Either I have a style of writing or expression (or just way of thought) that is quite different from what I think it is [most of the time], or you harbor some deep personal grudge against me that makes you chose to write such commentary as the above. I can do something about the former, and I invite list-members to tell me (either on or off-list) so.
..............................
FOR EACH of us, there's at least one issue which reliably inspires a strong reaction.
I'm annoyed, for example, whenever someone starts in about blogs being a kind of failed amateur journalism (a description of very limited use since only a small minority of blogs focus on politics and political commentary).
Clearly Ravi, you're agitated by the reality or appearance of what you call "scientism".
No doubt, when you read the article, you zeroed in on moments such as the following:
"When I was a patient with a serious problem of uncertain outcome, I felt the powerful temptation to seek a magical solution. Most doctors are sympathetic to this sensibility. But a good doctor distinguishes magic from medicine."
There it was, the equation (or at least, what seemed to be the equation) of all 'alternative' therapies with "magic". I think you viewed this as a provocation of sorts, it reminded you of the scientism you defined at some length in the May 9th thread, "Ravi, What is Scientism and Why Does the Left Love it so?"
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060508/037773.html>
I would describe it, imperfectly, thus:
a) A sort of thorough-going Platonism regarding what is true or real and an "assertions and refutations" approach to describing this truth or reality. This is typically coupled with thorough-going reductionism and the recognition of contingency of results only in the face of irrefutable contrary argument or data.
[...]
full -
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060508/037773.html>
Come to think of it, the thread's title could be interpreted as being just the sort of condescension you're ready to oppose.
I'm sympathetic to many of your ideas about this, but I think you sometimes go too far in the opposite direction - at least rhetorically - calling into question elements of the scientific endeavor (or the whole bag) for reasons that aren't always clearly defined.
Consider, for example, this sentence, which you wrote today in response to B|L:
I thought the scientific method (if there is such a beast) was to present the data and make your references explicit?
Listserv communications are easily misinterpreted. It struck me as a bit unfortunate you'd (apparently) call the scientific method into question in the course of making your argument. A casual - or rushed - reader might think you were suggesting 'alternative' techniques were universally superior to those derived from science which, it appears, you either dismiss or de-value.
I don't think you dismiss or de-value science; after all, your livelihood is built upon electronics and mathematics. Still, whenever anything smelling of 'scientism' comes up, you seem to vigorously dive in on the side of, well, whatever happens to appear to be the other side (be it religious expression as in the case of your objections to Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" or our current imbroglio).
.d.
The most important isotope of plutonium is 239Pu, with a half-life of 24,110 years.
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/