Second announcement) Summer Meeting of the Society for the Social History of Medicine University of Edinburgh, 17-19 July 1998 I am now able to release the full programme of papers for this conference, which will be as follows: Friday 17 July 2.00 - 3.30 pm Margaret Pelling (University of Oxford): The College of Physicians in early modern London: private ethics and public responsibility David Harley (University of Oxford): Early modern childbirth and the shifting boundary between private and public 4.00 - 5.30 pm Adrian Wilson (University of Leeds): The peace of the town: the Birmingham General Hospital and its public 1766-1791 Mark Jenner (University of York): Political economy, public interest and the politics of London water, c. 1790-1830 Saturday 18 July 9.00 - 10.30 am Logie Barrow (University of Bremen): `So vast and so minute': vaccination, the state and the public sphere in mid-nineteenth-century England Pamela K Gilbert (University of Florida): Producing the public: public medicine in private spaces in the 1860s 11.00 - 12.30 pm Christopher Hamlin (University of Notre Dame): Dung and the public domain, 1840-1865 Deborah Brunton (University of Huddersfield): Evil necessaries and abominable erections: dirt, disease the morality of the public privy in the Scottish city 2.00 - 3.30 pm Bill Luckin (Bolton Institute): The great London fogs of the nineteenth century: the `public', the `private' and the `indeterminate' in environmental history Elaine Thomson (University of Edinburgh): Between separate spheres: women, hospitals and public health in Edinburgh, 1880-1920 4.00 - 5.30 pm Martin Gorsky (University of Portsmouth) and Martin Powell (University of Bath): British hospitals and the public sphere, c. 1900-1947 Kim Pelis (Wellcome Institute): Coaxing life's blood into the heart of the nation: persuading citizens to donate blood for the public good in interwar Britain 5.30 - 6.30 SSHM Presidential Address: Prof Jerry Morris (London School of Hygiene) Sunday 19 July 9.00 - 10.30 am David Cantor (Manchester Metropolitan University): Constructing `the public': medicine, science and charity in twentieth-century Britain Timothy Boon (Science Museum, London): Recruiting the mass public for public health intervention: Britain in the 1940s 11.00 - 12.30 pm John Mohan (University of Portsmouth): Regionalism, regulation and rationality: hospital policy and the public sphere in the British health services Naomi Pfeffer (University of North London): From intervention to regulation: reproduction in Britain 1960-1990 To register for this conference, please print out and complete the booking form below, and return it, with the requisite payment, to Steve Sturdy, Science Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh, 21 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LN, Scotland. Email: s.sturdy@ed.ac.uk All bookings must be received by 31 May. However, you are advised to register early, as the conference venue can only accommodate a maximum of 80 participants. METHODS OF PAYMENT: You can pay by cheque or money order, drawn against a UK bank, or by a bank draft payable in Pounds Sterling. Cheques must be made payable to The University of Edinburgh. You can also pay by credit card, but please note that you must then pay a 2% administration fee to cover the charge levied by the banks. BURSARIES: Please note that the SSHM makes available a number of bursaries, on a first-come-first-served basis, to help students and others on low incomes to meet the costs of attending conferences. If you would like to be considered for one of these, you should send a breakdown of your costs, plus a letter of recommendation from you supervisor or some other competent referee, to Dr David Wright, SSHM Treasurer, University of Nottingham, Department of History, Lenton Grove, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, Great Britain. The maximum amount payable is stlg100. * * * BOOKING FORM I wish to register for the SSHM conference on "Medicine and the Public Sphere", 17-19 July 1998 Name: ___________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Email: ___________________ Phone: ________________________ REGISTRATION FEE (includes morning coffee and afternoon tea): SSHM members (stlg26) stlg_______ Non-members (stlg31) stlg_______ Student/unwaged (stlg17) stlg_______ ACCOMMODATION (bed and breakfast at Pollock Halls of Residence): Nights required: Friday 17 / Saturday 18 (Delete as appropriate) En suite (stlg34.50 per night) stlg_______ Shared facilities (stlg20.35 per night) stlg_______ Do you require information about hotel accommodation in Edinburgh? Yes / No MEALS (vegetarian options will be available): Buffet lunch, Saturday 18 (stlg7.50) stlg_______ Conference dinner, Sat 18 (stlg15.00) stlg_______ TOTAL PAYABLE stlg_______ (Cheques payable to University of Edinburgh) (Credit card payment form below) Do you require a receipt? Yes / No * * * CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS Name: ___________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Type of card: VISA / ACCESS / MASTERCARD (Delete as appropriate) Card number: :__:__:__:__: :__:__:__:__: :__:__:__:__: :__:__:__:__: Card valid from: __/__/__ To: __/__/__ Amount to be charged: stlg___________ Administration fee (2%): stlg___________ Total to be paid: stlg___________ Cardholder's signature: __________________________ Date: __/__/__ __________________________________________ 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, 22 Mar 1998 12:23:01 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Germ line therapy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Kolata, Gina. "Scientists Brace for Changes in Path of Human Evolution," New York Times, 21 March 1998, p. 1, A12. Los Angeles, March 20 -- For years, molecular biologists and geneticists have trod gingerly around the most explosive topic of the new reproductive biology: purposely making genetic changes in people that would persist for generation after generation. There were so many technological roadblocks to the process, called germline genetic engineering, that most scientists view it almost as science fiction. But now, as researchers rush past these roadblocks, a group of eminent molecular biologists and geneticists met here today on the leafy campus of the University of California at Los Angeles to confront the issue. Their goal was to discuss how, why and when germline engineering should proceed. The scientists, leaders in the fields, were meeting on their own, with no government or other mandate to issue guidelines or regulations and, in fact, no wish to restrict their work. But they said it was time for science to confront its growing powers to shape human biology. The public and even scientists are unaware of how close science is to making germline engineering a reality, said Dr. Michael Rose, who studies the genetics of aging at the University of California at Irvine