Greetings Ham,
Are the things Science tell us Truth or just useful truth? Is
Evolution the Truth? Is Quantum Theory and the Special Theory of
Relativity the Truth? Science is funded by corporate and political
interests. Is Gobal Warming the Truth? Science creates machines to
test their hypothesis that have a built-in bias. Science expects the
public to accepts TiTs that are beyond experience. The history of
scientific theories is one of displacement. According to some in
this forum, Scientistic pronouncements should be considered beyond
question much like a new religion.
I had not heard of the 90's Science Wars until a few weeks ago, and
can think of nothing more important to consider from a MOQ
point-of-view. Well, that is imho.
Marsha
At 02:34 AM 4/16/2009, you wrote:
Marsha, Willblake2 --
What's all this about Science Wars in the 1990s?
Science and religion have always been in conflict ideologically, and
I could see how the Scopes trial of 1925 might be regarded as the
opening skirmish in the "battle" between the Darwinians and the
Creationists. But science wars in the 1990s in which, Marsha (the
sophist) conjectures, "RMP led the attack against Science"...?
To see what I'd missed in the last decade, I checked Wikipedia
(which seemed to be the only reference), and learned that the
cultural journal 'Social Text' was the first to use the term in May
1996 when it ran a "Science Wars" issue with essays contributed by
controversial writers in the social sciences and humanities. Among
the contributors was Alan Sokal, who submitted a paper purporting to
argue that quantum physics supported postmodernist criticism of
scientific objectivity. Sokal, a physicist, later confessed it was
a "...hoax to see if the journal editors would "publish an article
liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it
flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions". The incident
became known as "the Sokal Affair".
In a 2001 book titled "Making Social Science Matter", Dr. Bent
Flyvbjerg, writes: "However entertaining for bystanders, the
mudslinging of the Science Wars is unproductive. The Wars
undoubtedly serve political and ideological purposes in the
competition for research funds and in defining what Charles Lindblom
and Michel Foucault have called society's 'truth politics.' Judged
by intellectual standards, however, the Science Wars are misguided."
My Google search also revealed that Wikipedia has itself been
criticized for promulgating a case for the Science Wars. Stuart
Geiger, a Georgetown U. graduate who has submitted a number of
articles to Wiki, notes: "Instead of debating about the efficacy and
authority of science, academics are now debating the efficacy and
authority of Wikipedia." He's probably on to something.
Personally, I think the so-called "wars" are overblown if not
actually bogus. Despite the hand-wringing of Nicholas Maxwell and
others who would "humanize" the methodology of Science, the
empiricists should continue doing what they have done so brilliantly
for more than a century, and the philosophers and social scientists
should have the wisdom to get off their back.
(That's my opinion anyway.)
--Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
