Joanna wrote:
> >A critique of the development of science under capitalism would take much
> >more than an email. Suffice it to say that what we refer to as SCIENCE
> >today is a specific historical form suffering from specific historical
> >deformations. I leave it to your imagination to envision how
> >intelligent, conscious beings might be able to develop alternative forms.<
I wrote:
> >there's a difference between science in theory (what "intelligent, conscious
> >beings might be able to develop") and science in practice (the degenerated
> >science of a pharmaceutical company, etc.)
Carl writes:
> Again, I believe it's the nature of science itself -- not just the
> corruptive effects of capitalism -- that so often causes technology to have
> a destructive, dehumanizing impact on society. The ever increasing
> specialization of scientific knowledge seems to *require*
> division of labor, bureaucratization of R&D and minimization of individual
> responsibility for long-term consequences -- an extremely toxic combination.
I don't understand why scientific (consistent logical & empirical) thinking _requires_ "division of labor," bureaucratization, and the rest. Please explain.
Further, is there any way to convince anyone of the validity of your vision except in a (social) scientific way? or is it a simple expression of faith? (and what _is_ the alternative to scientific thinking? scientific thinking is _not_ the same as positivism.)
As Joanna says: >... science does not have to be limited to the above definition.<
Right. We should look to scientists such as Richard Lewontin, Richard Levins, Stephen Rose, etc., not to the over-specialized scientists who populate the corporate machine.
BTW, the following seems to represent a result of scientific research. It's also the type of thing that can be tested, perhaps even falsified, using scientific method:
> An Australian study of suicide over the last century has found
> significantly increased rates when conservative governments
> have been in power compared to Labor. They've taken into
> account every factor they could think of which could have
> explained the result and the relationship persists.
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -- Richard Feynman.
