On May 8, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
ravi wrote:
The new great white father is scientific/materialism.
You mean there is no difference between (say) Pinker & Summers on the
one hand, Levins, Lewontin, & Gould on the other? You take your notion
of science from the likes of Summers, which puts you on his side of
the
argument.
My notion of science doesn’t matter. The question is: which side, of
the two described above, holds the centre (and power) in science today?
You have, I fear, a kneejerk response to the word "science," and run
around pasting that label on everything you don't like, whether it has
any connection to serius science or not.
That's nonsense. You have not understood a word I have written, nor
(consequently) do you have any idea what I think about science (with
or without quotes). For edification (though not to answer your
confusion about me), I suggest you take a look at Chomsky's appearance
at the Sociobiology Study Group in 1976, and work your way forward
from there.
Note that I did not write just that:
rigour = hard science = reductionist assumptions
(the first part is true of most productive human ventures, not just
science, and the second part of the equation is just plain wrong).
I wrote that that's the lesson that has been learnt (by those seeking
a particular kind of advancement or recognition). The list that
matters in this newer context is not Lewontin or Gould (one of whom is
dead and gone), but Huffington Post blogging liberals like D.S.Wilson.
For a meaningful analysis, the last sentence of my post (and the use
"scientific" in it) should be read in the context of this ongoing
battles within science (not against science) and how it relates to
those who wish to be seen as scientific.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
