On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 01:48:15 -0400 (EDT) gcf at panix.com writes:
>gcf at panix.com:
>> >You would be hard put to find evidence of my detesting science.
>> >On the contrary, in the very message you're quoting I acknowledged
>> >its powers.
>
>Jim heartfield:
>> I read this as a little ironic: 'which can tell us how to vaporize
>great
>> cities in the twinkling or an eye or give us Frankenstein foods to
>eat'.
>
>The irony lies only in the way in which science is applied,
>which is not always as beneficial as advertised. Its powers
>are not ironized: science can really do these things.
Indeed it can, which is all the more reason that it is necessary that people acquire a good grasp of basic scientific concepts so that they can make informed decisions concerning the uses of science in our society.
>
>Gordon:
>> > However, if the fundamentalists say that belief
>> >should be free and someone else says it should be coerced,
>> >then certainly I stand with the fundamentalists on that issue,
>> >although I doubt if they would care for my company.
Well, the fundamentalist may not wish to publicly acknowledge that they are standing with you but if spend any time reading creationist literature especially the stuff that argues that creation and evolution both represent two equally legitimate scientific theories, it soon becomes evident that these creationists subscribe to an epistemology that is closely akin to that of the pomos. When you start seeing creationist authors quoting favorably from Thomas Kuhn or even from Feyerabend, you know that the gap between the creationists and the pomos is not all that wide at all (BTW Feyerabend was known to make statements that were sympathetic towards the creationists' cause).
As long as we are on the subject of the relations between religious fundamentalisms and pomo, it is interesting to note as Meera Nanda has pointed out in India, pomo which was originially introduced there by leftist intellectuals has been taken up with some enthusiasm by right-wing Hindu nationalists, who have found it a useful tool for bashing Enlightenment ideas as being "colonialist".
>
>Jim heartfield:
>> But this is hardly the issue in Kansas. Teaching the theory of
>evolution
>> in a classroom is not coercing a belief, it is making available a
>body
>> of knowledge and theory to students.
>
>Perhaps not belief, then, but profession of belief is coerced.
>In school -- a coerced environment for people of some ages --
>one is not free, for instance, to say that two plus two equals
>five or that the earth is flat or that x-y-z spells "cat" in
>English. We demand acceptance on faith (or at least the
>profession thereof). We believe, I suppose, that this injury
>to freedom is overcome by certain practical considerations in
>the cases given. Can such a case be made for the whole body
>of currently accepted scientific knowledge? If so it has
>impressive virtues. As far as I know, however, evolution and
>$1.50 will get you a bus ride in New York -- provided you have
>exact change, of course.
>
>> ...
In other words you think that the public schools should stick to teaching students only stuff that will assure them of a job after graduation. No theoretical science for them and I would imagine no humanities for them either. After all, theoretical science & the humanities plus $1.50 will buy them a bus ride in the Big Apple. A more anti-democratic philosophy of education could not be envisaged.
>
>Gordon:
>> >whether or not it is "real" or possesses other interesting
>> >metaphysical properties.
>
>Jim heartfield:
>> Reality is not a metaphysical property, but a physical one.
>
>On the contrary, there is no way of proving that what we
>apprehend as physical reality is "real." The issue has been
>in play for several millennia and I doubt its resolution any
>time soon. Phenomena, yes -- we know about them. Surely
>the _Ding_an_sich_ is still behind the veil, or if someone
>has brought it forth, I have not heard the news.
In other words, metaphysical idealism is to be used as a rationale for not teaching schoolkids basic scientific concepts (after all they only apply in the phenomenal realm not in the noumenal realm). No doubt such a view would prove useful to those who want biblical revelation taught in the schools as TRUTH.
>
>Gordon:
>> > I prefer a skeptical population
>> >to a bunch of true believers, myself.
>
>Jim heartfield:
>> Science, unlike religion is premissed upon scepticism. To look for
>the
>> answer, that is the essence of science. Not to look, that is the
>essence
>> of religion. Conflating the two is making a virtue of stupidity.
>
>Then we must be sceptical about science and scientists, as
>well. Exactly my point _contra_ Sagan and his advice.
I take it then that you have not read much of Sagan. If you had read Sagan, you would realize that he very much valued the incalcation of skepticism towards authority (including scientific authorities) as being essential for a healthy democracy.
Jim Farmelant
>--
>
>Gordon
___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.