Re: It's our final exam
> Who has the evidence for the atoms? Scientists may. Advanced > university science students may. You say you are one of the latter, > so you may. But most people *believe* in atoms, just like they > used to believe in God. Ask the ordinary man in the street for > proof that the earth goes around the sun. He doesn't even have > access to a telescope to gather the evidence, and he wouldn't > know what to do with the telescope of someone lent it o him. > Anyone who've seen nuclear powerstations or the pictures of the mushroom cloud is aware, that the evidence for atoms is "proven". The ordinary man on the street knows, that he would be able to answer your questions if he went into a library. I yet to see any consistent response in the physical world that is due to a god. And nobody whether educated or not can point me to such evidence. And people are aware of this, it is only in the US and other educationally/emotionally or just physically needy countries where religion is taken as any sort of substitute for reality. > It's a long story, but the material universe > constructed by the activity of scientists has > come to be believed by people to be "real" apart > from the activity of doing science which builds > and keeps in circulation this world view. Thus > we get such nonsensical ideas as that all > human behavoir is causally determined because > we detach the activity of science (explaining > how things are causally determined, etc.) from the > human activity -- the meaningful choices -- in > which that activity is grounded. What is > really real is not the *results* of science, > but the *doing of science, including what > scientists do with the results of their work*. > If we focus on that human activity "as a whole", > we see a very different "reality" than if > we disconnect the results of the activity and > say that those results are reality "Uberhaupt" > (The wohle thing). The net of such a shift in > our relation to science would not be to stop > scientists from doing experiments (although > some scientists, esp. pschologists, might change > the kinds of experiments they do and the sense they > make of their results!). The net of such a > shift would be to bring a political discourse about > the activity of doing science and that activity's > connections with the rest of life into the center > of what w think of as "reality" (displacing > the "physical universe" from that role). > Technics would become politicized not in the > sense of meddling with what experiments > are allowed to be done, but rather in the sense > that we would focus in depth on what happens when > scientists do whatever it is they believe right > to do. Thinks like "ecology", "engineering ethics", > "environmental impact studies", etc. all are > small steps toward this kind of wholistic > self-understanding of science in social life. > > Is that any clearer? I'm willing to > try again. > I decided not to disect - or "decontsruct" if you like - the above paragraph so I just give my impression; Well, the gist of it seems to me, that you subscribe to the view, that there is no such thing as a reality, and that human behaviour therefore is an independent entity, devoid of physical/social conditioning. I think the dynamic interaction between nature and human society cannot be ignored as a reality through our history, whether scientists are involved or not. This is evidence for me for a physical reality of which we are part of. For most part human behaviour is determined by the physical and social environment; progress and sophistication in social development means that people may have more choice, be aware of these choices and free to make these choices. At this point in time the vast majority of people is missing out on these options alltogether, so freedom of choice does not - yet - exist. Social science however is not the same as physical science as experiments/repeatability/controls etc. cannot be used for proving things without doubt, and also human behaviour (the examined social reality) maybe actually change as the result of such social experiments; feedback has a major role. Which ofcouse again doesn't mean that social reality doesn't exist, only that we have to find the best possible methods available to describe it and eventually manipulate it also to our advantage. Eva > \brad mccormick > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list/server information please
(Sally?) Would you send the list instructions to the list and would you do that about once/month so people who are stuck here against their wishes may be released... Eva [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
Go on then, Eva Durant. Wine, Beer or something new? MM Durant wrote: > > In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of > > communication? > > > > The world is not more self-interested than before > but we know more about the pattern of this self-interest and in the > way it works best as a force to integrate and cooperate > humans to live in societies without which they couldn't have become > so successful as a species. > We have more chance to communicate > to the widest of the populations than ever before. > > Eva (for a paradigm-free zone) > > > > MM > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. Ed Weick
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
