Received: from mx02.globecomm.net (mx02.globecomm.net [206.253.129.31]) by email.mcmail.com (9.9.9/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04039 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:49:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu (maelstrom.stjohns.edu [149.68.1.24]) by mx02.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA02333 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:49:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808101349.JAA02333@mx02.globecomm.net> Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu by maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <9.73528AE6@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 8:22:17 -1300 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:22:17 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c)" Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9804" To: Ian Pitchford X-UIDL: f254d04dea0dd83bcc9d6451fa906ae0 X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 0 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:24:08 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: sci-therapeutic-touch.html (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >From today's NY Times: April 1, 1998 11-Year-Old's Experiment Challenges Therapeutic Touch [LINK] By GINA KOLATA T wo years ago, Emily Rosa of Loveland, Colo., designed and carried out an experiment that challenges a leading treatment in alternative medicine. Her study, reported Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has thrown the field into tumult. Emily is 11. She did the experiment for her fourth grade science fair. The technique she challenges is therapeutic touch, in which healers manipulate what they call the "human energy field" by passing their hands over a patient's body without actually touching the patient. The method is practiced in healing centers and medical centers throughout the world, and is taught at prominent universities and schools of nursing. Tens of thousands of people have been trained to treat patients through the use of therapeutic touch. Its practitioners insist that the human energy field is real and that anyone can be trained to feel it. But Emily asked a sort of "emperor's new clothes" type of question. Could therapeutic touch practitioners actually detect a human energy field? Her method was devilishly simple. It was a question critics of alternative medicine had asked before. But only one practitioner agreed to submit to a test, said James Randi, a magician who conducted the test. Emily, however, was able to recruit 21 practitioners. Her mother, Linda Rosa, a nurse who is among the critics of therapeutic touch, said she believed Emily succeeded because practitioners were not threatened by a 9-year-old girl. Mrs. Rosa said Emily originally was designing a science fair experiment involving different colored M&M's candy. Then she glanced at the television screen in her home where her mother was watching a videotape about therapeutic touch. Suddenly, Emily piped up, saying she had a way to test the premise of therapeutic touch, her mother said. Emily designed an experiment in which the healer and Emily were separated by a screen. Then Emily decided, by flipping a coin, whether to put her hand over the healer's left hand or the right hand. The healer was asked to decide where Emily's hand was hovering. If the healer could detect Emily's human energy field, he or she should be able to discern where Emily's hand was. In 280 tests involving the 21 practitioners, the healers did no better than chance. They identified the correct location of Emily's hand just 44 percent of the time; if they guessed at random, they would have been right about half the time. Emily wrote her study with her mother, a member of the National Therapeutic Touch Study Group, a group based in Loveland that question the method. The study's authors included Larry Sarner of the Therapeutic Touch Study Group and Dr. Stephen Barrett, board chairman of Quackwatch in Allentown, Pa., a nonprofit group that is putting information about questionable medical practices on the Internet. The report on the study is accompanied by a note from Dr. George Lundberg, the journal's editor. In it, Lundberg says that "practitioners should disclose these results to patients, third-party payers should question whether they should pay for this procedure, and patients should save their money unless or until additional honest experimentation demonstrates an actual effect." Lundberg said the journal's statisticians thought the study was well done. "They were amazed by its simplicity and by the clarity of its results," he said. Practitioners hardly agree. "I do hope it's an April Fool's joke," said Dr. Dolores Krieger, an emeritus professor of nursing at New York University who is a developer of therapeutic touch. Dr. Kreiger and other therapeutic touch practitioners insist that they and anyone else who is trained can easily feel human energy fields. In her book, "Accepting Your Power to Heal" (Bear & Co. Publishing, Santa Fe. N.M., 1993) Dr. Krieger said the field feels like "warm Jell-O or warm foam." Practitioners of therapeutic touch say that patients who are ill have hot spots or cold spots in their fields or areas that feel tingly. By "rebalancing" a person's field, practitioners say they can calm colicky babies, relieve symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, treat cancer and more. Dr. Krieger says that since she developed therapeutic touch 26 years ago, she has trained more than 47,000 practitioners. Her acolytes have gone on to train thousands more. The method has also been the subject of numerous doctoral dissertations and postdoctoral studies. Dr. Krieger said it is taught in nursing schools and colleges in 70 countries and is used in hospitals around the world. "It works," she said, adding that Emily Rosa "completely misunderstood what the nature of basic research is." Another practitioner of therapeutic touch, Marilee Tolin, who teaches the method at colleges and universities throughout the country and who treats patients at the Healing Center in Cherry Hill, N.J., said Emily's study was poorly conceived. Practitioners, Ms. Tolin said, rely on more than just touch to sense the human energy field. They also use "the sense of intuition and even a sense of sight," she said. But other researchers say there is no reliable evidence that practitioners of therapeutic touch can heal patients. Dr. Donal O'Mathuna, a professor of bioethics and chemistry at the Mount Carmel School of Nursing in Columbus, Ohio, said he had reviewed more than 100 papers and doctoral dissertations on therapeutic touch but found no convincing data that the method worked. The studies, O'Mathuna said, were poorly designed -- and even then not all showed an effect. He said proponents cited the positive studies and ignored the negative ones. Linda Rosa said she became interested in therapeutic touch when she noticed it becoming "the cause celebre of nursing." She went to her local board of nursing, asking for evidence that it worked and got, she said, about 200 articles, most of which came from women's magazines or tabloid newspapers. She then demanded a review of the therapeutic touch program at the University of Colorado Health Science Center in Denver's school of nursing. In response, the university put together a committee headed by Dr. Henry Claman, a professor of medicine and immunology at the university. Claman said the group concluded that the method had no scientific basis and that there was no evidence that patients were helped. He said the committee decided that no one even knew how to test the basic assumptions behind therapeutic touch. But he added that university officials believed that removing the subject from the curriculum would violate the academic freedom of the nursing school's faculty. Claman said he expects therapeutic touch practitioners to take issue with Emily's study. "Proponents will argue that the study was done by people who were openly skeptical," he said. But, he added, "Of course it was -- those are the people who want to put therapeutic touch to the test." Lundberg said he had no ax to grind involving alternative medicine. In fact, he said, his journal is solicting articles on alternative medicine and recently published one indicating that a herb, ginko biloba, might help improve the memories of patients with Alzheimer's disease. At least one skeptic was amazed that Emily could do the study at all. Randi, the magician and director of the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said he had been trying to test therapeutic touch for years, and even offered $1.1 million to any practitioner who could pass a test in detecting a human energy field. He advertised in nursing journals and elsewhere, seeking subjects, he said. But only one person answered the advertisement. She told Randi that she was a spiritualist who could feel human energy fields. But, in a test similar to Emily's, the woman succeeded in only 11 out of 20 attempts, which is no better than chance. "We said, 'Do you want to continue?' " Randi said. "She got up in a huff and muttered something about negative vibrations," and then left, he added. Randi said he thinks Emily persuaded therapeutic touch practitioners to cooperate with her because she was a guileless child doing a study for her science fair. He said that he, in contrast, is "the Devil incarnate, 666 and all that." Dr. Krieger said no one would cooperate with Randi because his experiment was "stupid and ill advised," and added: "This man is a magician. I hate to be mean, but a magician is a manipulator." As for Emily, she is on a roll. She recently got a letter from the Guiness Book of World Records, saying she may be the youngest person ever to publish a paper in a major scientific journal. And she is now planning her next experiments to test assumptions of alternative medicine. "I'm going to do one on scientology and one on magnets," she said. ______________________________________________________________ Other Places of Interest on The Web Journal of the American Medical Association. ______________________________________________________________ @Backup - Safe, Secure, Automatic Internet Backups 30-day FREE trial. Click here! Home | Sections | Contents | Search | Forums | Help Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:24:41 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: sci-research-gifts.html (fwd) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >From today's NY Times: April 1, 1998 Corporations Swap Gifts for Influence Over Scholars By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG W ASHINGTON -- It is an axiom of politics that money buys influence, and gifts come with strings attached. The same is not supposed to be true of academic medical research, but a new study finds that in science, as in the rest of life, money expects to talk. In an anonymous survey, more than half of all university scientists who received gifts from drug or biotech companies admitted that the donors expected to exert influence over their work, ranging from prior review of published academic papers to patent rights for commercial discoveries. "That is very serious," said Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of urban and environmental policy at Tufts University who studies the relationship between industry and academia. "It suggests that somebody who gave a drug or a cell culture or a piece of equipment should have some oversight, and that is a very serious problem for the independence of the researcher." The study, conducted by researchers at Harvard University and the University of Minnesota, and published in Tuesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, is the first to examine the murky relationship between corporations that give gifts and the scholars who receive them. It is based on the anonymous responses of 2,167 scientists who work at 50 of the nation's most research-intensive universities. Among those surveyed, 43 percent had received a gift -- typically biomaterials, such as cell lines or snippets of DNA, lab equipment, trips or money -- in the three years prior to the survey. Of the recipients, two-thirds reported that the gift was either important or very important to their work -- a finding that the authors said revealed how much some academics depend on industry help. The study did not assess the gifts' worth. But the strings attached ran the gamut, from requests that the scientist test the company's products to stipulations that donated materials or equipment not be shared. One-third of the 920 scientists who received them said their corporate benefactors expected to review their academic papers prior to publication. And, in one particularly troubling finding, 19 percent said the donors wanted to own patent rights to any commercial discoveries stemming from use of the gift -- even though most universities have rules that prevent faculty members from giving away such intellectual property. "All of this is extremely worrisome," said Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, a monitoring organization in Washington. "It tells me that there is almost no sphere of our health care research and delivery system that is immune from the infecting properties of money. It is ultimately dangerous to the patient, for whom biomedical research is done." Unlike research grants and contracts, gifts are largely unregulated by universities, and have typically been dismissed as insignificant. David Blumenthal, associate professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School and one of the study's authors, said: "We have devoted a lot of time and attention to trying to sort out the formal written arrangements that occur between universities and industry, but we have missed a part of the issue that operates beneath the radar. A company can give a gift of almost any amount of money or any type of thing to a faculty member, and it goes unobserved." The study did not ask researchers if they complied with the donors' requests. But it comes at a time of increasing