[lbo-talk] science, objectivity, truth, taste and tolerance (and other responses)

[ravi]

At around 5/10/06 3:54 pm, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
> 
> And so, at the end of the day, what it comes down to
> is a request that as we face what might be called the
> universe’s big strangeness (which is almost surely
> bigger and stranger than our capacity to fully
> understand) we show a bit of humility when choosing
> investigative tools and methods.  What we call science
> (the method and the machinery) is good – very good
> indeed – but there are questions it can’t answer
> and powers it shouldn’t claim. 
> 
> Indeed, when people are excessively dazzled by the
> burning chrome glow of “science” and forget its
> limitations as well as the value of other,
> ‘non-scientific’ techniques they tend to mis-use
> “science” and wield it as a rhetorical weapon –
> a ferocious thing unleashed like Fenrisulfr, set loose
> to devour Odin at Ragnarok.  This is “scientism”,
> the abuse of science’s achievements for the purpose
> of supporting various elitist ideas.
> 
> This, at least, is my understanding of Ravi’s
> position.
> 

Now, if you had posted this bit (but what's with all the strange
characters?) a few days ago, I could have spent less time explaining
myself in my tortured, verbose manner, and more time reading my primes
book :-).

Regarding the rest of your post, it is in fact the overwhelming success
of science (and I am leaving the quotes out here since I think you and I
probably define it fairly similarly) that calls for greater scrutiny of
how it is put to use (in the world and in rhetoric).

	--ravi

-- 
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA:       http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/