To demonstrate how progressive a scientific mind can be...
"The real purpose of Socialism is to get past the predatory phase of
human development." --Albert Einstein
So, what does socialist science look like?
In response to Michael:
It is good to meet you. Perhaps you are one
On 2017-04-25 13:49, Florian Cramer wrote:
> In other words, if anti-scientific populism is one (right-wing) hell,
> evidence-based policies and regulations is the other
> (neoliberal-technocratic) hell.
This a more double-edged sword. I remember lots of policy discussions
and proposals in the ar
I took part on Saturday in the March for Science in SF. It wast a bit
of d�ja vu for me, since, about 47 years ago, I helped organize and
participated in the March 4, scientists' movement that became "Science
for the People" (SftP), and then the first Earth Day the next year.
Sligh
I'll try a deconstruction from the perspective of having
"designed" a leaderless political organization...
On 04/23/2017 06:54 PM, Florian Cramer wrote:
> 1) The central demand of the 'March for Science', "evidence-based
> policies and regulations", is toxic and dangerous.
This approach has cert
On 04/25/2017 04:34 AM, Eric Kluitenberg wrote:
... the proliferation of automated citation indexes, research and
performance metrics, persisting science publishing oligopolies, a
general war on non-quantiative approaches, a general distrust towards
the Humanities and even the social sciences (a
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Lunenfeld, Peter B.
wrote:
> or as little sense as anything else. If you feel there remains a
> difference, then writing off the M4S comes off as pointlessly fractious
> at best, and ally-denigrating, wheel-churning self-destruction at worst.
Just to be clear: I
Fascinating discussion - this point of Bian seems crucial:
> On 25 Apr 2017, at 05:38, Brian Holmes wrote:
>
> Times change and those who cling to outdated critiques become irrelevant
> if not reactionary. One of the most urgent agendas of the present is the
> transformation of the scientific
Like any of the disciplines, professions or institutions whereby society
shapes itself, that thing called science is worth struggling over. And
never was there a better chance to do it than now! I agreee with Peter
Lunenfeld, and with David Garcia's remarks on Karl Popper. Those who
support a l
Where I sit, I've been studying / promoting mixed-methods and
arts-based research with the ASC! project out of SFU, including the use
of dance with Parkinson's patients and the use of circus as a
social-work tool (social circus). We need to legitimize this work, and
there's a broader need to legit
Exactly what I was thinking, Peter.
I marched on Saturday as well because I'd prefer that not only my kids
have a planet to live on, but one that has not seen even worse crises
of displacement thanks to drought and famine. I'd like to not see more
and more immigrants rounded up an put into detenti
On 24 April 2017 at 06:25, Prem Chandavarkar wrote:
Having said that, Nagel refuses to allow the pendulum to swing to
the other extreme of total relativism, one has to build on the
utility of the objective viewpoint in order to make a complete
life. One cannot deny
> What it really needed for me to believe in the efficacy of science as a
> political force ...
When this event was advertised on a departmental mailing list here in
Edinburgh, it was specifically described to be "non-political". That struck
me as at best nonsensical but at the same time oddly rev
Salaried scientists, as any other salaried group, are mostly functional
cowards. As it was mentioned in a recent thread, there is a substantial
difference between "networks of practice" and "communities of practice".
It sounds silly, but the time has come when we need Kickstarter-based
fundamen
This is nicely put. And your point about context is especially apt. It's
comparable—though not identical—to the liberal misunderstanding which
attempts to substitute "All lives matter" for "Black lives matter." The
matter is context: Science is systematically under attack as Black
people are system
worst.
Impurely yours --
Peter Lunenfeld
From: nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org [nettime-l-boun...@mail.kein.org] on
behalf of Eric Kluitenberg [e...@xs4all.nl]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 12:33 AM
To: Nettime
Subject: Re: Why I won't supp
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 4:37 AM David Garcia
wrote:
3) Just as opposition against Trump creates false solidarity with
neoliberals, opposition against climate change-denying, creationist etc.
politics can create false solidarity with a Popperian understanding of
research and knowledge
It is a problem when an issue is polarised across two extremes without
exploring some substantive middle ground. Am reading Thomas Nagel, whose views
are quite useful on this subject. He argues that the objective viewpoint that
science prescribes is extremely useful, but if you extend this vie
Similar sentiment - in fact I am all for ‘alternative facts’, just different
alternatives than the ones the Trump posse is proposing…
-e.
> On 23 Apr 2017, at 18:54, Florian Cramer wrote:
>
> Why I won't support the 'March for Science':*
>
>
> 1) The central
Nagel says in The View from Nowhere, âWhat really happens in the pursuit of
objectivity is that a certain element of oneself, the impersonal or objective
self, which can escape from the specific contingencies of oneâs creaturely
point of view, is allowed to predominate. Withdrawing into thi
I agree here with , Morlock. The March for Science is not the problem.
Science is knowledge, learning, knowing. The problem is corporate and
privatized research agenda governing the direction of flows; the problem is
science being made real if that's what serves capitalism. It's gone on
forever and
ween Art and
Law,' Contour Biennale/DAI Public Program, March 11,12, 2017,
Mechelen
NEW PH: +49 (0) 17643631777
Leinestrasse 50, Neukolln, BERLIN
www.racheloreilly.net
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Florian Cramer
wrote:
(This was a social media posting, but I thought that I shou
It's more complicated:
This would not only create an oligarchy of those of who have the
means to fund scientific research for backing up a political demand.
Even worse, it's not about funding scientific research, it's about
buying 'results' and 'scientists'.
3) Just as opposition against
3) Just as opposition against Trump creates false solidarity with
neoliberals, opposition against climate change-denying, creationist etc.
politics can create false solidarity with a Popperian understanding of
research and knowledge. (Coincidentally, Popper's philosophy provided
(This was a social media posting, but I thought that I should share it with
the larger Nettime community. -F)
Why I won't support the 'March for Science':*
1) The central demand of the 'March for Science', "evidence-based
policies and regulations", is
24 matches
Mail list logo
