i wrote:
>
> (yes this is all old hat: if you are too strict in your definition, such
> as defining science as a 'method', then it has been demonstrated that
> what we accept as science often breaks this 'method' rule. if you make
> the definition more general, say a form of discovery or reporting, then
> many activities, that the high priests are unwilling to accept as
> science, qualify).
>
> my own suspicion (which i will try to flesh out if this thread proceeds)
> is that what is broadly accepted as science or scientific activity (or
> approach), by the high priests and their followers, is indeed inherently
> dehumanizing (i think that's carl remick's [sp?] position?) and
> dangerous.
>
to throw in a bit more into this: some of this suspicion arose from
observing a magician and defender of "western science" (and i agree with
jim's use of the quoted prefix 'western'), named 'the amazing randi',
carry out some tricks at bell laboratories. in a self-congratulatory
tone he described his travels to third-world nations to expose
superstitions and errors (among the 'experts' and the people there), and
was met with much adulation and applause from the assembled ph.d's and
men of science. recently a leading researcher, a rising star in the
scientific community, at the very same bell labs was found to have been
doctoring his data and results, for years. what was more interesting was
to note that the magician's lecture was carried to various other sites
using old techniques of simulcasting, but also by multicast streaming
over the internet. and that latter technology, one of the fastest
growing and far reaching efforts of the last few decades, had derived
little contribution from the inbred community that was enjoying the
magician's 'in' jokes. this caricature in many ways seemed to represent
the way science exists in society.
--ravi