> In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of > communication? > The world is not more self-interested than before but we know more about the pattern of this self-interest and in the way it works best as a force to integrate and cooperate humans to live in societies without which they couldn't have become so successful as a species. We have more chance to communicate to the widest of the populations than ever before. Eva (for a paradigm-free zone) > MM > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the lonely net
THE LONELY NET A two-year, $1.5-million study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, funded by the National Science Foundation and major technology companies, has concluded that Internet use appears to cause a decline in psychological well-being. A director of the study says, "We are not talking here about the extremes. These were normal adults and their families, and on average, for those who used the Internet most, things got worse." One hour a week of Internet use led on average to an increase of 1% on the depression scale, an increase of 0.04% on the loneliness scale, and a loss of 2.7 members of the subject's social circle (which averaged 66 people). Thomas: Boy, am I impressed with these statistics. Imagine, a whole 1% increase on the depression scale! Them social scientists are really getting accurate - not even the old plus or minus 5% disclaimer. And shucks, a whole 0.04% on the loneliness scale. I'm beginning to feel that 1% depression sneaking up on me right now as I think of the results of this study. I phoned my best friend, but he had his cell turned off and now the loneliness is really hitting, I think, no mind you this is just a subjective opinion, I must be topping out at 0.05% and I'm even afraid to check out my social circle for fear it will increase my depression scale. Nice to know that all these things I am experiencing are scientifically validated by scientist of the wonderful mathematic discipline called statistics! Although the study participants used e-mail, chat rooms, and other social features of the Internet to interact with others, they reported a decline in interaction with their own family members and a reduction in their circles of friends. "Our hypothesis is, there are more cases where you're building shallow relationships [on the Internet], leading to an overall decline in feeling of connection to other people." Thomas: Now Jay and Eva and Brad and all those other FW's, I'm sorry to have to finally admit that ours is a shallow relationship. Why them scientists have even formed a "hypothesis". The next step is a full blown theorem and then we really are condemned to becoming a fact. Since the 169 study participants, all from the Pittsburgh area, were not chosen in a random selection process, it is not clear how the findings apply to the general population, but a RAND Corporation senior scientist says, "They did an extremely careful scientific study, and it's not a result that's easily ignored." (New York Times 30 Aug 98) Thomas: Whoops, I wonder if these stats hold true for Ottawa, perhaps they will form the baseline for a whole group of supporting studies. Them folks in Bangladesh better stop fighting floods and check out their depression meter, there will be lots of grants given in Harvard and Yale to prove or disprove this vitally important new set of insights. Defined by science, I remain your shallow correspondent, Thomas Lunde
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
Yep, if that makes any sense, though I don't know about the zen bit. So can we expect a golden socialist future of mutual understanding based on some scientific knowledge tempered with wisdom? Or the same old dialectic between opposite understandings? MM Thomas Lunde wrote: > >In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of > >communication? > > Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you > feel > there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, > the > master answers "nyet". My point was that when self interest, whether > personal, or national, or your local stockbroker is involved in which > their > answer is related back to "whats the best for me" then you cannot > trust that > answer. For any statement "they" make will become fluid should their > self > interest change. This then becomes the paradigm - lack of trust. > This is > the spiral to chaos. >
Guardian: A Crisis of Liberalism (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:32:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list STOP-IMF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Guardian: A Crisis of Liberalism (fwd) >From Barry Coates of the World Development Movement in the UK: To add to the interesting coverage that you have been circulating from the US, the following article appeared in today's Guardian newspaper (one of the UK's most respected dailies). It was titled "A Crisis of Liberalism" in later editions. Regards to all, Barry Coates, World Development Movement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. 