scrutiny of the financial links between university scientists and pharmaceutical or biotech companies. Just last month, the Food and Drug Administration issued new rules requiring doctors who test new drugs and devices to disclose whether they have received stock, consulting fees or other financial support from the manufacturers. Such ties are growing ever more common; in a 1996 analysis of 789 scientific journal articles, Krimsky found that for 34 percent of the articles, one or more authors had a financial interest -- most frequently a patent pending -- in the subject matter being studied. How much, if any, control a corporation should have over academic research is a touchy subject at many universities. In one controversy that spawned widespread news coverage last year, Betty Dong, a pharmacy professor at the University of California at San Francisco, signed an agreement giving a drug company control over publication of a study involving one of its thyroid medications. When the study found the drug worked no better than less costly generics, the company, which paid for Dong's work, suppressed the findings, then reversed itself amid public outcry. While most instances of corporate interference in academia are not so clear-cut, there are frequent clashes that never make the news. "The whole nature of industry and academic relations is changing," said Christopher Scott, director of research development for the Stanford University Medical Center. Scott's job is to negotiate contracts with companies that offer Stanford researchers grants for scientific research, while at the same time protecting the university's scientists from signing away too much academic freedom. It is not uncommon, Scott said, for a company to ask to review the contents of an academic article prior to publication; he typically insists that the review take no longer than 60 to 90 days, in keeping with a guideline set forth by the National Institutes of Health. But if a company wants patent rights to a discovery, the answer is a flat-out no. "That is one thing Stanford is dead set against," he said, although the university will grant a corporate sponsor exclusive rights to market commercial discoveries. While Stanford has a policy that gifts must come with no strings attached, donations to individual scientists come outside Scott's purview and, he said, are more difficult to monitor. "There has been, in essence, a gray market of research based on gifts for many, many years," he said, adding that universities should draft clear policies about gifts. That is a recommendation Blumenthal and his co-authors make in this week's study. But even when universities do have policies, conflicts arise. At the University of California at San Francisco, where the controversy over the thyroid drug occurred, a policy has been in place for the past 24 years requiring faculty members to file disclosure forms that reveal their financial relationships with industry. But the policy only covers cash, not other gifts, such as equipment, trips or biomaterials. And in an editorial accompanying the Journal of the American Medical Association study, Lisa Bero of the university's Institute for Health Policy Studies complained that some scholars who had "clearly defined and substantial financial conflicts of interest" had described their relationships to their corporate sponsors as trivial. Others, she wrote, err on the side of caution: "Some even report the receipt of free coffee cups." ______________________________________________________________ Other Places of Interest on The Web Journal of the American Medical Association. ______________________________________________________________ Energy Deregulation The power to choose. Click here Home | Sections | Contents | Search | Forums | Help Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 03:33:12 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Patrick OBrien Subject: Re: "The Ascent of Science" In-Reply-To: <199803231255.MAA27020@mesa5.mesa.colorado.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII the industrial revolution had little influence on science? tsk! tsk! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:22:11 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Theoretical Psychology (ISTP) X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <891507761.1125157.0@maelstrom.stjohns.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Call for Symposia, Papers, Roundtables, and Multimedia Presentations > > >INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THEORETICAL PSYCHOLOGY >SYDNEY CONFERENCE, APRIL 25-29 1999 > >Deadline for proposals: November 1, 1998 >Notification of acceptance by December 1, 1998 >Deadline for early registration: February 1, 1999 > >ABOUT THE CONFERENCE: Psychological theorizing is >incredibly diverse and is performed by many who work in >disciplines other than psychology. The Sydney ISTP >Conference will definitely exemplify this diversity. We >invite proposals representing these and other approaches: >feminist, poststructuralist, critical theory, artificial >intelligence, organization studies, cognitive science, >psychoanalysis, organization theory, aesthetics, cultural >studies, technology and subjectivity, ideology critique, >historical studies, political psychology, multiculturalism, >ethics and policy studies, evolutionary psychology, social >constructionism, etc. The conference is not a forum for the >presentation of empirical research findings or practical >applications but we do invite submissions that examine >general theoretical and metatheoretical issues that arise >in conjunction with various methods or practices, >including, for example, experimentation, qualitative >research, action research, discourse analysis, >ethnomethodology, phenomenology, psychotherapy, >organizational consultation, etc. > >The Program Committee is especially interested in >considering proposals related to the following special >themes: > >The Relation of Practice to Theory: Theory tends to inform >practice quite extensively, but one hears less about how >practice, in turn, shapes theory. How has this occurred >historically and how might we reconceptualize the practice- >theory relationship? How might such considerations affect >teaching and training in psychology? We are happy to >receive proposals which relate to all forms of practice, be >they clinical, psychoanalytic, organizational, educational >etc. > >Feminist Theory meets Psychological Theory: How might we >specify this relationship? In what ways can it be >productively developed? > >Globalization and Postcolonialism: How do the macrosocial >processes of our times impinge upon psychological >theorizing, upon our views of human subjectivity and >society? > >Interdisciplinarity: The use of psychological theory in >numerous other disciplines raises many questions about >interdisciplinarity. What have we learned from the >experience of interdisciplinarity? What are its >possibilities, its pitfalls? How has psychology been >appropriated and/or excluded by or from other fields and >disciplines, e.g., sociology, evolutionary biology, >neuroscience, organizational and cultural studies? > >Last Lectures of the 20th Century (or the First of the >21st): A chance to discuss the big picture in theoretical >psychology, to look back and look forward, chart projects, >motivate a new generation to work in theoretical >psychology. > >ABOUT THE ISTP: International Society for Theoretical >Psychology is composed of members from around the world who >meet every other year to share ideas and discuss ways to >enhance theorizing in psychology. The ISTP publishes >Theory and Psychology, one of the few journals in the world >that is dedicated solely to articles dealing specifically >with issues in psychological theory. Selected proceedings >from ISTP conferences are routinely published in book form. >Check out the ISTP Webpage at >http://www.york.ca/dept/psych/orgs/istp/istp.htm. > > >ABOUT THE CONFERENCE SITE AND COSTS: >The conference is to be held at a most unique and >beautiful venue--the Quarantine Station at North Head, >Manly, Australia. Only a half-hour ferry ride and a >five-minute taxi ride from downtown Sydney, >the Quarantine Station sits in a national park >boasting two private beaches and spectacular views of >Sydney Harbour, as well as nature trails and landing stage >for fishing or boating. A group of rustic buildings, >which formerly served as a quarantine >area for new immigrants, has been stocked with all the >necessary conference equipment. Conference catering is >reported to be excellent. There will be a social program, >including swimming, surfing lessons, yoga and tai chi on >the beach, volleyball and a talent show/karaoke! Full room >and board on site is expected to run between US$70 and $90 >per day. There are also options for lodging in the nearby >town of Manly, ranging from backpacker hostels to luxury >hotels. The registration fee for the four day conference >will be approximately US$140, hopefully less. Airfares to >Australia in late April 1999 will be at low-season rates. > >FOR MORE INFORMATION: Questions about program content, >proposals, etc., should be addressed to Tod Sloan at tod- >sloan@utulsa.edu. Questions about logistics of conference >attendance (travel, lodging, meals, etc.) should be >addressed to Valerie Walkerdine at >v.walkerdine@nepean.uws.edu.au. The Program Committee will >do all it can to help students and the unemployed make >affordable alternative arrangements (backpacking, low-cost >accommodations nearby, etc.) and to accommodate persons >with special needs. > >The Program Co-Chairs for the ISTP Sydney 1999 Conference >are Tod Sloan, University of Tulsa, and Valerie Walkerdine, >University of Western Sydney. > > >FORMAT OPTIONS FOR PRESENTATIONS > >1. SYMPOSIUM >Symposia are allotted 110 minutes, allowing time for >multiple presentations around a theme. Symposium panels >must reflect diversity of, for example, disciplines, >nationalities, paradigms, etc. Symposium organizers might >consider having participants respond to a common text, >transcript, video, etc., in order to exemplify implications >of different approaches. They may also choose to have a >designated discussant, but they should also leave ample >time for discussion by attendees. > > >2. PAPER >Papers of 20-25 minutes are invited (followed by 5-10 >minutes of discussion). Presented should consider >summarizing their basic argument during their presentation >and offering a longer written version to interested >persons. > > >3. ROUNDTABLE >A 90-minute session for open discussion, debate, >networking, etc. around themes or issues raised by the >organizer/chair of the roundtable (examples: theoretical >issues in qualitative research, William James, critical >psychoanalysis, developments in artificial intelligence, >cyborgs, emotion theory, Foucault). Roundtables are held >in small rooms holding up to 10 people. Feel free to >submit a roundtable proposal as well as a symposium or >paper proposal. > > >4. MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION, ARTISTIC PRODUCTION, ETC >Submit details to program chair for consideration. > > >To submit your proposal(s), please fill out the form below, >attach additional sheets as necessary, and send by email, >file attachment (MS Word), fax, or regular mail to: >Tod Sloan, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa, >Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74104 USA. >Fax 918-631-2833. Email: tod-sloan@utulsa.edu > >----------------------------------------------------------- > >ISTP SYDNEY 1999 PROPOSAL > >Name >Institution >Mailing Address > > >Email >Fax >Phone number > > >Which presentation format would you prefer? Check all that >apply. > >___ SYMPOSIUM (on separate page, provide title and 100-200 >word overview plus title and 100-200 word summary for each >participant's presentation; also include names, >institutional affiliations, and email, fax, and addresses of all >participants) > >___ PAPER (on separate page, provide title and 100-200 word >summary) > >___ ROUNDTABLE (on separate page, provide title and 100 >words describing general issues to be raised for >discussion) > >___ MULTIMEDIA PRESENTATION, ARTISTIC PRODUCTION, ETC. >(Attach description) > > >If you would also be willing to meet with students for an >informal discussion of your work, please check here:______ >What general topics would you discuss? > > > >In order to schedule meeting rooms according to levels of >interest in particular topics, what sorts of sessions are >you most interested in attending? > > > >Is there a particular person whose work in theoretical >psychology you would particularly like to learn more about >if s/he were able to attend? > >----- End of forwarded message from Bernardo Ferdman ----- __________________________________________ 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, 3 Apr 1998 03:53:34 +1200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Alfred Harris Subject: Re: sci-therapeutic-touch.html (fwd) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit I found this article extraordinarily interesting. Let me be transparent about my interest. I am a structural biologist educated in the best that a liberal scientific education offered in New Zealand in the 60's and 70's. I now head a regenerative food programme in a Government Funded research organization. I become involved with an Holistic Healing group during a period of severe depression some 4 years ago. The group largely practices what may be described as " energy healing" . At an experiential level I know that when "healed" in this way I feel better. Now a person of my training can simply say that is an irrational and non-quantifiable response, which of course, at that level, is absolutely (in a manner of speaking) correct. Now my counter is that science is an essentially abstractive imaginative human activity. The abstraction is from what can loosely be called human experience, which, in my view is the primary datum of all human activity. With due respect to what appears to be an extraordinarily