and was a speaker at the meeting. He said the meeting would bring public attention to "one of the most important questions for the human species: the extent to which it will direct its own evolution." It will, some day, be possible to give people genes to prevent them from developing certain diseases or to cure them of diseases that stubbornly resist treatment, like cancer or AIDS. "I could imagine a child that never got a cold," said Dr. John Campbell, a meeting organizer who is a theoretical evolutionary biologist and a professor neurobiology at U.C.L.A. They could eventually add whole "cassettes" of genes that could confer enhanced intelligence or rid people of the plagues of aging, he said. Unlike genetic therapies being experimented with today, in which scientists try to insert genes into specific body tissues, these genetic changes could become permanent, present in sperm and egg cells and passed from generation to generation. Germline genetic engineering "really touches the essence of who we are, what it means to ne human," said Dr. Gregory Stick, a conference organizer and director the Science, Technology and Society program at U.C.L.A.'s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. "We are talking about intervening in the flow of genetic information from one generation to the next. We are talking about the relationship of human beings to their genetic heritage." The speakers, drawn from the ranks of molecular biology and genetics, had the most august credentials: memberships in the National Academy of Science, a Nobel Prize, editorships of leading journals. Throughout the day, one after the other spoke about the new possibilities and powerful new tools already under development to make human germline engineering happen. No one could say with certainty when this new kind of genetic engineering could be put into practice. But they all agreed that seemingly insuperable technical barriers were falling year by year and many said they expected to see the techniques in use within 20 years. As recently as 15 years ago, Dr, Campbell said, putting a cassette of genes together would have been a herculean task. Now, he added, it could be a project for graduate students. Of course, once genetic germline engineering becomes technically feasible, researchers would want to conduct studies in animals to make sure practices were safe before trying them in people. Obstacles now to germline engineering are practical, not theoretical. Scientists already have a way to add desired genes snapping cassettes of them onto artificial chromosomes and injecting the chromosomes into newly fertilized eggs. Because every cell in the body is a descendant of that first fertilized egg, every cell would have a copy of the artificial chromosome. Artificial chromosomes, even human artificial chromosomes, have been created and patented, the scientists reported, and companies have sprung up to exploit the technology. Dr. Leroy Hood, the chairman of the department of molecular biotechnology at the University of Washington in Seattle, said he has developed a way to create an entire custom chromosome on a computer chip containing DNA. But what if the artificial chromosome is faulty or what if it begins to look primitive to some future generation that wants the updated version of this genetic software? No problem, said Dr. Mario R. Caoecchi, a distinguished professor of biology and human genetics at the University of Utah. Biologists already know how to make artificial chromosomes that can self destruct on command. The lone ethicist speaking at the conference was D. John Fletcher, who was chief of bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and is now a professor of biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia. He said he had no problems in principle with giving people genes that would prevent or cure diseases. But, he said, he is troubled by the idea of adding genes for certain complex traits. For example, he said, "somebody talked about genes for 'emotional stability'" He said he finds this kind of talk problematic. However, he added, there is nothing intrinsically unethical about germline genetic engineering. Scientists at the meeting also spoke quite seriously about extending the human life span with cassettes of anti-aging genes. And, they envisioned adding cassettes of anti-cancer genes and genes that would confer resistance to the AIDS virus. The cassettes would include control regions that would turn the genes on only in the tissues where and when needed. Dr. Campbell described in detail how an anti-cancer gene cassette might work. He envisioned providing cells with the equivalent of a loaded gun, its trigger cocked. But the gun could only go off in certain cells and then only if a person deliberately pulled it. For prostate cancer, for example, scientists might add a gene that would kill prostate cells and the cancer along with it on command. To control such a gene, scientists would hook it to another gene that responds to an insect hormone, ecdysone, that normally has no effect on human cells. If a man found he had prostate cancer, he would take an ecdysone pill. It would activate the added gene, killing prostate cells, but leaving other cells untouched. The cassettes eventually could be enormously sophisticated, scientists said. If you wanted to enhance the human species, Dr, Hood explained, you would add entire clusters of genes that would interact and boost or modulate each other's effects like genes do in nature. The Human Genome Project, an ambitious effort to determine the sequence of human DNA, is going to find those gene clusters, he said. When that happens, he added, it will be "only a matter of time" before they are used in human germline engineering. With the genome project, "we have the tools, the data, the vision, to do systems biology that way it was never done before," Dr. Hood said. What is most amazing, said Dr. Lee Silver, a molecular geneticist at Princeton University and editor in chief of the journal Mammalian Genome, is that germline engineering, for a variety of technical reasons, should actually be easier than the more limited genetic engineering than scientists have tried thus far. Dr. James D. Watson, director of the Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory in New York and winner of a Nobel Prize in 1962 for discovering the structure of DNA, agreed. If scientists wait for conventional genetic engineering to success before trying germline engineering, Dr. Watson said, "We might as well wait for the sun to burn out." And, he asked, why not try germline genetic engineering when the methods are ready? "If you could cure a very serious disease, stupidity, that would be a great thing for the people who otherwise would be born seriously disadvantaged." ******************************************************************************** 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 