28 Aug 98 Rescuing Russia: The danger is of driving the country into the arms of a quick-fix strong man The Guardian 1st Edition UNFETTERED capitalism has done what Stalin could never do: it has brought the West to the brink of economic turmoil. Belatedly, it is now recognised that the financial and political crisis that is engulfing Russia is not just a problem for Boris Yeltsin but a threat to the stability of the entire global economy. In truth, this is a disaster that has been waiting to happen. It is perhaps not the time for those who have been warning of the dangers of uncontrolled capital and unbridled laissez-faire policies to say 'we told you so', but it is worth saying anyway. We told you so. Those responsible for managing the world economy are as culpable as the French military strategists who believed that the Maginot Line was the answer to German aggrandisement and the British blimps who left Singapore at the mercy of the Japanese in 1942 by pointing all the big guns out to sea. However, the real issue at this juncture is not to apportion blame for the current predicament, because we know who's to blame. The real issue is to find ways of ameliorating the impact of the collapse and to learn the lessons of the past year. Let's start with some basics. The prevailing philosophy of the past quarter-century has been that there is no such thing as too much liberalisation. Trade barriers, exchange controls, capital controls all had to be dismantled as quickly as possible. The state had to be diminished in size and downgraded in importance. Interventionism in any guise was frowned upon. At first only rightwing politicians believed in the new dogma, but eventually politicians of the left - chastened by electoral defeat - started to recite the globalisation mantra as well. According to the new orthodoxy, there was nothing that could be done to hold back the new global forces, even if parties of the left wanted to do so. Which, sad to say, not many of them did by the mid-1990s. >From the standpoint of the new policy elite, there is really nothing to worry about. Indeed, the IMF's answer to the crisis in south-east Asia was to call for even more capital liberalisation and impose economic policies of such draconian austerity that around 100 million people will be below the poverty line by the end of this year. Now it is Russia's turn for the same medicine. Theo Waigel, Germany's finance minister, says it is up to Russia to sort out its own problems; the IMF's approach is that bailing out Moscow is simply throwing good money after bad. Mr Waigel needs to think again. Quite obviously, there are no easy solutions to the Russian problem, but the very least the West should do is put together a multi-billion dollar rescue package to underpin the rouble. This is what the United States did for Mexico after the peso crisis in 1995, and Germany should organise the same sort of whip round for Russia. OVER the medium term, the West needs to consider a Marshall Plan for Russia, something that should have been put in place at the very start of the 1990s in order to smooth the transition from a command economy. The aid to Russia has been too little, too late: back in the late 1940s the Marshall Plan was worth 2 per cent of American GDP per year for four years; a staggeringly generous gift to western Europe that will probably never be repeated. Interestingly, it is now being tacitly recognised that some of the policy prescriptions foisted upon the Russians were perhaps not that wise. The Financial Times yesterday suggested that the only alternative to the hyperinflation generated by a plunging rouble was to 'slam on exchange controls'. George Soros, the speculator who has lost Dollars 2 billion in Russia, has called for a currency board, under which the rouble would be pegged to another currency - almost certainly the dollar - and then be obliged to keep it steady by importing America's monetary policy. More pain for the long-suffering Russian public seems almost inevitable, but the danger is of driving the country into the arms of a strong man offering quick-fix solutions. Russia is, after all, still a nuclear power of considerable importance. O
Re: the lonely net
Greetings all, I heard this discussed briefly on NPR(US Nat'l Public Radio), and don't agree given my personal experiences. Gregarious people living in rural areas can expand their personal contacts in a focused fashion using topic classified lists. Sort of like a short wave radio with a searching filter to locate others with similiar interests. This can (& has) lead to the establishment of many fruitful relationships, which can be followed up by in person meetings and relationships. If a person is using the Internet as an escape (like tv, or video games, or even reading), then lonliness may be reinforced. To blame the technology seems a bit hasty at this point. Do people blame the telephone for excessive verbal interaction & resultant decline in psychological wellbeing? Maybe.. I remain unconvinced, particularly given the value judgements implicit in the social sciences. Steve
New paper on Malthus by Catton
Malthus: More Relevant Than Ever by William R. Catton, Jr. August 1998 http://www.npg.org/forums/catton_malthus.htm
the lonely net
Agree? THE LONELY NET A two-year, $1.5-million study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, funded by the National Science Foundation and major technology companies, has concluded that Internet use appears to cause a decline in psychological well-being. A director of the study says, "We are not talking here about the extremes. These were normal adults and their families, and on average, for those who used the Internet most, things got worse." One hour a week of Internet use led on average to an increase of 1% on the depression scale, an increase of 0.04% on the loneliness scale, and a loss of 2.7 members of the subject's social circle (which averaged 66 people). Although the study participants used e-mail, chat rooms, and other social features of the Internet to interact with others, they reported a decline in interaction with their own family members and a reduction in their circles of friends. "Our hypothesis is, there are more cases where you're building shallow relationships [on the Internet], leading to an overall decline in feeling of connection to other people." Since the 169 study participants, all from the Pittsburgh area, were not chosen in a random selection process, it is not clear how the findings apply to the general population, but a RAND Corporation senior scientist says, "They did an extremely careful scientific study, and it's not a result that's easily ignored." (New York Times 30 Aug 98) ** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 545-6307 Phone (613) 545-6000x4937 * * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * 'Reexamine everything you've been told, * * and disregard everything that insults * * your soul' Walt Whitman* ** **