incisive question, there is, in fact, another question that needs to be asked. If I feel better after "energy work", and it is not due to energy fields, then why is it that I feel better? I have been critical for a long time of the theoretical basis of "energy work". However over this time I have been effectively healed of my depression. What is called energy healing has been an important component of my experience of healing. An historical perspective (is history also an imaginative human activity?) suggests that the notion that the method is an energetic one somewhat post-dates (by several thousand years!) the, possibly false, analysis of how it works. The energetic concept seems to have developed as an analytical validation in the face of an increasingly reductive western view of healing which developed early this century. In order to validate a method of healing that was and is effective at an experential level, it borrowed, in an analogical way, from the best of modern science, which happened to be in the energy area (remember machines, joules etc etc.) Those of you who are interested in the history of science may care to recall that, at about the same time, the scientific advisers to the US government recommended that the calorific value of food was all the knowledge that was necessary to set dietary intake guidelines!!! We can all make mistakes. The issue, of course, is that there are people whose agenda is the discrediting of therapeutic touch. While they may well be right about the theoretical basis of the method it begs the larger question of its efficacy as a healing method. An analogy can be drawn with acupunture which, from my limited understanding, has a traditional explanation very different from that of western science, yet the bottom line is that, in many cases, the person experiences healing. The book Spontaneous Healing is an excellent summary of the limitations of current, analytically driven, notions of healing and their associated therapies. Healing is, after all, a human activity which occurs in a specific cultural context. Analysis is about asking reductive questions about that experience. Let the questioning continue and may our experience be enriched, dare I say healed? I look forward to further debate on this issue. Alfred Harris ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 12:03:38 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Harvey Shepard Subject: Re: sci-therapeutic-touch.html (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I think there is much in the world that we do not know how to describe, and that especially is true in regard to relationships between individuals. It is not easy to say how the healing occurs in a therapeutic relationship. Part of the goal of the arts is to say the unsayable. It is unfortunate, but very natural, that people (even Freud) try to use the "prestige" of physical concepts (like energy) to support their beliefs and intuition, even their experience. Harvey Shepard ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 06:49:57 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: VAN PRAAGH BUSTED MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: MORE ON VAN PRAAGH BUSTED SKEPTIC MAG HOTLINE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO PASS THIS ALONG TO WHOMEVER YOU LIKE To subscribe: just send an e-mail to: join-skeptics@lyris.net (to unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: leave-skeptics@lyris.net) Those of you who saw 20/20 Friday night saw James Van Praagh busted for cheating and caught in a bald-faced lie. Here is my report, lifted from two sections from my next essay in Skeptic magazine, entitled "TALKING TWADDLE WITH THE DEAD." There is additional information I got from a producer at NBC's THE OTHER SIDE, of how Van Praagh cheated on that show as well. It follows some biographical material on Van Praagh. Michael Shermer How to Talk to the Dead Watching James Van Praagh work a crowd or do a one-on-one reading is an educational experience in human psychology. Make no mistake about it, this is one clever man. We skeptics may see him as morally reprehensible at best, but we should not underestimate his talents at understanding what touches off human emotions. He employs three basic techniques to "talk" to the dead: 1. Cold Reading. Most of what Van Praagh does is what is known in the mentalism trade as cold reading, where you literally "read" someone "cold,"--knowing nothing about them. He asks lots of questions and makes numerous statements, some general and some specific, and sees what sticks. Most of the time he is wrong. His subjects visibly nod their heads "no." But, as noted above, he only needs an occasional hit to convince his clientele he is genuine. Sometimes he gets lucky, and as mentalists note, you always take credit for lucky hits. 2. Warm Reading. This is utilizing known principles of psychology that apply to nearly everyone. For example, most grieving women will wear a piece of jewelry that has a connection to their loved one. Katie Curic on The Today Show, for example, after her husband died wore his ring on a necklace when she returned to the show. Van Praagh knows this about mouning people and will say something like "do you have a ring or a piece of jewelry on you, please?" His subject cannot believe her ears and nods enthusiastically in the affirmative. He says "thank you," and moves on like he just divined this from heaven. Most people also keep a photograph of their loved one either on them or near their bed, and Van Praagh will take credit for this specific hit that actually applies to most people. He is clever at determining the cause of death by focusing either on the chest or head areas, and then exploring whether it was a slow or sudden end. Like a computer flow chart, he moves through the possibilities, then fills in the blanks. "I'm feeling a pain in the chest." If he gets a positive nod, he continues. "Did he have cancer, please? Because I'm seeing a slow death here." If he gets the nod, he takes the hit. If the subject hesitates at all, he will quickly shift to heart attack. If it is the head, he goes for stroke or head injury from an automobile accident or fall. Statistically speaking there are only half a dozen ways 90% of us die, so with just a little probing, and the verbal and nonverbal cues of his subject, he can appear to get far more hits here than he is really getting. 3. Hot Reading. Mentalist Max Maven clarified for me that some mentalists and psychics also do "hot" readings, where they obtain information on a subject ahead of time. I do not know if Van Praagh uses private detectives to get information on people, but I have discovered from numerous television producers who were less than impressed by the medium, that Van Praagh consciously and deliberately pumps them for information about his subjects ahead of time, then uses that information to deceive the viewing public that he got it from the spirit world. Leah Haines, for example, a producer and researcher for NBC's The Other Side, explained to me how Van Praagh used her during his numerous appearances on the show in 1994 (in an interview on April 3, 1998): I can't say I think James Van Praagh is a total fraud, because he came up with things I hadn't told him, but there were moments on the show when he appeared to coming up with fresh information that he got from myself and other researchers. For example, I recall him asking about the profession of the deceased loved one of one of our guests, and I told him he was a fireman. Then, when the show began, he said something to the effect, "I see a uniform. Was he a policeman or fireman please?" Everyone was stunned at his psychic powers, but he got that directly from me. Haines also noted that any notion of Van Praagh not doing it for the money were quickly erased as his fame grew. "We had him on the show a bunch of times that first year. At the beginning he would drive himself to the studio and we just paid him a token fee like all the other guests. But in time he wanted us to send over a limo and he kept cranking up his appearance fee. It really irked us because we knew that we were the ones who made him." Caught Cheating Even for seasoned observers it is remarkable how Van Praagh appears to get hits, even when he doesn't. When we were filming the 20/20 piece, I was told that he had not done all that well the night before, but that he got a couple of startling hits--including the name of a woman's family dog. But when we reviewed the videotape, here is what actually happened. Van Praagh was bombing in his reading of a gentleman named Peter, who was poker-faced and obviously skeptical (without feedback Van Praagh's hit rate drops by half). After dozens of misses, Van Praagh queried, "Who is Charlie?" Peter sat there dumbfounded, unable to connect to anyone named Charlie, when suddenly the woman sitting next to Peter (and a complete stranger), blurted out "Charlie was our family dog." Van Praagh seized the moment and proclaimed that he could see Charlie and Dad taking walks in heaven together. The highlight of the 20/20 piece, however, was the blatant exposure of Van Praagh cheating, and then caught in a bald-faced lie. On a break, with the video camera rolling, he turned to a woman named Mary Jo and asked: "Did your mother pass on?" Mary Jo nodded in the negative and said "Grandmother." A full 54 minutes later Van Praagh turned to her and said: "I want to tell you, there is a lady sitting behind you. She feels like a grandmother to me. He was caught cheating red-handed but when confronted by the 20/20 correspondent Bill Ritter, he lied, insisting that he got the grandmother without cheating. When they showed him the video clip, he proclaimed: "I don't cheat. I don't have to prove... I don't cheat. I don't cheat. I mean, come on." As if repeating it enough times would make it go away. Yet, even after we busted Van Praagh for both cheating and lying, Barbara Walters concluded in the wrap-up discussion: I was skeptical. I still am But I met James Van Praagh. He didn't expect to meet me. He knew that my father's name was Lew--Lewis he said and he knew that my father had a glass eye. People don't know that. Ritter, doing his homework on this piece to the bitter end, replied: You told me the story yesterday and I told you I would look and see what I could find out. Within a few minutes I found out that your father' name wasn't Lew and that he was very well known in show business. And this morning I was looking in a book and found a passage that says he was blind in one eye--accidental--and he had a glass eye. If I found that out, then he could have. While Walters flustered in frustration, seemingly groping for some vestige of hope, Hugh Downs declared without qualification: "I don't believe him." Where have we heard all this before? A hundred years ago, when mediums, seances, and spiritualism were all the rage in England and America, Thomas Henry Huxley concluded, as only he could in his biting wit, that as nonsensical as it was, spiritual manifestations might at least reduce suicides: "Better live a crossing-sweeper than die and be made to talk twaddle by a 'medium' hired at a guinea a seance." Strange that this phenomenon would repeat a century later. Perhaps Marx was right when he wrote in the Eighteenth Brumaire that "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." In this case, death is the tragedy, Van Praagh is the farce. --- ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 11:33:29 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Richard Sclove Subject: Loka Institute seeks Exec. Director (Job Announcement) X-To: Listservs to get Loka Alerts , AFRITECH@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU, civic-values@civic.net, nonprofit@rain.org, PCST-L@cornell.edu, risks@csl.sri.com, scishops-l@listserv.ncsu.edu, sts@kant.ch.umkc.edu, StudentLawTech@listserv.law.cornell.edu, tech+society@igc.apc.org, tech-society@ieee.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 4 April 1998 Friends and Colleagues: Please accept my apologies if you receive more than one copy of this announcement owing to posting to multiple lists. --Dick Sclove The Loka Institute ***************************************************************** Job Announcement Application deadline: 15 May 1998 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The Loka Institute seeks a stellar executive director with experience and innovative capabilities mainly in fundraising and administrative management, but also in strategic planning, organizational development, writing, and project development. Loka is a small, cutting-edge nonprofit organization dedicated to making science and technology more responsive to democratically decided social and environmental concerns (see us on the Web at ). Collaborative skills are essential; state or national organizing experience is preferred. Our methods include research and public education, animating and providing technical assistance to social change efforts, and testing and creating new institutions. Idyllically situated on a college campus in the beautiful, culturally vibrant Pioneer Valley of western Massachusetts, our work is national and international in scope. Salary negotiable starting at $30,000. Cover letter and C.V. to The Loka Institute, P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004, USA. Application deadline 15 May 1998. Equal Opportunity Employer. ### ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 03:00:32 -0500 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: MR JON J BENNETT Subject: JUMP START Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII I'd like to try to jump start the discussion of last month. The fact that we've been debating the question of reality is in itself an indication that we've entered into a new paradigm, with a big P. All paradigms ask questions of reality, but when the foundations are questioned, we're into something new-radically new. I'd like to propose something of a compromise on the constructionist questions. Does the essence of reality depend upon interpretation? That