Mar 1998 18:28:39 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Information on email forums and web sites in all sorts of history Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" *********************************************************** H-NET: HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES ON-LINE *********************************************************** H-Net Announces 100 Scholarly Lists and Networks for Humanists & Social Sciences The Information Revolution is bringing dramatic changes in the communications infrastructure worldwide, especially the Internet system that links academia together in a fast, free and friendly environment. H-Net is an international network of scholars in the humanities and social sciences that creates and coordinates electronic networks using a variety of media,and with a common objective of advancing humanities and social science teaching and research. H-Net was created to provide a positive, supportive, equalitarian environment for the friendly exchange of ideas and scholarly resources. Among H-Net's most important activities is its sponsorship of 100 free electronic, interactive newsletters ("lists")edited by some hundreds of scholars in North America, Europe,Africa, and the Pacific. Subscribers and editors communicate through electronic mail messages sent to the group. These messages can be saved, discarded, downloaded to a local computer, copied, printed out, or relayed to someone else.Otherwise, the lists are all public, and can be quoted and cited with proper attribution. The lists are connected to their own sites on the World Wide Web that store discussion threads, important documents, and links to related sites on the web. H-Net lists reach over 60,000 subscribers in 70+ countries.Subscriptions are screened by the list's editors to promote a diverse readership dedicated to friendly, productive,scholarly communications. Each list publishes 15-60 messages a week. Subscription applications are solicited from scholars,teachers, professors, researchers, graduate students,journalists, librarians and archivists. Teachers who want to put their class on-line should first contact H-Net@H-Net.msu.edu. Each network has its own "personality," is edited by a team of scholars, and has a board of editors; most are cosponsored by a professional society. The editors control the flow of messages, commission reviews, and reject flames and items unsuitable for a scholarly discussion group. They also control H-Net, which is hosted by Michigan State University and has received significant support from the National Endowment for the Humanities and several major universities. The goals of H-NET lists are to enable scholars to easily communicate current research and teaching interests; to discuss new approaches, methods and tools of analysis; to share information on electronic databases; and to test new ideas and share comments on the literature in their fields.The networks feature dialogues in the discipline. They commission original reviews of books, articles, software, and museum exhibits. (Subscribe to H-REVIEW for these, and visit the review web site, http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews). They post syllabi, course outlines, class handouts, bibliographies,listings of new sources, guides to online resources, and reports on new software, data sets, cd-ROMs and World Wide Web sites. Subscribers write in with questions, comments, and reports, and often with mini-essays of a page or two. Our weekly Job Guide lists history jobs worldwide. Our weekly NCC reports from Washington cover developments that affect the humanities. H-Net also integrates its electronic lists with a powerful and comprehensive site on the World Wide Web. The site offers centralized subscription information, direct mail access tote list editors, list archives, links to related resources, a comprehensive calendar of conferences and events, and complete archive of H-Net media and book reviews all linked to unified, searchable database. The site is also the home base of H-Net's projects on multimedia teaching and book reviewing. It is accessible through any web browser program. The H-Net site also hosts web sites for affiliated organizations. Our newest partner is the American Political Science Association, (http://www.apsanet.org), which will cosponsor web sites and lists in political science. Visitors should point their web browsers to: http://www.h-net.msu.edu *********************************************************** H-NET LISTS March 9, 1998 (Detailed subscription procedures follow this listing.) For the following lists, send subscribe command to LISTSERV@H-Net.MSU.edu: 1. H-AfrArts African expressive culture 2. H-Africa African history 3. H-Afrlitcine African literature & cinema 4. H-Afro-Am African-American History and Studies 5. H-AfrTeach Teaching African history and studies 6. H-AHC Association for History and Computing 7. H-Albion British and Irish history 8. H-AmIndian American Indian history and studies 9. H-AmRel American religious history 10. H-Antisemitism antisemitism 11. H-ANZAU Australian & New Zealand history 12. H-Arete Sport literature 13. H-ASEH environmental history 14. H-Asia Asian studies & history 15. H-Bahai Bahai religion history and studies 16. H-California California history and studies 17. H-Canada Canadian history & studies 18. H-Cervantes life, times, & works of M. Cervantes Saavedra 19. H-CLC literary analysis and computing 20. H-Demog demographic history 21. H-Diplo diplomatic history, international affairs 22. H-Film scholarly studies & uses of media 23. H-Francais sur l'Histoire et la Geographie en France 24. H-Frauen-L Women & gender in early modern Europe 25. H-German German history 26. H-Grad for graduate students only 27. H-High-S teaching high school history/social studies 28. H-HOLOCAUST Holocaust studies 29. H-Ideas intellectual history 30. H-Indiana Indiana history and studies 31. H-Islamart History of Islamic Art and Architecture 32. H-Italy Italian history and culture 33. H-ItAm American-Italian history and culture 34. H-Japan Japanese studies 35. H-Judaic Judaica, Jewish History 36. H-Labor labor history 37. H-LatAm Latin American history 38. H-Law legal and constitutional history 39. H-Local state and local history & museums 40. H-Mac Macintosh users 41. H-Michigan Michigan History and Studies 42. H-Minerva Women and military 43. H-MMedia high tech teaching; multimedia 44. H-MusTxt lyrical texts; opera 45. H-NCC distribution of NCC Washington Reports 46. H-NEXA Science-humanities convergence forum 47. H-NILAS Nature in Legend & Story Society 48. H-OIEAHC colonial; 17-18th century Americas 49. H-Oralhist Oral history (Oral History Association) 50. H-PCAACA Popular Culture Association & American Popular Culture Association 51. H-Pol American political history 52. H-Review Book review distribution only, no discussion 53. H-Rhetor history