Re: the lonely net
> Agree? I certainly don't agree with the claim that this was an "extremely careful scientific study" based on the information provided in the short excerpt. Did the researchers consider the possibility that the cause and effect chain goes the other way -- that is that people who are becoming socially disconnected are driven to the internet to seek consolation (and not really finding it)? We know that the 169 participants in the study were not randomly selected, but we don't know if there were any other precautions taken to make this study simulate double-blind, controlled trials. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
>In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of >communication? Thomas: This question sounds like one of those zen koans where you feel there should be an obvious answer and every time you put one forth, the master answers "nyet". My point was that when self interest, whether personal, or national, or your local stockbroker is involved in which their answer is related back to "whats the best for me" then you cannot trust that answer. For any statement "they" make will become fluid should their self interest change. This then becomes the paradigm - lack of trust. This is the spiral to chaos. > >MM > >Durant wrote: > >> It depends how you define and in whose interest rational thought is >> used. >> >> Eva Thomas: Rational thought as I am groping with the concept is the idea of logic in which a premise is put forth and then extrapolated out to a conclusion. Your statement mirrors mine in that no objective criteria is used, rather the subjective criteria of "whose interest" is used. As I can never know what anothers real interest is and if they refuse to use open criteria such as facts or previously agreed upon statements, then each conversation or decision is open to directions that are wildly erratic. Two instances: One, in economic forecasting I constantly read something like, "the banks have revised their forecasts for growth down to 2.% from their previous forecast. If I had made decisions based on their first forecast, they in essence are changing the rules by their last forecast making my "rational" decisions very irrational. Two, politicians such as the current crisis make statements such as "I will not resign" by Boris Yeltsin but he didn't say, "I may be forced to re-evaluate the use of the powers of the office of the President" which may make his leadership a figurehead and allow the return of a communist style of government. An honorable statement a week ago might have been, "I am committed to market reforms but their is a strong group who are advocating a return to a Communist style economy. Or, I wll resist that movement, or I will consider the validity of that movement. The IMF made a committment to provide certain funds to Russia, today, I read that committment is being withdrawn - how can I trust future IMF committments. It's a murky subject full of what if and he said/she said type of ambiguities but until we demand accountability at the level of communication, then we don't have communication. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde >> >> ... >> > In my sense of our current historical position, the rational >> argument has >> > become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which >> serves the >> > goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be >> morally right >> > and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the >> dominant >> > paradigm. >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > >> > Thomas Lunde >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-- > > > >Mark Measday >UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 >France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] >Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd >and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I >can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. >Ed Weick > >
Re: The X Files ("deus ex machina" excuses)
In a world of pure self-interest, can there be any paradigms of communication? MM Durant wrote: > It depends how you define and in whose interest rational thought is > used. > > Eva > > ... > > In my sense of our current historical position, the rational > argument has > > become the de facto operating procedure in which any lie which > serves the > > goal of self interest is preferable to any action which may be > morally right > > and perhaps not serve the goal of self interest has become the > dominant > > paradigm. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Thomas Lunde > > > > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Measday UK tel/fax: 0044.181.747.9167 France tel: 0033.450.20.94.92/fax: 450.20.94.93 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Among herd animals, we are unique in that we can fall upon another herd and destroy it. Or we can consciously decide to leave it in peace. I can think of no other herd animal that has that capacity. Ed Weick