is, what is the relationship of mind to reality? Or put another way, to what extent do we see what we are? Can we know without limiting, restricting reality? Can we focus on part of reality without losing focus of other parts, (or other wholes)? Can we "know" without "constructing", reality? I believe the answer to most of these question is yes and no. Reality is so complex that we can only see certain aspects of it at one time. Therefore each paradigm can show realities not seen by a previous one.The problem is that each paradigm can show "unrealities", or false realities as well-each has its light and shadow. But this view itself is a new view. Someone commented last month that Newton's laws still sufficed in most cases, as if this was evidence that there had been no paradigm shift. But look at the underlying archetypes, and look at them in a broader perspective. For Newton, acceleration of an object due to gravity was uniform; an object dropped from a certain height would accelerate at a uniform velocity, until reaching free fall. But Einstein showed us that this acceleration can depend upon gravitation fields. Therefore any falling object would not accelerate at a uniform rate, because the gravitational forces would change as it got closer and closer to the earth. Admittedly these changes are small and can be ignored for many purposes. The point is that we see here a fundamental change in the idea of uniformity. We can further see how this archetype has been embedded in reality, or projected into reality, by the mechanistic paradigm. Not only in astronomy, but in all of science, and in other disciplines and compartments of culture. Consider how Hubble just naturally assumed that the mass of the universe was distributed uniformly. A "fact" undisputed until the Cobie background explorer showed otherwise. Furthermore, we can see that uniformity fits a logical scheme, is logically related to many other ideas, that also have been imputed to reality,(in all areas of thought, in all manifestations of culture) and which are also being overturned. In fact this new paradigm could be traced back to the mid 19th cent. with the questioning of the uniformity of space-by the re-examination of Euclid's parallel postulate which assumed that space was uniform. The results of these efforts left us with a universe without the uniform geometrical structure which previously was assumed. And this of course had profound repercussions in philosophy, and all other disciplines. I'm not sure that this makes me a social constructionist. But those who deny the existence of paradigms, archetypes, and how we use them to interpret and discover reality, have a view that is not only too narrow, but too short, and too shallow. Jon Bennett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 15:55:17 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: JUMP START Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:00 AM 4/14/98 -0500, Jon Bennett wrote: >Does the essence of >reality depend upon interpretation? That is, what >is the relationship of mind to reality? Mind is part of reality, it's that part in which reality is known, becomes conscious, and in which the essence, the meaning of reality is discovered ("unfolded") and brought into the open.As "mind" is a function of man embedded in reality whatever it "discovers" and "produces" is subjective, that is to say it might be true ("right") and it might be false ("wrong"). When some produced knowledge or assigned (=discovered) meaning is true it fits the whole of reality, if false it doesn't. Of course the judgement (opinion) on something being treu or false is subjective too, but as it is formed by the interaction of the mind with reality (o.a. with other minds) and as such based upon empirical testing of acquired knowledge and meaning it makes sense to form such judgements and discuss them in the process of clearing the mind from error. The essence of reality is its meaning or purpose to which it was created and is preserved. Assuming it was not created makes it quite difficult to define (find) *any* essence or meaning of reality. When it was created and is preserved by God (be it only that reality's ability to preserve itself is preserved), as it is, the purpose of course is serving this God and glorifying Him. Here comes man and his mind in the picture as the main part of reality to do so, not in the least by making reality known and discovering its meaning in all aspects studied by scientists and other scholars. >Or put another way, >to what extent do we see what we are? To the extent that we are able to recognise our place and meaningful function (task) in this reality (see above). Of course this implies discovering the way we function as biological organisms, as social individuals, as rational beings knowing how to use logic, etc. etc.. But when we think we are just that is a mistake that makes it impossible to "see what we are". >Can we know without >limiting, restricting reality? Can we focus on part of >reality without losing focus of other parts, (or other >wholes)? Can we "know" without "constructing", reality? We are constructing *knowledge*, the *knowledge*-part of reality, no other parts, not "the" reality. But may be when you don't believe God created it (not necessary inthose seven days the way described in Genesis!) you are forced to believe it is created ("constructed") by man? Like in systems theory we may take any part of reality as a whole and distinguish parts and their relations within it and focus on them in the context of the abstracted whole. It is a set of recursive procedures that starts with the whole of reality as a whole (and the knowledge and recognition that this whole is a created one which has meaning, see above) > I believe the answer to most of these question is >yes and no. Reality is so complex that we can only see >certain aspects of it at one time. "yes and no" means we have to go on with our critical thinking to find the right questions and their proper answers building our knowledge and disclosing its meaning. To a naieve, non-scientific, person who knows (about) God reality isn't complex at all and he has he necessary faith to do what has to be done - no need to do science to find sufficient faith that what one is doing makes sense - of course science helps to do things right, especially regarding technological developments, but when those developments are not steered and motivated by such fundamental "naieve" insight into the meaning of reality - which includes also our technological development - there is a large probability that we do things *wrong* how perfect our (restricted) scientific knowledge might be. Arie Prof.Dr.A.Dirkzwager, Educational Instrumentation Technology, Computers in Education. Huizerweg 62, 1402 AE Bussum, The Netherlands. voice: x31-35-6933258 FAX: x31-35-6930762 E-mail: aried@xs4all.nl {========================================================================} When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977). =========================================================================== Accept that some days you are the statue, and some days you are the bird. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:26:46 +0930 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Bill Palmer Subject: HENRY EDWARD ARMSTRONG (1848 - 1937) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This e-mail is directed to those involved in science education on different listservers in different countries in the hopes that it will enable science educators to have wider perspectives on the history of science education. I apologise for any cross-posting. ******************************************************************* HENRY EDWARD ARMSTRONG (1848 - 1937) Henry Edward Armstrong was born in London on 6 May 1848 and died (also in London) on 13 July 1937. In about 4 weeks time we celebrate the 150th anniversary of his birth. Why should we remember his life? Briefly his achievements chemical and educational are listed below i. The chemistry of the naphthalenes ii. The chemistry of camphor iii. The mechanism of chemical change. iv. He doubted the existence of ions v. He championed the heuristic method vi. He was a pioneer of technical education vii. He published extensively on a variety of topics, was often intemperate in his views, but was a tireless advocate for science education. A seven point summary, does less than justice, but I have a dual aim in this e-mail. a. To promote a knowledge of the life and work of Henry Edward Armstrong. b. To attempt to use several listservers (based in different countries) as a way of finding out about national views of the development of science education. I include at the end of this e-mail a short questionnaire (more a straw-poll than research). The simple thesis is that those educated in the US, interested in science education and its history, will only vaguely have heard of Armstrong and on a 3 point scale of his influence in science education (not influential: influential: very influential) will give him a low rating, whereas those with educated in the UK will tend to rate him highly. In Australia, both a British and an American tradition exist, so teaching about science education historically can be very different in different institutions. A variety of references follow and after that a short questionnaire. The references are to help anyone else interested in Armstrong's life. I would also appreciate any additional references. Please send the questionnaire to me directly by e-mail. However if you have any general comment that could go to the list. If anything interesting results from the survey I will try to keep you informed. References WWW At URL http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/bios/ArmstrongHenry.html http://www.eb.com/cgibin/g?keywords=Armstrong%2c%20Henry%20Edward Biographical works Brock, W. H (Ed)., H. E. Armstrong and the Teaching of Science 1880-1930, Cambridge at the University Press. Brown, C. E.1954 Henry Edward Armstrong: Educational work. London: Private. Eyre, J. V. 1958 Henry Edward Armstrong, 1848 -1937, Butterworths Scientific Publications, London, UK. Van Praagh, G. 1973 H.E. Armstrong and Science Education, John Murray, London, UK. Also some works on the science education curriculum Argles, M 1964 South Kensington to Robins, Longmans, London, UK. Jenkins, E. W. 1979 From Armstrong to Nuffield: Studies in Twentieth-Century Science Education in England and Wales. London: John Murray. Roderick, G. & Stephens, M. Scientific and Technical education in 19th century England, Barnes & Noble, UK. Some other relevant books and articles Brock, W. H., 1975, From Liebig to Nuffield. A bibliography of the history of science education, 1839-1974, Studies in Science Education, Vol. 2, p.67-99 Dolby, R. G. A. 1976 Debates over the Theory of Solution: A Study in Dissent in Physical Chemistry in the English-Speaking World in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries , Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (7), (Edited Russell, McCormmack) Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, pp.297-404. Hansen, M. P., 1924, General Science in Secondary Schools, Australian Association of Advanced Sci Rpt, Vol.17, p.628-638 Hartley, H. 1961 Henry Edward Armstrong 1848-1937, in Great Chemists (Edited Eduard Farber). New York & London: Interscience Publishers, pp. 875-906. Jenkins, E. W., 1976, H. E. Armstrong, Heurism and the Common Sense of Science, The Durham Research Review, No. 37, p.21-26 Manuel, D. E., 1973, Review Article: H. E. Armstrong: A Pioneer of Reform in Science Teaching, Durham Research Review, Vol.7, No.33, p.949-953 Nightingale, E. 1962 The Teaching of Science in Britain- A Historical Retrospect, School Science Review, Vol 43, No 150, pp. 320-329 Rodd, E. H. 1947 Henry Edward Armstrong, in British chemists (edited Alexander Findlay & William Hobson Mills). London: The Chemical Society, pp. 58-95 Selleck, R. J. W., 1968, The New Education: The English Background 1870-1914, Sir Isaac Pitman, Melbourne. ********************************************************************* QUESTIONNAIRE (Science as Culture-14/4/98) 1 In which country were you educated? 