of rhetoric & communications 54. H-Rural rural and agricultural history 55. H-Russia Russian history 56. H-SAE European anthropology 57. H-SAfrica History of South Africa 58. H-SAWH Southern Women and Gender 59. H-Scholar Independent Scholars and Scholarship (NCIS) 60. H-SCI-MED-TECH history of science, medicine, technology 61. H-SHEAR Early American republic 62. H-SHGAPE US Gilded Age & Progressive Era 63. H-Skand Scandinavian history & culture 64. H-South US South 65. H-Soz-u-kult Theory and method in social and cultural history: German language 66. H-State history of social welfare 67. H-Survey teaching US Survey 68. H-Teach teaching college history 69. H-Teachpol teaching political science 70. H-Texas Texas history 71. H-Turk Turkish Studies 72. H-UCLEA labor studies 73. H-Urban urban history 74. H-USA international study of the USA 75. H-W-Civ teaching Western Civ 76. H-War military history 77. H-West US West, frontiers 78. H-Women women's history 79. H-World world history 80. PSRT-L political science research & teaching For the following lists, send subscribe message to LlSTSERV@msu.edu: 81. H-AmStdy American studies 82. H-CivWar US Civil War 83. H-Ethnic ethnicity, immigration & emigration For the following lists, send subscribe to LISTSERV@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU: 84. H-France French history 85. Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire For the following affiliated list (reviews only, no discussion), write: LISTSERV@listserv.acns.nwu.edu: 86. LPBR-L Law & Politics Book Review For the following affiliated list write to: h-mexico@servidor.unam.mx: 87. H-MEXICO Mexican history and studies For the following affiliated Economic History Net lists at Miami- Ohio send subscribe message to: lists@cs.muohio.edu 88. H-Business business history [cosponsored by H-Net & Business History Conference] 89. Databases design & management of historical databases 90. HES History of Economics Society 91. Eh.res economic history research 92. Eh.disc economic history extended discussion 93. Eh.news economic history news, announcements 94. Eh.macro macroeconomic history, business cycles 95. Eh.eastbloc economic history of Eastern Europe 96. Eh.student students & faculty in economic history 97. Eh.teach teaching economic history 98. Global.change economic history dimensions of global change 99. Quanhist.recurrent comparative recurrent phenomena 100. Oznz.society Economic History Society/ Australia & New Zealand HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO AN H-NET LIST To subscribe: Unless instructed otherwise above, send a one-line command in an email message to the appropriate listserv address (given above): SUBSCRIBE H-xxxx Firstname Surname, Affiliation where H-xxxx = list name Example: To subscribe to H-Africa, send the following line to LISTSERV@h-net.msu.edu: subscribe H-AFRICA Sam Smith, Southern State U. [Note: no comma after H-AFRICA; abbreviate U. = university] Follow the instructions in the computer generated response. To send an announcement for distribution to the lists, send it to H-ANNOUNCE@H-NET.MSU.EDU. Announcements intended for inclusion in the H-Net Events Calendar may also be sent to EVENTS@H- NET.MSU.EDU. Job announcements and correspondence should be addressed to HJOBS@H-NET.MSU.EDU. The Job Guide appears weekly. We especially solicit part-time, temporary, adjunct and non- teaching appointments. CONTACTING US FOR MORE INFORMATION On the World Wide Web: http://www.h-net.msu.edu H-Net Gophers: gopher H-NET.msu.edu Electronic mail: H-NET@H-NET.msu.edu Postal mail: H-Net 310 Auditorium Building Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1120 Phone: (517) 355-9300 FAX: (517) 355-8363 Executive Director: Prof. Mark Kornbluh, Michigan State University E-Mail: hnet3@hs1.hst.msu.edu Associate Director: Prof. Peter Knupfer, Kansas State University E-Mail: asociate@h-net.msu.edu ***************************************************************** __________________________________________ 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, 23 Mar 1998 07:55:15 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: "The Ascent of Science" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >From the NY Times Book Review: On the Shoulders of Giants Date: March 22, 1998, Late Edition - Final Byline: By David Goodstein Lead: The Ascent of Science By Brian L. Silver. Illustrated. 534 pp. New York: A Solomon Press Book/ Oxford University Press. $35. Text: LIKE a good tour book, ''The Ascent of Science,'' by Brian L. Silver, takes us to all the principal locations in the realm and shows us not only what's to be found there, but also its history, its effect on history, philosophy, technology and society, and vignettes about local heroes. The tourist Silver has in mind he calls H.M.S., for the French l'homme moyen sensuel, the average man with hormones intact, meaning this is not a dry recounting of science alone. Nevertheless, guiding H.M.S. through all that territory is a daunting task. To a remarkable extent, more than any other book of the kind that comes to mind, this one manages to do the job properly. Reading ''The Ascent of Science'' is a little like going back to college. In the early chapters, we read not just about the laws of mechanics but the whole story of the scientific revolution, the Age of Reason, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution (which really had little to do with science) and the backlash of Romanticism (which has its feeble echo in today's post-modernism). There are all the usual characters: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes and, far above all, Newton. Bacon, Newton and Locke quite unintentionally kick off the Enlightenment, the era of Voltaire, Diderot, Condorcet and the rest. Then along come Rousseau, Coleridge, Goethe, Blake and company to register protest at the mechanization of nature. Along the way we encounter Baconianism, rationalism, the philosophes, Naturphilosophie, you name it. Remember all that? This kind of attention to detail is lavished on virtually every scientific field. In fact, the greatest strength of Silver, who was a professor of physical chemistry at the Technion, or Institute of Technology, in Israel before his death last year, is his interest in all sciences, all the ideas generated by every field, and the consequences of all the ideas: mechanics, electricity and magnetism, chemistry and materials, number theory back to Pythagoras, atoms, entropy, chaos, biology and more, right up to quantum mechanics, particle theory and cosmology. In each case, Silver takes the trouble to start from the beginning, giving H.M.S. a chance to hang in there, with effort. Silver has a real knack for explaining difficult ideas with insight and clarity. He knows how to use an apt metaphor and understands that the metaphor is never enough. And his writing is engaging. Many times, when I wanted to