I had no response to my arguments;
Science is only a tool and even art would be non-existent without
scientific problemsolving. It is the social/economical/cultural
system that poses and applies/buysscience; so blame that for any
"miscarriages".
> Sorry guys, but considering the history of people who have "solved" the problems
> of the past like highways, nuclear power, the "free market", the buffalo, the
> Indians, the internal combustion engine, the Concorde, the economy, all with
> out looking at the big picture, makes me not look to science as the great parent
> or authority for all things that have to do with life.
as above
>The simple fact is that
> science has a history with the wolf that makes trusting them tough at times. It
> was science as a tool that fascilitated changes in industrial practices for the
> better. But it often was the morality of religion that made them use the
> science.
you mean the economical/social/cultural system
>As Mike Hollinshead has pointed out on many occasions as he described
> the actions of the non-conformist industrialists who were Quaker. Science
> wants to take credit for them, but they no more deserve that credit than the
> piano does for the pianist.
when did science wanted to take credit for the few quakers? Or for
anything for that matter; accrediting blame or credit is not part of
science, but of the social/cultural establishment. Sorry to be
repetitive, but there seems to be a difficulty with getting through...
>On the other hand there are many scientists like
> Mengele the beast who were doing serious science that was immoral, just as
> economics likes to skip Marx and Lenin as children of their best motives.
> While in this country genocide has been propagated in the name of science
> while being protected by the propagation of ignorance.
>
Mengele's stuff was adopted by a fascist (capitalist social/cultural)
system. (I don't even know if it can be excepted as science, how well
his data was duplicated and repeated in peers's studies, etc, but
that is irrelevant here.) Most economics do not skip Marx and Lenin,
as their definitions of some aspect of economy and social system and
their conclusions are as valid as ever. Their "science" was
sloganised but not applied, if it were applied, all socialist system
would have been democratic, as that was a basic principle of Marx's
and even Lenin's theories.
What country you are refering to in the last sentence?
US?
> Making such a royal mess all in the name of the various departments of science,
> seems like those connected to it would exhibit at least a bone of humility. But
> alas all of that muscle is calcium carbonate. I am not convinced that the
> Messiah exists but this I am convinced of, that that Individual would not be
> found in any one area of human professionalism. I realize Eva doesn't like the
> word but Synergy or the Big Picture is what it is all about for me.
>
We would be just an other type of ape without any art if we had no
science. The only question is how it is managed. The present
establishment is obviously not into integrating the various branches
and in looking into global solutions.
> If we have to have science acting as the U.S. Cavalry on this, then let it be
> the science of healing. I think the old medical law, "hurt no one," would make
> a far better rule in this case. Or if that fails, than use the old liability
> "Law of Blood" which says that any harm that comes from any action will be paid
> to those who are harmed from the pockets and lives of those who did the
> harming. If it is a life then a life is owed the clan that lost the member.
> They can decide whether it is capital punishment or whether they will just adopt
> the member and make him a sewer worker for the rest of his life.
>
you are losing me from here...
> All that being said, I agree that Jay's analysis is correct. In fact I can find
> speeches that go back 200 years predicting the coming catastrophe as a result of
> European land use policies. I have the speeches in my library. Speeches from
> men in paint and feathers from the U.S. to the jungles of Brazil and Bolivia.
> I might add that I am not including the marginal glosses in the Chief Seattle
> speech. We had no trouble developing the environment. We simply admitted that
> it was alive and that we were its children, not the reverse. I don't know
> whether it still exists but there was for a time a web-site on American Indian
> Environments which had a treasure trove of environmentalist articles.
>
So what you propose we do with the 5 billion + people that are
extra to requirement if we adopt the native american way of living?
>...
> All of this being said, I am not an anti-European or an anti-Scientist.
you sound pretty anti-scientist to me... by the way scientists
are all over the place, not only in Europe...
>I love
> Europeans and their culture and art. Some of my favorite relatives are European
> as well as my ex-wives. (I know it was cheap but I couldn't stop myself!) I
> value the great gifts that they have brought to the world. But that does not
> excuse the arrogance of sitting in a library and writing about people you have
> never seen when they are living down the street from that library. As a
> theater director I have to face the same temptation myself. People and their
> cultures are messy and complicated. But acknowledging that and working with it
> may get you want you desire much more quickly than being such a pure academic.
>
What's wrong with being an academic? If someone is into biochemistry,
they can be friendly with the neighbours... am I confused...
I don't think scientists are a different breed, they have as much
ground in culture/art as the next person. At the present, like
everybody else, they trying to survive, which means serving a
profit-hungry, insane, capitalist establishment. Some o fthem are
more couragous than others to fight, to risk family and careers to be
whistle-blowers etc., but happens in just the same proportions as to
artists, though artist usually have less responsibility on their
shoulders, even if a few do feel all the guilt of the world...
Eva
> So, Jay the key IMHO is to be inclusive, not exclusive. In point of fact I
> think this rhetoric around exclusivity has more to do with an act of power, than
> seeking a solution to solve the problem that could end us all. If in fact,
> that asteroid doesn't take us out first, or the global warming kills the food
> chain and makes it impossible for all to eat or the lousy air makes it
> impossible to develop our children's respiratory abilities. A good start on
> all of this might be watching them placing the shriveled dead bodies of the
> children of Sierra Leone in shallow graves without a casket much as you would
> your child's deceased pet.
>
> I still say that Art is non-polluting and if you pay for it, it adds to the
> GNP(like Brad's housewives) and develops the kind of abstract and structural
> holistic mapping ability that would make the population think more seriously
> about long term issues. There are even a lot of scientists who developed that
> kind of thought playing the piano and violin. (See Donald Schoen's Reflective
> Practitioner books). I believe that people who have more of an investment in
> the pride and pleasure of their cultural heritage and their family's future are
> less likely to ignore these things. Unless of course they are poor
> themselves. Still all being said, I admire Jay's passion, hardwork and
> imagination and I am envious of Brad's mind and education. I wish I could come
> up with quotes as varied and profound as he just seems to call up with ease.
>
> Regards,
>
> REH
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