2 In which country do you now work? 3. In your own science education (at university) did you learn about Henry Edward Armstrong? Yes/ No Comment 4. If you now teach about science education do you mention Henry Edward Armstrong and the heuristic method in your course? Yes/ No Comment: 5. How influential do you consider that Henry Edward Armstrong was in influencing the development of science education. Not influential: influential: very influential Comment: 6. Is a knowledge of the historical development of science education important for new science teachers. Yes/ No Comment: 7. Do you have any other thoughts or comments about Henry Edward Armstrong and the development of science education? Comment: 8. Do you know of any other URLs or references about Henry Edward Armstrong? Comment: Name: W. P. Palmer, (Bill Palmer) University Address :- Faculty of Education, Northern Territory University, DARWIN, NT, 0909, Australia. Work Tel :- 08 89 466 148 Fax Number (Education) :- 08 89 466 151 E-Mail number wpalmer@darwin.ntu.edu.au URL at http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/blhmpg.htm ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:57:13 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: JUMP START MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Arie Dirkzwager wrote: > > At 03:00 AM 4/14/98 -0500, Jon Bennett wrote: > >Does the essence of > >reality depend upon interpretation? That is, what > >is the relationship of mind to reality? [snip] I like what I take to be the Kantian notion that we can have knowledge of reality --> but only as it answers the questions we put to it. If we ask about the time-series function of falling bodies, the bodies will fall (or not, as their nature may be...) at the rate they fall, and we can know that. But we cannot know what things are in themselves, which would, presumably mean something like their telling us something dissociated from our orientation to them(*&^%$#). > The essence of reality is its meaning or purpose to which it was > created and is preserved. Assuming it was not created makes it quite > difficult to define (find) *any* essence or meaning of reality. When it was > created and is preserved by God (be it only that reality's ability to > preserve itself is preserved), as it is, the purpose of course is serving > this God and glorifying Him. [snip] Well, if God has some notion of what the purpose of the world is, why do *we* need to buy into it? Can't we, like a certain group of inmates in Auschwitz, hold a trial of God (Y-w-h, etc./et al.) and find the accused *guilty* of crimes against humanity? Might does not make right, even in some super-lunary (or super-sensible) realm, or where the criminal is Omnipotent, and therefore, presumably, must be tried in absentia. [snip] > > I believe the answer to most of these question is > >yes and no. Reality is so complex that we can only see > >certain aspects of it at one time. > > "yes and no" means we have to go on with our critical thinking to > find the right questions and their proper answers building our knowledge and > disclosing its meaning. [snip] The foregoing question and answer already, in a way, encompass *all* this complexity -- perhaps in a way somewhat like the way we can find the value of a mathematical integral directly rather than only continuing to approach it by adding together more and more endless little parts? > {========================================================================} > When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the > apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person > could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977). > ============================================================================ [snip] Hermeneutics in action! I'm currently reading a book about Husserl's work which I would suggest, to those who may not know it, looks so far (after 80 pages) like it will be useful as well as "satisfying" (pleasing, etc. -- insofar as insight into "reality", and well-crafted discourse are joys for us): _The Idea of Phenomenology: Husserlian Exemplarism_, Andre de Murault (Northwestern Univ. Press, 1974 / orig. French edition: 1958) \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: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 23:55:47 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Hank Bromley Subject: new Langdon Winner column MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY=------------6A72D505C2D448273BE7F3D1 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. --------------6A72D505C2D448273BE7F3D1 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii Content-ID: Langdon asked me to pass along this announcement of a column he'll be writing for the online publication "NETFUTURE: Technology and Human Responsibility." -- Hank Bromley ---------- Forwarded message ---------- NETFUTURE Technology and Human Responsibility -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issue #69 Copyright 1998 Bridge Communications April 14, 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor: Stephen L. Talbott (stevet@oreilly.com) On the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/ You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes. [...] *** Editor's Note (24 lines) I'm extremely pleased to announce that we will be graced in the future by contributions from Langdon Winner. Currently Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Winner has been praised as "the leading academic on the politics of technology" (*Wall Street Journal*). Two of his books are now recognized classics: *Autonomous Technology*, a study of the technology-out-of-control theme in modern social thought, and *The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology*. He has over a hundred scholarly articles to his name. A sometime rock critic (nobody, after all, is perfect), Winner was contributing editor at *Rolling Stone* in the late 1960s and early 1970s and has contributed articles on rock and roll to *The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians* and *The Encylopaedia Britannica*. He is currently working on a book about the politics of design in the contexts of engineering, architecture and political society. You will find an introductory letter from Winner below. Please consider forwarding this issue, or Winner's letter (along with the concluding subscription information) to those who might have an interest in his work. SLT [...] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Langdon Winner Introduces His New Column (62 lines) Dear Friends, Beginning this May my commentaries will appear in NETFUTURE in a regular series entitled "Tech Knowledge Revue". This is a wholly new enterprise for me, not a re-creation of anything I've done anywhere else. My hope is to write brief reports, essays, interviews, and musings that cover technology, social issues and politics on a very broad scale. While the frequency of the pieces will vary, I hope to contribute one every two months or so. My reasons for setting up shop here (and not in a pulp and paper venue) have to do with the kinds of freedom, immediacy, flexibility, and good will that Steve Talbott's newsletter makes available. In its relatively brief existence, NETFUTURE has attracted a broadly based, thoughtful readership, a group of people I greatly respect. The publication offers a refreshing range of ideas and viewpoints, ones not commonly found on-line or elsewhere. I want to thank Steve for his kind invitation to join him in stirring the pot! According to the dictionary, a "revue" is a show "consisting of skits, songs, and dances, often satirizing current events, trends and personalities". That seems about right. If nothing else, "Tech Knowledge Revue" will provide occasional relief from the sterile, self-serving puffery that passes for "technology journalism" nowadays. At least that's my hope. Upcoming commentaries will likely include: * Report from the "Digital Diploma Mills" conference at Harvey Mudd College * The political promise of Net radio * Techno-boosters, Techno-realists and Neo-Luddites * The global vision of Manuel Castells For those who want to read something in the meantime, several recent pieces can be found on my Web page including: "Cyberlibertarian Myths and Prospects for Community" "The Automatic Professor Machine" (an interview with entrepreneur L.C. Winner, C.E.O. of Educational Smart Hardware Alma Mater, Inc., and inventor of the APM, "most important breakthrough in educational technology since the syllogism") The URL for these is: http://www.rpi.edu/~winner. It turns out that Steve Talbott and I are neighbors in the Hudson River Valley, home to a long tradition of technology critics from Melville to Mumford and several contemporary writers and activists. More frequently now than before, we'll be getting together at the local bagel cafe to scope out the ideas, issues, movements, latest atrocities, and hopeful developments we find noteworthy. I hope you'll enjoy your seat at the table. Yours truly, Langdon Winner [...] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** About this newsletter (36 lines) NETFUTURE is a newsletter and forwarding service dealing with technology and human responsibility. It is hosted by the UDT Core Programme of the International Federation of Library Associations. Postings occur roughly once every week or two. The editor is Steve Talbott, author of "The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending the Machines in Our Midst". You may redistribute this newsletter for noncommercial purposes. You may also redistribute individual articles in their entirety, provided the NETFUTURE url and this paragraph are attached. Current and past issues of NETFUTURE are available on the Web: http://www.oreilly.com/~stevet/netfuture/ http://www.ifla.org/udt/netfuture/ (mirror site) http://ifla.inist.fr/VI/5/nf/ (mirror site) To subscribe to NETFUTURE, send an email message like this: To: listserv@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca subscribe netfuture yourfirstname yourlastname No Subject: line is needed. To unsubscribe, the second line shown above should read instead: signoff netfuture Send comments or material for publication to: Steve Talbott If you have problems subscribing or unsubscribing, send mail to: netfuture-request@infoserv.nlc-bnc.ca --------------6A72D505C2D448273BE7F3D1-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 17:59:25 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: "The Last Book" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List members may be interested to see Christopher Lehmann-Haupt's piece in this morning's New York Times on MIT's "Last Book" project. The Media Laboratory at MIT is working to create a portable computer that will closely resemble a book, complete with leather binding. It will contain the text of thousands of books. The online version of Lehmann-Haupt's article is at: http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/040898book.html -- Roy Johnson | roy@mantex.demon.co.uk ----------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for using EBOOK-List, Discussion on Electronic Books Post Message: ebook-list@aros.net Get Commands: majordomo@aros.net "help" Administrator: noring@netcom.com Unsubscribe: majordomo@aros.net "unsubscribe ebook-list" __________________________________________ 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, 16 Apr 1998 09:33:10 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Latour-Jakob Disease MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The following letter by Harry J. Lipkin (Weizmann Inst., Israel) has just been published in APS NEWS, a publication of the American Physical Society, April 1998 issue, p. 4 THE REAL ANSWER TO POST-MODERN MULTICULTURALISM Social Biologists working at the National Institute of Sociobiological Health Therapy (NISHT) have discovered a link between postmodernism and the Latour-Jakob syndrome, also known as madkow disease. The research began by noting the resemblance between the spongy texture of postmodern thought and the spongy texture of brains of animals infected with madkow disease. This conjecture was confirmed by an experiment in which parrots that had been taught to speak normally were fed food infected with the carriers of the Latour-Jakob syndrome. In a very short time they had forgotten normal speech completely and were capable only of dictating articles suitable for publication in "Social Text." A new method of noninvasive testing using extra-sensory perception has revealed that infection with the postmodern-thought virus produces holes in the language instincts of infected educators and makes them insist that Holistic Language or Hole Language is the only way to teach reading. The madkow virus is now also believed to be the source of a number of Sokalled Wars. The war between the Lunatic Left and the Righteous Right is also attributed to infection of the Lunatic Left by madkow virus and of the Righteous Right by a related strain. Although there is so far no known cure for postmodernism, evidence is already accumulating that the natural immunity to the disease has been recovered by European humanists, where the disease started. NISHT is of course not to be confused with the National Institute and Center for Holistic Thought (NICHT). In the German literature it is emphasized that "NISHT ist nicht NICHT und NICHT ist nicht NISHT". In Yiddish this becomes "NISHT iz nisht NICHT und NICHT iz nisht NISHT". --------------- Replies to the above may be sent to Editor, APS News One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20749-3844 USA e-mail: letters@aps.org ------------------------------------- **************************************************************** 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, 16 Apr 1998 09:33:10 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Freud at Yale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Unconscious Deeps and Empirical Shallows Panel presentation at the symposium "Whose Freud? The Place of Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture," Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University, April 3, 1998 1 Frederick Crews [Note: This paper has been revised to reflect the experience of the symposium itself. No words have been changed, but added passages, all of which can be found in the endnotes, are indicated by brackets.] To the question posed in our conference title, "Whose Freud?", I can offer a simple reply: he's all yours. Take my Freud-please! But do you really want him-the fanatical, self-inflated, ruthless, myopic, yet intricately devious Freud who has been unearthed by the independent scholarship of the past generation-or would you prefer the Freud of self-created legend, whose name can still conjure the illusion that "psychoanalytic truth" is authenticated by the sheer genius of its discoverer? Let me put this issue concretely by reminding you of the evocative passage in Freud's History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement in which he describes the hostility of his Viennese colleagues when he first lectured them on May 2, 1896, about "the part played by sexuality in the aetiology of the neuroses." Who among us hasn't been moved by the story of Freud's sudden realization on that day that he was "one of those who had 'disturbed the sleep of the world'"? It dawned on him, he recalls, that he would never be able to expect "objectivity and tolerance" from straw authorities who lacked his own "moral courage"; thenceforth he would have to pursue the hard path of scientific discovery in "splendid isolation." 