skim over some familiar phenomenon, I found myself reading a vivid discussion I hadn't expected. On the other hand, the prose doesn't always sparkle. The book's title seems intended to remind us of Jacob Bronowski's ''Ascent of Man,'' but at times the writing feels like some less inspired PBS scripts. At one point, Silver says: ''At high temperatures, carbon has a greater affinity for oxygen than does iron. . . . This simple chemical reaction was to turn England into the leading world power in the 19th century.'' Only on PBS. In other places, he just tries too hard. On one page, he quotes someone as saying Georg Richter's death by lightning was a ''shocking tragedy'' and he says Luigi Galvani's discoveries ''galvanized Europe.'' (All right, I've used both myself -- but in class, not in a book.) Like many scientists, Silver professes himself to be a devout follower of the philosopher of science Karl Popper (few, if any, scientists are practicing Popperians, but that's another story). This stance causes problems when he seeks to persuade H.M.S. to take seriously what science teaches us, since according to Popper we're supposed to hold our ideas skeptically and they can only be falsified, never proved right. Silver tries to solve that problem by saying of the kinetic theory of gases that he will go out a short way on a very sturdy limb and predict it will never be proved wrong. That strategy, however, seems to leave more abstract ideas, like biological evolution or Einstein's relativity, on much more precarious perches. Silver sometimes seems downright defensive. He takes us boldly to the outermost reaches of knowledge, then seems to lose his nerve in the face of imagined attacks by the forces of antiscience, or the common-sense skepticism of H.M.S. On the origins of life (one of Silver's best discussions), on seemingly bizarre quantum mechanical phenomena like quantum teleportation and on the origin of the universe, he seems almost ready to concede (although he never does) that just because we don't have all the answers yet, or because we're not comfortable with them when we do, we may be on the wrong track. In the end, however, he always decides science will prevail, with due apologies to H.M.S. for any discomfort that idea might bring. ONE problem with a book this broad is that it must necessarily be shallow. Summing up the life's work of a complex scientist or philosopher in half a sentence can be misleading. Thus we are told that Maxwell didn't believe in atoms because Faraday didn't, Faraday didn't because Davy didn't, and Davy didn't because he was influenced by his friend Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was into Naturphilosophie. Well, now. It is true that Sir Humphry Davy was a friend of Coleridge, and it is true that he didn't believe in the atomic theory of his archrival, John Dalton, but that was only because he had deeper ideas of his own on the subject. His protege Michael Faraday toyed with many ideas at various times, but there's no doubt he was greatly influenced by the 18th-century atomist Roger Boscovitch. And as for James Clerk Maxwell, one of the fathers of the kinetic theory of gases, if you think he seriously doubted the existence of atoms, just read his splendid article on atoms in the 1875 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (you'll love it). Silver is able to discuss the whole gamut of science with skill and sympathy (only geology seems to be missing from his list), but there is no doubt about where his heart is. Chemistry, he writes, ''handles the visible cloth from which the universe is made.'' He notes that it ''has been called the central science, and no other discipline has contributed so much to the understanding and betterment of our condition.'' Perhaps only a chemist, writing from the point of view of the central science, could have given us this comprehensive, balanced, informative and charming book. For H.M.S. or anyone else curious to know what science is really all about, this book makes very good one-stop shopping. [LINK] Home | The New York Times Book Review | Search | Forums | Help The New York Times on the Web Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:01:24 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Essay on Malthus & Darwin: then & now Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have placed the following essay on my web site: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/papers/index.html There are a number of other essays and a couple of books on matters Darwinian and Malthusian at the site, as well. Feedback very welcome. Best, bob Young 'Malthus on Man - In Animals no Moral Restraint' 59K Thirty years ago I wrote an article on the common context of biological and social theory, using Malthus as a key text and exploring how various writers had read him and had come up with very different conclusions: William Paley, Thomas Chalmers, Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Marx and Engels. This article generated a number of commentaries and refutations, primarily seeking to disprove my conclusions about the connection between Darwin and Malthus and the role of Malthus in the origination of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. I have stood my ground and have argued that quite a lot hangs on the connection. On the occasion of the first invitation I have ever had to deliver a paper to a conference of the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine (an ideologically and personally antagonistic director having been forcibly retired), I took the opportinity to reflect on this controversy, bring in some new evidence and draw philosophical conclusions about the role of praxis in human nature, as sanctioned by the first professional social scientist and the founder of modern evolutionary theory. I also urge modern Darwinians to emulate these eminent forbearers in granting a role for praxis in human nature. The paper was presented to a conference on 'Malthus, Medicine and Science' organised by Roy Porter at the Wellcome Institute, London, on 20 March 1998. __________________________________________ 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 Mar 1998 09:44:36 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: UCLA (1998-1999) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT POSTDOCTORAL POSITION IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE The Department of History of the University of California at Los Angeles invites applications for a postdoctoral appointment in the history of science for academic year 1998-99. We understand history of science broadly, to include social or cultural studies of science involving historical questions or issues. We invite applications from scholars working on the history of any area of science in any part of the world, and especially from those whose historical research includes a social, cultural, or economic