Charles Turner ----------------
I finally got to this part of the essay:
``...We postmoderns have rejected that rejection of modern technology that for two centuries had been characteristic of the broad and strong, chiefly German, romantic tradition in which Heidegger stood.39 In that tradition, among the several grounds for the negative valuation of natural science, especially physical and mathematical science, was a view of such science as being nothing more, or other, or better than technology.40 Of these motives and passions our postmodern society and culture-albeit in other important respects romantic-know nothing, care nothing. On the contrary, it is in part because technology is so positively valued in postmodernity that it has now superseded science in cultural primacy.41 While this paper is not, per se, concerned with the actual, factual relation between science and technology, it is difficult to doubt that if those who speak for science share these postmodern cultural values, then consequences will likely follow for the character, even the existence, of science. Technology-which is not, primarily, an '-ology', but simply the collective noun for all the many ways things are in fact done and made-technology is what it is independently, largely, of our conceptions of it. The opposite is the case with science, which is, largely, only what we think it is. That is, the boundary between science and non-science, as well as the bulk of the activities that are science, is not primarily a matter of fact but of a cultural consensus. Consequently, science will tend to conform to its supposed relation to technology as that supposed relation informs the expectations of actors, individual and corporate. The tendency today to emphasize the technological aspects of science so greatly as to obliterate the distinction between science and technology is not limited to philosophers, sociologists and historians of science, but has become common among spokespersons for science too. Those most influential in science not only emphasize the importance of new technology for scientific advance-and minimize the importance of new concepts-but also deny the existence of any clear boundary or distinction between science and technology. Increasingly, these influentials are discarding science's claims to distinctiveness and defining science in technological terms and through technological goals.42''
I am going to try to translate this. The society at large is going to lose the sciences and their many benefits and contributions to the enlightenment project and this includes the social benefits of enlightenment thinking, because of various shifts in our cultural values.
Hmm. I agree. But the question is what is driving these shifts. My crude answer is money and jobs. The pragmatic capitalist is not going to put money into developing `new' scientific ideas which someday may or may not pay off. Since the capitalist class essentially owns the federal agencies that fund science, they want to see some potential technological results like a better bomb or a new drug to market. How many federal or private grants do you suppose were out there to work on a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem? There are several prizes with some money, but you can't live on them.
I'll give Forman credit for his humor and crankiness:
``Today, in postmodernity, Henry's cynosure of for-its-own-sake science is without cultural understanding or support. Consequently, those who identify themselves as scientists have, overwhelmingly, no other ambition than to place themselves in the service of 'useful purposes'. In the experimental sciences, biology especially, this process has been far advanced for almost two decades now.47 To be sure, cosmic-discovery science and history-of-life-on-earth science continue, but less as exceptions than as 'useful' to an increasingly credulous, 'spirituality'-oriented, romantic-illusionary, postmodern culture.48 ''
And I finally got to the sections on Marx and Veblen. This paper is 153 pages long. Holy fuck. It is a fascinating read, whether I agree or really understand or not... Sure blame it on Heidegger he's always worth a few kicks... Even so, I learned more about doing philosophy from Heidegger than anybody except Cassirer...or Feyerabend.
CG