2 That persecuted but dauntless figure is the Promethan hero commended to us not only by Freud himself but also by the house mythographer of psychoanalysis, Ernest Jones, and by subsequent partisans to this day. And it is just the Freud whose borrowed glory can improve the likelihood that one's own broadly psychoanalytic speculations will be deemed valiant and canny rather than, say, politically and academically conformist. If, however, we approach Freud not as our great forebear and patron but as a historical agent like any other, we cannot avoid noticing that the thesis he proposed to that doubting audience in 1896 was the very "seduction theory" that he would privately repudiate sixteen months later. Privately but not publicly, for in that case he would have had to own up not only to his mistake about the causation of hysteria but also to the nonexistence of his boasted cures and, still more damagingly, to the unreliability of both the investigative method and the psychodynamic premises that he would continue to employ for the remainder of his career. Mental inertia and a reluctance to admit error may help to explain why academic humanists give no heed to such deflationary facts. 3 But by shielding Freud's "insight" from normal skepticism, they also grant themselves the luxury of playing the knowledge game with the net down. The most fundamental rule of that game is that a given theory or hypothesis cannot be validated by invoking "evidence" manufactured by that same supposition. 4 The question-begging traits of psychoanalysis-the treatment of tendentious interpretations as raw data; the reflex negation of appearances in favor of reduction to the selfish, the sexual, and the infantile; the ample menus of symbolic meanings and "defense mechanisms" upon which the interpreter can draw to adorn prearranged conclusions; the ever handy wild cards of "the unconscious" and "overdetermination"-all of these constitute a scandal for anyone who subscribes to community standards of rational and empirical inquiry. Yet the very liberties that mark Freudianism as a pseudoscience render it irresistibly charming to humanists in search of instant "depth." (I ought to know; I used to be one of them!) And if, emulating Freud's tactic of pathologizing his critics, Freudian humanists can brand dissenters as suffering from resistance, repression, and denial-in short, from the obsessive-compulsive disorder of "Freud bashing"-then their hermeneutic freedom would appear to be absolute. Of course, academic Freudians would prefer not to think of themselves as having resigned from the wider intellectual enterprise. More typically, they invoke psychoanalytic notions to address cultural and historical problems and then infer from the very ingenuity of their handiwork, just as Freud did, that the doctrine has thereby proved its fruitfulness. 5 Or, if they have an activist bent, they recast Freudianism to purge it of its patriarchal and conservative implications and then "discover" psychoanalytically that society needs to be realigned in accordance with their ideology. 6 A bright high school senior could easily detect the fallaciousness of such maneuvers. Unfortunately, however, a bright graduate student in literature, imbued with what now passes for theoretical sophistication, would find nothing to complain about. Such is the intellectually corrupting effect of a self-validating and parochial system of thought. But it is not the antiquated doctrine per se that deserves reproach; the fault lies with professors who not only refrain from teaching standards of empirical adequacy but actively or implicitly denigrate them. As the first scheduled panelist in this conference and, I gather, the only one who shares the wholly negative view of psychoanalytic theory that is now all but consensual in American psychology departments, I am poorly situated to rebut the more sanguine judgments that will be voiced by others. But at least I can ask uncommitted members of this audience to keep some questions in mind. I will close by briefly commenting on three lines of argument that cannot fail to be broached before our adjournment tomorrow. 7 1. You will be told that evidence-based objections to Freudianism are beside the point, since psychoanalysis isn't a body of propositions but merely a subtle dialogue that weaves a fictive story, thus honoring the sheer ambiguity of experience while enhancing self-awareness of an ineffable but precious kind. This would have come as a surprise to the author of the Oedipus and castration complexes, the ego, id, and superego, penis envy, the vaginal orgasm, the death instinct, the primal scene and the primal crime, and on and on. Psychoanalysis does traffic in subtly guided and indoctrinating dialogue, but its theory has been, and remains, largely a causal account of mental functioning and development. As such, it cannot dodge the criteria of assessment that apply to every such theory. And, of course, it doesn't begin to satisfy those criteria; hence the retreat of latter-day Freudians into the absurd pretense of nonpropositionality. 2. Subsequent panelists will assure you that while Freud made some mistakes, modern psychoanalysis has long since corrected them. When you hear this, please raise your hand and ask which of the ever-proliferating schools of analysis the speaker has in mind and why those schools cannot agree on a single point of doctrine or interpretation. The answer is that the epistemic circularity of Freud's tradition, guaranteeing abundant "confirmation" of every proposed idea, has not been remedied in any degree. Analysts of every stripe still adhere to Freud's illusion that reliable knowledge of a patient's repressed complexes can be gleaned from studying free associations and the transference-even though such study is well known to produce only those revelations favored by the therapist's sect or local institute. 8 3. You will doubtless hear that objections to psychoanalytic theory stem from a shallow and outmoded positivism that insists on impossible standards of proof. Wrong again. No philosophy of science, positivist or antipositivist, is entailed in the elementary demand that a theory refrain from justifying itself by appeal to its own contested postulates. That is just everyday rational sense, intuitively grasped by fair-minded researchers in every field though not by the pundits of postmodernism. It is precisely because such rationality continues to be exercised with vigor that Freud's ideas, as Edward Shorter observes in his recent History of Psychiatry, "are now vanishing like the last snows of winter." 9 How ironic it is that well-traveled academics, like bunkered troops on a remote island who haven't heard that the war is over, should be the last to get the news! And now that the point is finally sinking in, how sad it is-and how symptomatic of all that is feeble and dismissible about the humanities today-that humanists can look upon the collapse of a would-be science within its proper domain as a fine opportunity to turn that same doctrine to their own hermeneutic ends! NOTES 1 [The panelists and session chairs were, in order of presentation, Peter Brooks, Frederick Crews, Robert Michels, Judith Butler, Juliet Mitchell, Esther da Costa Meyer, Toril Moi, Hubert Damisch, Peter Lowenberg, Mary Jacobus, Katherine Kearns, Paul Robinson, Kaja Silverman, Leo Bersani, Kevis Goodman, Dominick LaCapra, Eric Santner, Meredith Skura, Robert J. Lifton, Elise Snyder, Morton Reiser, David Forrest, Robert Shulman, Arnold Cooper, Peter Gay, Richard Wollheim, Jonathan Lear, Donald Davidson, and John Forrester.] 2 Standard Edition, 14: 21-22. 3 [As if to illustrate this point, our conference members overlooked it, making confident occasional reference to the great breakthrough of Freud's etiological shift from sexual abuse to oedipal fantasy.] 4 [No one who spoke at our symposium, from either the podium or the floor, conceded this basic point. When it was mentioned at all, it was dismissed as naive; and it was repeatedly flouted in our panel presentations, most of which took for granted Freud's maxim that "applications of analysis are always confirmations of it as well" (SE, 22: 146). Richard Wollheim finally declared that my point had been immediately "refuted" by Robert Michels; but Wollheim proved unable even to state it correctly. According to him, what I had said was that ideas derived from a theory's postulates cannot be tested at all. Only in Wollheim's presentation was any attempt made to address the problem of validation; other speakers evidently considered psychoanalytic propositions (their favorite ones, anyway) too self-evidently justified to require defending. Wollheim began by criticizing those Freudians who hold back from strong truth claims; in his view, it is quite possible to demonstrate the cogency of theoretical tenets within a clinical context. As an example, he cited the recalcitrant behavior of a training analyst's patient-behavior that the analyst's colleagues successfully traced to the patient's early relations with her mother. For Wollheim, the emergence of that interpretation from careful discussion vouched for its plausibility; and since, in this case, "a small piece of psychoanalytic thinking helps us to comprehend the situation," the theory behind that thinking has received strong support. To evaluate this claim, we must first sort out the point being supported from the evidence that favors it. (We are on our own here, as Wollheim provided no further enlightenment.) In Wollheim's eyes, I gather, the group of analytic discussants had succeeded in locating the source of the patient's present conduct in her early relations with her mother; this success then validated the Freudian idea that noncooperation with an analyst is always transferential, i.e., rooted in a childhood attitude that is being reenacted in the consulting room. Obviously, however, the "evidence" here is itself a Freudian interpretation, and one that preempts a more plausible explanation that never occurs to psychoanalysts: that the patient was reacting negatively to here-and-now irritants supplied by the therapist. The theory of transference regularly acts to exculpate therapists in just this manner.] 5 [Meredith Skura's presentation deserves notice in this connection. She told us that in her historical studies she generally eschews theory, preferring instead to conceive of psychoanalysis simply as a way of thinking and an attitude toward life. Theory enters her work, she said, only in the form of hypotheses that are to be tested by the "so what?" criterion. If, for example, a particular Freudian tenet helps to "pull details together" in an illuminating way, she knows that she was on the right track. Alas, any theory whatsoever-astrological, phrenological, ufological-will "confirm" itself in just this specious manner. One must also ask whether the global psychoanalytic "attitude toward life" doesn't amount to a partiality toward Freudian theory. To eschew explicit theory while applying such an attitude is simply to disguise one's premises from oneself, a retrogressive move in any field.] 6 [Judith Butler and Leo Bersani both implied that, for them, the uppermost consideration in assessing a theoretical tenet should be its bearing on gay liberation. In commenting on my own reference to community standards of empiricism, Butler indicated that "community standards" sounded homophobic to her. Bersani, for his part, distanced himself from the literary critic's typical ideal of "fidelity to the text," since that fidelity, like Butler's "community," struck him as sexually normative. Neither of these remarks precisely illustrated my point above, yet both showed how an ideological imperative can override empirical concern, even covering the very idea of evidence with suspicion of being socially oppressive.] 7 [In making this prediction, which was only partly fulfilled, I overestimated the extent to which symposium participants would care about justifying their claims. As the lone dissenter, I failed to attract more than momentary and dismissive attention (as explained in note 4 above) to the issue of validation.] 8 [Arnold Cooper, a past president of the American Psychoanalytic Association, assured us that the hypothesis of a dynamic unconscious is "now evidentially well founded" and that Freud's basic method of "free association and analytic listening" has amply proven its worth. Using those tools, he added, "we have moved very far" from Freud's single model of the mind. Yes: we now have an ever-expanding number of conflicting models and no agreed-upon way of choosing among them. Is that progress, or does it constitute an indictment of the very tools that Cooper regards as having been vindicated?] 9 Edward Shorter, *A History of Psychiatry: From the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac* (New York: John Wiley, 1996), p. vii. **************************************************************** 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, 16 Apr 1998 11:10:04 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Failure of Social Constructivism MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The following excerpts from Cole, S. (1996). Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science discuss the complete failure of the social constructivist program and its perpetuation by a power elite. Stephen Cole is Professor of Sociology at the University of Queensland. Up until the 1970s, sociologists of science did not examine the actual cognitive content of scientific ideas, as they believed that these were ultimately determined by nature and not a product of social processes and variables. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a group of European sociologists, adopting a relativist epistemoloigcal position began to challenge this view. At first they called themselves "relativist-constructivists" and later, more simply, "social constructivists". Their numbers were few, but within a short time span of roughly one decade, this group has come to completely dominate the sociology of science and the interdisciplinary field called the social studies of science. Although some like to deny this dominance because ideologically they do not like to see themselves as the power elite, their control of all the major associations and speciality journals is clear to anyone participating in the field. This dominance may easily be seen in the recently published *Handbook of Science and Technology Studies*, published by the Society for the Social Study of Science. Virtually all of the contributors are either constructivists or political allies of the constructivists. [p.278] I argue in my book that there is not one single example in the *entire constructivist literature* that supports this [social constructivist] view of science. In order to demonstrate the credibility of their view, one must show how a specific social variable influences a specific cognitive content. In all of their work they illustrate well how social processes influence the doing of science; but they fail to show how they have had a significant effect on what I call a knowledge outcome or a piece of science that has come to be accepted as true by the scientific community and thereby entered the core knowledge of that discipline. [279] As a general rule, readers of the work of social constructivists should always ask (1) have they identified a real social independent variable? and (2) have they shown that it has influenced the actual cognitive content of some piece of science rather than the foci of attention or the rate of advance? [280-1] My book is full of many examples, based upon detailed readings of other constructivist texts, that show how in each and every case they fail to do what they claim. An examination of what happened to this book is good evidence of how the constructivists treat criticism. First, all reviews by constructivists were harshly negative including one by Shapin in *Science* and one by Pickering in the *Times Literary Supplement*. Fuller actually wrote two negative reviews in two different journals. All the reviews of the book in the mainstream American sociology journals that I have seen were moderately to strongly positive, including an extremely positive review by Mary Frank Fox in *Contemporary Sociology*.But the most noticeable aspect of the constructivists' reaction to the book was to ignore it. Where they have to review it, they will give it a good bashing, but where they have any control, they feel the best course of action is to keep the book unknown. Thus the book has gone unreviewed in the two leading speciality journals in the field, the *Social Studies of Science* and *Science, Technology, and Human Values*. It is quite probable that considerably more than half of the members of the Society for the Social Studies of Science do not even know of the book's existence. [284-5] My work in the sociology of science has led me to strongly reject the conclusion that the natural sciences are entirely socially constructed; but my life in the social sciences has made me more amenable to the possibility that these sciences may indeed be entirely socially constructed. Ideology, power, and network ties seem to determine what social scientists believe; evidence is frequently entirely ignored... That social science is completely or almost completely socially constructed helps explain how the social constructivist view of science could have become so powerful in the absence of any good supporting evidence and in the face of such devastating empirical critiques as those found in books like Peter Galison's *How Experiments End*. References Cole, S. (1996). Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt, & M.W. Lewis (Eds.), The Flight From Science and Reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences and Johns Hopkins University Press. Cole, S. (1994). Why Sociology Doesn't Make Progress Like the Natural Sciences. Sociological Forum, 9, 133-154. Cole, S. (1992). Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Galison, P. (1987). How Experiments End. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jasonoff, S., Markle, G.D., Peterson, J.C., & Pinch, T. (1995). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. **************************************************************** 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, 16 Apr 1998 13:24:03 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: JUMP START Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 06:57 PM 4/14/98 -0400, Brad McCormick wrote: >I like what I take to be the Kantian notion that we can have knowledge >of reality --> but only as it answers the questions we put to it. Right you are - it means hat our questions are the starting point. Then it is crucial to ask the "right" questions and to ask them to the "right" realm of reality. In my opinion with any question it is critical to ask *why* you ask that question and to question the presupposition of that question, for instance the meanings you assign to the words used in formulating that question. >> The essence of reality is its meaning or purpose to which it was >> created and is preserved. Assuming it was not created makes it quite >> difficult to define (find) *any* essence or meaning of reality. When it was >> created and is preserved by God (be it only that reality's ability to >> preserve itself is preserved), as it is, the purpose of course is serving >> this God and glorifying Him. >[snip] > >Well, if God has some notion of what the purpose of the world >is, why do *we* need to buy into it? Sorry, wrong question: God isn't someone who has "some notion" of what the purpose is like we have such notion or may "buy" someone elses notion. God *set* the purpose of the world and we try to get ome notion of it. >Can't we, like a certain group >of inmates in Auschwitz, hold a trial of God (Y-w-h, etc./et al.) and >find the accused *guilty* of crimes against humanity? Might does not >make right, even in some super-lunary (or super-sensible) realm, or >where the criminal is Omnipotent, and therefore, presumably, must be >tried in absentia. Tough question - although it is obvious we could - the real question is: should we? (Would it fit the "purpose of the world"?). Without belittling the horror of those misery and crimes and the mystery of God allowing them (I think it has to do with the purpose of man having freedom to do well on his own will, which freedom entails the possiblity to choose for doing such awfull crimes and make innocent fellow human beings suffer thus offending God's commandment to "love thy neighbour". The Bible enlightens us on what to do in such a case with the story of Job - he surved the "purpose of the world" quite well in a way not many people are able to. >> > I believe the answer to most of these question is >> >yes and no. Reality is so complex that we can only see >> >certain aspects of it at one time. >> >> "yes and no" means we have to go on with our critical thinking to >> find the right questions and their proper answers building our knowledge and >> disclosing its meaning. >[snip] > >The foregoing question and answer already, in a way, encompass *all* >this >complexity -- perhaps in a way somewhat like the way we can find the >value of a mathematical integral directly rather than only continuing to >approach it >by adding together more and more endless little parts? Good methaphor! Discovering (figuring out) the way how to find that value directly was a major extension of our knowledge. As an aside: was it based upon answers reality gave to our questions? Arie PS. I don't mean to quibble about religion on this list and try to restrict myself to contributions that are on topic - sometimes religion is (at least in my understanding) and I think in that case it is appropriate to give my opinion such that others can understand and take it into account while forming their own opinions. >> When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the >> apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person >> could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977). >Hermeneutics in action! I'm glad you like the quote in my signature - hope you think me a sensible person and discovered some "absurdities" in my text (-; ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:20:25 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Failure of Social Constructivism X-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: > > The following excerpts from Cole, S. (1996). Voodoo Sociology: > Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science discuss the complete > failure of the social constructivist program and its perpetuation by > a power elite. Stephen Cole is Professor of Sociology at the > University of Queensland. > > Up until the 1970s, sociologists of science did not examine the > actual cognitive content of scientific ideas, as they believed that > these were ultimately determined by nature and not a product of > social processes and variables. [snip] I suppose 1929 comes after 1970? Karl Mannheim's _Ideology and Utopia_ was published in 1929 (the English translation is 1936). I have confidence that persons more familiar with this area than myself could push that date back farther. Also: There are different realizations of "social constructivism", and possibly some of them are analogous in the domain of the "Geisteswissenschaften" to what Phrenology and certain discredited research into racial differences in intelligence (etc.) are in the Galilean exact mathematical/empirical sciences of nature. \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, 16 Apr 1998 21:37:25 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Freud at Yale X-To: Ian.Pitchford@Scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: > > Unconscious Deeps and Empirical Shallows > > Panel presentation at the symposium "Whose Freud? > The Place of Psychoanalysis in Contemporary Culture," > Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University, April 3, 1998 1 > > Frederick Crews > > [Note: This paper has been revised to reflect the experience of the > symposium itself. No words have been changed, but added passages, all of > which can be found in the endnotes, are indicated by brackets.] [snip] > It is precisely because such rationality continues to be exercised > with vigor that Freud's ideas, as Edward Shorter observes in his recent > History of Psychiatry, "are now vanishing like the last snows of winter." > 9 How ironic it is that well-traveled academics, like bunkered troops on a > remote island who haven't heard that the war is over, should be the last > to get the news! [snip] Dear Mr. Pitchford: You continue to tell us what's wrong with the current state of scholarship (or lack thereof...) in various areas. What, I am curious to know, is your *constructive program*? Where would you like us to be trying to get to? Perhaps if you will tell us this, we (or at least myself) can learn something. Thank you. \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, 17 Apr 1998 09:47:31 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Teaching evolution MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Teachers Gain Aid For Evolutionary Struggle Nature (1998) 392:p.639 [WASHINGTON] The National Academy of Sciences, alarmed by what it says is continuing hostility to the teaching of evolution in many school districts in the United States, has produced a glossy guide to advise teachers on how the subject can best be taught. The guide is designed to help teachers in parts of the country, primarily in the south, where Christian groups have tried to ensure that 'creation science' is taught alongside evolution. It says that the Supreme Court rejected that idea in 1987, when it held that Louisiana decreee calling for the "balanced treatment" of the two was unconstitutional. "We're not saying that teachers can flaunt their state rules," says Maxine Singer, president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and one of the guide's authors. "But they could challenge them legally" on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling, she says. The guide says that the emergence of genetics has made the theory of evolution a central tenet of biology, which teachers cannot choose to ignore. Many teachers mistakenly assume that evolution has little to do with science as it is practised today, says Singer. "A few years ago, evolution was not of major interest to molecular biologists," she says, "But now it is". According to academy officials, a few states have education policies that require the teaching of creationism. Schools are usually administered, however, by counties and problems arise in all regions of the United States. Donald Kennedy of Stanford University, who chaired the group of 13 authors, declines to estimate how many teachers are intimidated by such policies. "If you listen to enough teachers you become persuaded that this is a serious problem," Kennedy says. C.M. **************************************************************** 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: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:50:35 +0000 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: evolving the human mind X-To: psa-public-sphere@sheffield.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With appologies to those on multiple lists -- Herewith draft programme for the *Evolving the human mind* conference here in Sheffield this June. At the end of the programme is a registration form -- if you want to attend, please snip, print, and send with payment to the address shown. All e-mail communications concerning the conference should go to: evolution.conference@sheffield.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------- Evolving the human mind an interdisplinary conference organised by The Hang Seng Centre for Cognitive Studies University of Sheffield Stephenson Hall of Residence, Oakholm Road, University of Sheffield 24-27 June 1998 DRAFT PROGRAMME Wednesday 24 June 11-1.50 Arrival and registration Lunch is available for purchase in nearby pubs and restaurants 1.50-4 Session 1: Chair: Peter Carruthers (a) Welcoming statement by Peter Carruthers (b) Pascal Boyer (Anthropology, Lyon) =91Evolved minds and their susceptibility to religious representations=92 (c) Steven Mithen (Archaeology, Reading) =91Language, thought and material culture: evolutionary relationships=92 4-4.30 tea 4.30-6.30 Session 2: Chair: (a) David Papineau (Philosophy, King=92s London) =91The evolution of knowledge=92 (b) George Botterill (Philosophy, Sheffield) =91How can memes combine with modules?