dimension. We also welcome applications from scholars who can link the history of science to history of technology, medicine, social science, expertise, or the professions. The position carries a salary of $30,000 plus health benefits. The successful candidate will teach one course in each of the three quarters of the academic year, which runs from late September to mid June. Send letter of application, cv, publications or other writing samples, a short statement of teaching and research interests, and three letters of recommendation by 10 April 1998 to: Professor Theodore M. Porter Postdoctoral Search Committee Department of History 6265 Bunche Hall UCLA Box 951473 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1473 ***************************************************************** 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/ InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html ***************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:49:41 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Patrick OBrien Subject: Re: leaving the list In-Reply-To: <199803170752.HAA17439@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Ditto, and thanks for everything. All of you participants in the never-ending pedantic wars have helped me to realize, a bit more, who I am, and who I am not. Everyone must have his/her place, or end up taking up another's. I am sending a message to the listserve. Thanks, Pat O'Brien ================== On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > Could everyone please put this information somewhere handy for future > reference, please. > > To unsbscribe from science-as-culture > > send a message to > > listserv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu > > Body of message: > > unsubscribe science-as-culture > > > > >my apologies, but I can't find the instructions for > un-subscribing. > > >Could the list-owner please send them to me? > > > > > >thank you. > > > > > >Conevery Bolton > > > > __________________________________________ > > 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: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:54:05 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Science, Culture and Communication MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT MSc - Diploma in SCIENCE, CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION University of Bath, United Kingdom --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Science Studies Centre and the Department of Psychology, University of Bath are pleased to announce a new graduate programme on Science, Culture and Communication. This aims to bring an understanding of the history and cultural context of science and technology to bear on the problem of communicating the significance of science and of technology, in particular the importance of specialised scientific knowledge. The programme is grounded in core disciplines that address the nature of science and issues of communication and public understanding (psychology, philosophy, history and sociology) Communications and Media studies: The programme emphasises effective communication, both of students own research and of the meaning and importance of research conducted by scientists, engineers and medical practitioners. In addition to discipline-based units it therefore includes units based on short courses and workshops on the production and evaluation of a range of science communications. Flexible Study Patterns: The programme is fully modular and is designed to support a wide range of part-time study patterns as well as full-time study for a Masters (90 credits) or a Diploma (60 credits). Applicants: Should have a good first degree in any science or in one of the core disciplines, or a postgraduate qualification in one of the core disciplines, or relevant post-degree experience. Information: For details of the MSc and Diploma options please send your name and postal address to: Science and Culture c/o Elaine Irvine Postgraduate Coordinator Department of Psychology University of Bath Bath BA2 7AY or email hsseei@bath.ac.uk, putting 'Science and Culture' in the subject field. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** 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 2976 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 Burying Freud - The WWW Site http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/projects/gpp/burying_freud.html ******************************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:37:22 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Spot the errors MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT "Plants may be rooted to the spot, but that does not stop them going places. A stem of rye can make 5km of root a day, and that doesn't include the hairs growing on the root. The root length of one rye plant has been measured at 622km, and the hairs on these roots can stretch up to 19,622km." The Guardian, 17 April 1997 "In the morning he found a 4in centipede which had crawled into his sleeping bag and stung him with its double-fanged tail. This was our only reptilian incident, thank goodness." Saga Magazine, October 1997. "Potentially fatal illnesses include Weil's disease, Q disease, toxic plasma and hantavirius, which can cause liver and kidney failure." The Independent, 25 November 1997. "He has a condition called 'binocular vision' which can be corrected with special glasses and therapy - although neither are available on the NHS." Ford Magazine, Autumn 1997. "Although most scientists do believe that our world is getting warmer, not everyone is convinced that global warming is responsible." Geographical, November 1997. "Think you guinea pig doesn't look at all ratlike? You're right. Genetic researchers recently found that guinea pigs are really a type of mammal." Buffalo News, USA, 1997. *************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email: Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical 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/ InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html *************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:53:18 EST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Val dusek Subject: Atoms in Maxwell, Faraday, etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In the review by Goodstein of Silver's "Ascent of Science" forwarded by Levitt, Goodstein says: > Summing up the life's work of a complex scientist or > philosopher in half a sentence can be misleading. Thus we are told > that Maxwell didn't believe in atoms because Faraday didn't, > Faraday didn't because Davy didn't, and Davy didn't because he was > influenced by his friend Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who was into > Naturphilosophie. Well, now. It is true that Sir Humphry Davy was a > friend of Coleridge, and it is true that he didn't believe in the > atomic