=92 6.30-7.45 dinner 7.45-9.15 Session 3: Chair: Derek Bickerton (Linguistics, Hawaii) 'The language-driven mind' 9.15-11 bar Thursday 25 June 7.30-9 breakfast 9.15-11.15 Session 4: Chair: (a) Adam Morton (Philosophy, Bristol) 'The evolution of strategic thinking'. (b) Peter K Smith (Psychology, Goldsmith=92s London) =91The social origins of theory of mind' 11.15-11.45 coffee 11.45-1.15 Session 5: Chair: Bill McGrew (Anthropology, Ohio) =91Non-human culture and the animal mind=92 1.15-2.30 lunch 2.30-4.30 Session 6: Chair: (a) Jim Hopkins (Philosophy, King=92s London) 'Evolution, consciousness, and the internality of the mind' (b) Peter Carruthers (Philosophy, Sheffield) =91The evolution of consciousness=92 4.30-5 tea in the dining room 5-7 Session 7: Chair: (a) Patty Cowell (Human Communication Science, Sheffield) =91The evolution of sex differences=92 (b) Andrew Mayes (Clinical Neurology, Sheffield) =91Evolution of the human brain since the common ancestor: modular or general capacity development?=92 7-8 reception in the bar or garden, according to weather courtesy of HANG SENG CENTRE FOR COGNITIVE STUDIES 8-9.30 Conference Dinner 9.30-11 bar =46riday 26 June 7.30-9 breakfast 9.15-11.15 Session 8: Chair: (a) Robin Dunbar (Psychology, Liverpool) title to be announced (b) Richard Byrne (Psychology, St.Andrews) title to be announced 11.15-11.45 coffee in the dining room 11.45-1.15 Session 9: Chair: Thomas Wynn (Anthropology, Colorado) title to be announced 1.15-2 lunch (packed lunch for all, whether going to Peaks or not) 2-3.15 Session 10: Poster sessions >From 1.15-3.15 pm a short coach trip into the Derbyshire Peak District is available, to feast eyes and clear heads. Please indicate when registering whether or not you intend to take this option. 3.15-3.45 tea 3.45-5.45 Session 11: Chair: (a) Kate Robson Brown (Archaeology, Bristol) title to be announced (b) Andrew Chamberlain (Archaeology, Sheffield) title to be announced 5.45-7 dinner 7-9 Session 12: Chair: (a) Fiona Cowie (Philosophy, Caltech) =91Evolution of language=92 (b) Dan Sperber (Anthropology, CREA, Paris) and Gloria Origgi (Philosophy, Milan) =91Issues in the evolution of human language and communication=92 9-11 bar Saturday 27 June 7.30-9 breakfast 9.15-11.15 Session 13: Chair: (b) Jim Hurford (Linguistics, Edinburgh) title to be announced (b) John Locke (Human Communication Science, Sheffield) title to be announced 11.15-11.45 coffee in the dining room 11.45-1.15 Session 14: Chair: Peter Carruthers Stephen Stich and Dominic Murphy (Philosophy, Rutgers) =91Darwin in the madhouse: evolutionary psychology and the classification of mental disorders=92 1.15-2.30 lunch 2.30-4 Session 15: Postgraduate Presentations Parallel Session 15(a): Chair: (a) to be announced (b) to be announced (c) to be announced Parallel Session 15(b): Chair: (a) to be announced (b) to be announced (c) to be announced 4-- depart ---------------------------------------------------------------------- REGISTRATION FORM -- Evolving the human mind conference, 24-7 June 1998 Please print and complete this form, and send it TOGETHER WITH PAYMENT to: Evolution Conference, Department of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN UK. Note that there is a fee for those registering after 1 June, and that pressures on space mean that those attempting to register late may not be accepted. There are three registration categories. Please tick one of the following: (1) Non-resident, not requiring meals -- conference fee of: STERLING 30 (staff) STERLING 10 (student) (this covers tea and coffee; e-mailed conference abstracts; and generic conference costs; the conference reception is open to all those attending) (2) Non-resident, requiring meals -- total cost of: STERLING 90 (staff) STERLING 70 (student) (this includes the conference fee, and covers all meals except breakfast; it includes the reception) (3) Resident, full board -- total cost of: STERLING 150 (staff) STERLING 130 (student) (this includes all of the above, together with single bedroom for the nights of 24, 25 and 26 June, and three breakfasts) ADDITIONAL COST for EN SUITE single room: STERLING 30 ADDITIONAL COST for LATE REGISTRATION (received after 1 June 1998): STERLING 15 ADDITIONAL COST for clearance of cheques, where payment is NOT made by cheque drawn on a UK bank or by Eurocheque: STERLING 10 TOTAL COST / CHEQUE ENCLOSED: (pounds sterling) (cheques should be made payable to =91THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD=92) I do / do not intend to take the coach trip in to the Derbyshire Peaks on Friday 26 June (delete as appropriate). I am / am not a vegetarian / vegan (delete as appropriate) NAME: E-MAIL ADDRESS (please write legibly): SIGNED: __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Youn= g Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk, 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/academic/N-Q/psysc/staff/rmyoung/index.html Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 23:48:39 -0700 Reply-To: wderzko@pathcom.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Walter Derzko Subject: It's Official, We're in the Quantum Age X-To: List COMPLEX-M digests X-cc: List Discovery , List -Creativity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Quantum leap by Charles Seife "The era of quantum computing has begun in earnest, scientists say. For the first time, they have made a quantum computer that can carry out a task in a way that is impossible with supercomputers. The bits of a conventional computer can only exist in two states, 0 or 1. In quantum computers, the bits (or "qubits") can be the spin states of a proton, for instance, which exist as a "superposition" of both 0 and 1 until a measurement is made ("Wake up to quantum coffee", New Scientist, 15 March 1997, p 28). This allows quantum computers to explore different routes through a mathematical problem simultaneously. In theory, they can quickly perform some tasks, such as factoring huge numbers and cracking ingenious cryptographic codes, that would take a conventional supercomputer years. Lov Grover, a physicist at AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey, showed last year how a quantum computer could "guess" a chosen number in a certain range. The task is similar to a game of "higher/lower"--homing in on a number by repeatedly asking if the one you guess is too high or too low. Repeated questioning would be all a classical computer could do. But Grover showed that a quantum computer could divine the number in one attempt, just like packing all the questions into the states of a qubit. "It's interesting and kind of surprising that you can somehow do it when you get only one bit out of the computer," says Norm Margolus, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Now Isaac Chuang of IBM's Almaden Research Center in San Jose and Neil Gershenfeld of MIT have made a quantum computer that works through another of Grover's algorithms, answering two questions about one of four numbers. The problem is similar to asking which of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 is odd and greater than 2. In the current issue of Physical Review Letters (vol 80, p 3408), the researchers describe how they used the nuclei of a carbon atom and a hydrogen atom in a chloroform molecule as two qubits. Both nuclei had spin 0 and spin 1 states, giving four combinations which existed simultaneously: 00, 01, 11 and 10. Using magnetic fields and radio waves, the researchers manipulated the atoms' spins, making them dance a nuclear jig corresponding to the algorithm's logic. The correct answer to the calculation came when a measurement of the spin states "snuffed out" those that did not match the target state. Chuang and his colleagues have since been working on other quantum algorithms, such as the "Deutsch-Jozsa" algorithm, which spots some properties of a mathematical function far faster than a classical computer. Although cracking codes is still years away, Grover says the new work proves quantum computers are no longer just an idea. "It's a remarkable achievement," he says. "They've demonstrated that quantum computing works, not just with pencil and paper, but in the lab." >From New Scientist, 18 April 1998 Walter Derzko Director Brain Space (formerly the Idea Lab at the Design Exchange) Toronto (416) 588-1122 wderzko@pathcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:25:08 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Nagel/Freud at Yale In-Reply-To: <3536B255.114D@cloud9.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Brad McCormick wrote: You continue to tell us what's wrong with the current state of scholarship (or lack thereof...) in various areas. What, I am curious to know, is your *constructive program*? Where would you like us to be trying to get to? ============ REPLY: I was reading Thomas Nagel's latest book *The Last Word* last night, and his closing paragraph seems apt here: "Once we enter the world for our temporary stay in it, there is no alternative but to try to decide what to believe and how to live, and the only way to do that is by tring to decide what is the case and what is right. Even if we distance ourselves from some of our thoughts and impulses, and regard them from outside, the process of trying to place ourselves in the world leads eventually to thoughts that we cannot think of as merely "ours". If we think at all, we must think of ourselves, individually and collectively, as submitting to the order of reasons rather than creating it". 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/ InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html **************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:29:41 +0000 Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is Comments: Resent-From: "Ian Pitchford" Comments: Originally-From: Ted Hermary From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Re: Failure of Social Constructivism In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:47:31 EDT IMO Stephen Cole is a fine sociologist of science, though not a comparably fine sociologist of scientific knowledge. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was sorely pissed for having his area left out of a book which pretends to be an overview of Science Technology Studies. I think he has a fairly legitimate complaint on that matterm though to be fair I also know of pretentions "overviews" of sociology of science which barely mention current sociology of science. In short, there's always a selective view of the "field" in these things. The main problem is that Cole is under the impression that social constructionism is a science-like enterprise, explanatory in aim. It is possible to read the 1970s strong programme (and some scholars) in this way, though neither *social* constructivism nor *explanatory* arguments fit many others social constructionists. I suspect Cole knows the difference between these things, but wants to argue that sociology of scientific knowledge should be a science. More relevant is whether the person posting the Cole quotes understands important distinctions well enough to declare social constructionism a fraud -- something which even Cole doesn't say. My guess is "no", but I could be wrong. With the proper distinctions in mind, social constructionism has provided mountains of illustrations of how what scientists conider knowledge at any given point had at least partly social origins. To my mind, it is incumbent upon Cole to show that there was ever an instance in which none of the social constructionists arguments about the practice and/or culture of science applies. I doubt he can, though even scientists come up with examples in which what counted as knowledge were not determined by the data. While I defend social constructionists against facile attacks like Cole's, I spend another part of my time attacking social constructionists, always on other grounds, and never because they committed fraud. (At worst because of silly arguments.) Ted Martin (Ted) Hermary (ABD) Department of Sociology McGill University 855 Shebrooke Street West Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T7 e-mail: czth@musica.mcgill.ca ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 10:31:45 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: (Fwd) The Poverty versus eugenic choice MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Forwarded message: Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:54:26 -0600 (CST) From: "Edward M. Miller, University of New Orleans" To: hbe-l@a3.com Subject: The Poverty versus eugenic choice Ed Miller here: Perhaps the strongest argument for eugenics is that without it a welfare state will eventually self-destruct. The reason is the the less able, and those with less self control (less conscientiousness) will have more offspring than the more able, and better controlled, partially because these people are better at birth control. Eventually the economy becomes too poor to support the welfare state. The only viable (i.e. able to continue for the long run) alternative to this is a system by which people basically support their own children. The less successful probably have more children, but they live in such poverty that they leave the same number of descendants as the more prosperous. Given that humans can increase in population even in the most grinding poverty, the alternative of enough poverty among the less able to prevent steady deterioration in ability and character among the poorer classes is not very attractive. I make this point and others in a recently pbulished paper of mine: Miller, Edward M, "Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run." In Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 5, Steven A. Peterson, Al Somit, Eds. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1997, 391-416. I can E-mail or snail mail copies to any one interested who does not have a copy. **************************************************************** 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/i