theory of his archrival, John Dalton, but that was only > because he had deeper ideas of his own on the subject. His protege > Michael Faraday toyed with many ideas at various times, but there's > no doubt he was greatly influenced by the 18th-century atomist > Roger Boscovitch. And as for James Clerk Maxwell, one of the > fathers of the kinetic theory of gases, if you think he seriously > doubted the existence of atoms, just read his splendid article on > atoms in the 1875 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (you'll > love it). Personally, I think Silver's account is closer to the truth than Goodstein's, if by atoms one means substantial particles of some sort. Silver is following Pearce Williams' biography of Faraday which has been criticized by Levere, Gooding and others, but defended to a degree by P. M. Heimann (Harman). Certainly, Maxwell developed the kinetic theory of gases, assuming atoms. But Maxwell's atoms were "mere points or pure centers of force endowed with inertia." Also these atoms of Maxwell could simultaneously exist in the same place. Thus they were not the hard, extended atoms of Newton. Maxwell and most of the early Maxwellians rejected particulate electrical particles in electromagenetic field theory, and it was a major struggle for late nineteenth century theorists to integrate the electron as a particle with the orthodox Maxwellian field which identified electrical "particles" with centers of strain in the continuous aether. (See the difficult and technical Jed Buchwald (sp?) "From Maxwell to Microphysics.") Goodstein mentions Faraday's interest in the 18th century Jesuit Boscovich's theory. Goodstein presents this as if this shows Faraday's atomism. A number of 19th Century theorists refer to Boscovich or "Boscovichean atomism." But one must be careful about this. Some (such as Kelvin sometimes) may only have meant "point atom" by Boscovichian atomism. But Boscovich's theory is ambiguous between a genuine atomic theory and a more field-like theory. Boscovich's atoms were singularities where repulsive force went to infinity. But is not clear whether there is any "there" there, that is, whether there is an "entity" (atom) or just a limit of the repulsion curve as it goes to infinity. Kant had a similar theory which was meant to reject Newtonian atomism. Faraday certainly was an opponent of atomism and held a pure field theory. He criticized atomism from several angles. He thought that matter was penetrable and that "particles" are centers of a force distribution that fills all space. One line of defense of the genuineness of the point atoms described by Boscovich and others is the attribution of inertia to the points. But Maxwell, did not include inertia as a dynamical property of matter. Matter is the receiver of energy and momentum but doesn't have intrinsic inertia as part of the dynamical (Lagrangian) theory that Maxwell supports. Certainly Maxwell was vastly sophisticated and profound, not only a genius in physics, but aware of the Scottish theories of analogy and other philosophical theories, and probably had a number of ideas that have not yet been grasped over a century later. He also went back and forth on a number of issues, especially concerning the degree of reality or seriousness of the analogies of properties of mechanical models and their relation to the dynamical, Lagrangian formalism. But I don't think Silver's account is so far off the mark as Goodstein thinks. Indeed, for a half sentence summary Silver is on target, which is to even greater credit to his book. Val Dusek ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:07:54 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Piotr Szybek Organization: Lund University Subject: K.Codell Carter In-Reply-To: <9803241445.AA28418@nomina.lu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT I wonder if there is someone on this list who could help me to contact K. Codell Carter, a historian of medicine (translated and edited I.Semmelweis' "Etiology etc. of puerperal fever"). Thanks in advance, Yours Piotr Szybek Department of Education, Lund University Box 199, 221 00 Lund, Sweden tel +46462224732, fax +46462224538 email Piotr.Szybek@pedagog.lu.se ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:12:39 BST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon Agar Subject: On Time: call for papers X-To: sts@cctr.umkc.edu, rete@maillist.ox.ac.uk, HASTRO-L@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU CALL FOR PAPERS On Time: History, Science, Commemoration at National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside (NMGM), Liverpool a British Society for the History of Science (BSHS), Royal Historical Society (RHS) and NMGM conference 16-19 September 1999 The approach of the millenium has heightened awareness of the conventions and cultures of time. But what is time? This question has been of growing interest amongst historians. Their research is markedly interdisciplinary, spilling over the boundaries between social, economic and cultural historians, and historians of science, technology, medicine and mathematics. 'On Time', organised by the British Society for the History of Science (BSHS), Royal Historical Society (RHS) and NMGM responds to this interdisciplinarity. The conference will be held at the NMGM (which includes the Merseyside Maritime Museum, in the heart of Liverpool's historic Albert Dock), a holder of a highly significant collection of timepieces. Papers with a wide interest and historiographical scope are invited. Possible sessions include: Beginnings and Origin Stories Commemoration Maritime Time Timetables and Technology Workplaces and Time Lifetimes and Servitude Units of Time Calendars Time and Political Economies Scientific Instruments and Time Cultures of Time and Space Religion and Time Nostalgia Rhythms and Cycles in the Natural Sciences Evolution Relativity Anthropology and Time Past-Futures Ends of Time Immortality Roughly thirty minutes will be given for each paper chosen. Abstracts of 50-100 words should be sent before 1 September 1998 to either: Dr Will Ashworth (BSHS) Department of Economic and Social History, The University of Liverpool, 11 Abercromby Square, Liverpool, L69 3BX. or Dr Roland Quinault (RHS) School of Historical, Philosophical and Contemporary Studies, Faculty of HTE, University of North London, 166- 220 Holloway Road, London N7 8DB, England Interested speakers will be informed by the end of September 1998 as to whether their paper has been accepted. The On Time programme committee are: Dr Jon Agar (University of Manchester), , Dr Will Ashworth (Liverpool University), Dr Jeff Hughes (University of Manchester), Dr Roland Quinault (University of North London) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:04:04 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Paul Gallagher Subject: Re: K.Codell Carter X-cc: Piotr.Szybek@pedagog.lu.se In-Reply-To: <199803301406.JAA17221@mail1.panix.com> from "Piotr Szybek" at Mar 30, 98 04:07:54 pm MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I wonder if there is someone on this list who could help me to > contact K. Codell Carter, a historian of medicine (translated and > edited I.Semmelweis' "Etiology etc. of puerperal fever"). > > Thanks in advance, Yours K. Codell Carter 3194 JKHB PO Box 26279 Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6279 (801) 378-2721 (801) 378-2722 Codell_Carter@byu.edu -- Paul ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:12:22 BST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon Agar Subject: BSHS Gender and Science meeting, 11 July 1998 X-To: lis-sci-med-empire@mailbase.ac.uk, gender-set@mailbase.ac.uk, oldenburg@rzaix52.rrz.uni-hamburg.de Gender and Science a British Society for the History of Science meeting on Saturday 11th July 1998 at St Edmund Hall, Oxford Conference Organisers: Ludmilla Jordanova and Katherine Watson Programme 9.30-10.15 Registration and Coffee 10.15 Introduction - Ludmilla Jordanova 10.30-11.15 Alison Winter (Cal Tech) 'The Gender of Visual Skill' 11.15-12.00 Alison Morrison-Low (National Museums of Scotland) 'Divide and Rule: Women in the Scientific Instrument Trade during the Industrial Revolution' 12.00-12.15 Coffee 12.15-1.00 Sophie Forgan (Teesside) and Graeme Gooday (Leeds) 'The Married Lives of the Engineers: Rethinking Gender and Electricity in the Late Nineteenth Century' 1.00-2.00 Lunch 2.00-2.45 Janet Browne (Wellcome Institute, London) 'Thinking about "The Support Team": Wives and Daughters in Scientific Biographies' 2.45-3.30 Michael Roper (Essex) 'Biography and the Creation of the Scientific Manager as a Modern Cultural Hero' 3.30-3.45 Tea 3.45-4.45 Round Table and Concluding Discussion, particants include Margaret Pelling (Oxford) ----------8<------------------------8<-------------------- Gender and Science Please register me for this meeting on 11 July 1998 Registration Full BSHS Members stlg22 _____ Student Members stlg11 _____ Associate Members stlg18 _____ Non-Members stlg26 _____ I enclose a cheque for stlg _____ payable to "BSHS Ltd" Name: ________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Daytime Tel No: ____________________________________ All registration forms should be sent to: Dr K. Watson, Wolfson College, Oxford, OX2 6UD, to arrive no later than 18th June 1998 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:49:23 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: PMS Blackett: Science and Politics in 20th C Britain Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This conference looks at a key figure of 20th Century British science and politics, and is happening in the next few weeks... == British Society for the History of Science Royal Society Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine University of Manchester Operational Research Society PMS Blackett: Science and Politics in Twentieth Century Britain A conference to be held at Imperial College, London April 16-17 1998 Clore Theatre, Huxley Building The British physicist P.M.S. Blackett was born in 1897, and received the Nobel Prize in 1948. As well as making important contributions to particle physics and geo-physics, Blackett was an important figure in a number of British universities (including Manchester and Imperial College). He was also very well known for his singular contributions to operational research in the second world war, his opposition to a British nuclear programme, for his writings on military strategy, and his involvement in policy making in science and technology in the 1960s. This conference brings together not only scientists and politicians who worked with Blackett, but also historians of science and military strategy, to reflect on the place of Blackett not only in the history of British science, but in the history of British strategy and politics. Provisional Programme Thursday 16th 9.30-10.15 Registration. Outside the Clore Lecture Theatre, Huxley Building, Imperial College 10.15-12.00 Introduction and early years Sir Ronald Oxburgh, Rector of Imperial College 'Blackett: a personal view' David Edgerton 'PMS Blackett and the History of Twentieth Century British Science' Jeff Hughes 'The Cavendish Years: Blackett and the Politics of "pure Science' 2.30-4.00 Operational Research Jonathan Rosenhead 'Blackett's Circus: Patrick Blackett and the birth of Operational Research' Harry Elliott 'Blackett at RAF Coastal Command and some recollections of the immediate postwar years in Manchester' 4.30-6.00 Manchester Years Sir Arnold Wolfendale 'Blackett as Professor and Research Director: Manchester Days' Sir Bernard Lovell 'Blackett and the origin of Jodrell Bank' Evening - Reception and Banquet, Council Room, 170 Queen's Gate Friday 17 April 9.30-11.00 Magnetism Mary-Jo Nye 'Temptations of Theory, Strategies of Evidence: PMS Blackett and the Earth's Magnetism, 1945-1952' Ted Irving 'PMS Blackett, his Magnetometer, Continental Drift and Reversals of the Geomagnetic Field' 11.30-13.00 Strategy and Politics Sir Michael Howard 'Patrick Blackett and the Development of Nuclear Strategy' Tony Benn 'Pat Blackett: Science and Politics' 2.30-4.30 Sir Clifford Butler 'Recollections of Patrick Blackett, 1945-1970' Round Table or additional speaker (tba) ------------------8<--------------8<---------------------- Booking Form Registration Fee stlg15 _______ Lunch 16th April stlg10 _______ Lunch 17th April stlg10 _______ BANQUET *stlg30 _______ Accommodation 15th April stlg28 _______ Accommodation 16th April stlg28 _______ Accommodation 17th April stlg28 _______ Total stlg______ BSHS student members (half price) stlg______ *Numbers are limited, and places will be allocated on a first come, first serve basis Please note that Accommodation is standard student accommodation within Imperial College. I wish to register for the P.M.S. Blackett: Science and Politics in Twentieth Century Britain meeting. I enclose a cheque for stlg........... payable to BSHS Ltd. Or, please charge my VISA or MASTERCARD: Card No ......................................... Card expiry date ................ Signature ........................................ I do/do not require a receipt. Name: Address: Please post this application form, and your cheque to: Wg Cdr G. Bennett, BSHS Executive Secretary 31 High Street Stanford in the Vale Faringdon OXON SN7 8LH __________________________________________ 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, 31 Mar 1998 16:03:26 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Philosophyt site with links to a number of others, including history of Western philosophy http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/index.htm Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names with links to speciaised dictionaries: http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/index.htm