Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

47913Re: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Apr 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Nice pandering. On the level of the genome, the concept of race has no
      meaning.

      Wil


      -----Original Message-----
      From: devogney <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:09 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The functions of thinking


      -Louise,

      I very much agree with your statement Political suppression is ignored
      and denied, so that what claims to be science may only be a highly
      selective application of focussed intelligence.


      The results of scientific studies to a large extent will be the results
      that the organization funding the study desires.In the US over the last
      35 years or so, a good example is studies on pot smoking funded by the
      Drug Enforcement Administration.Any study funded by the DEA that found
      anything good about pot would never be published, and certainly the
      scientist would have lost a source of future funding. Likewise, any
      studies comparing different races or the 2 sexes, if the results come
      out wrong will subject the scientist to charges of racism or
      sexism.Certainly political and economic factors play a large role in
      what studies are done, what criteria are compared, and the conclusions
      reached.

      Tom



      -- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

      >

      > Still attempting to get a purchase on the basics. How to
      discriminate different realms of concern. As an example, a recent
      reference, the question arising, what is an Anglo-Saxon? This is not a
      biological category. However, the further question arises, as to the
      superstitious and magical nature of science, to which I have referred
      also. Political suppression is ignored and denied, so that what claims
      to be science may only be a highly selective application of focussed
      intelligence. To become a 'scientist', one must pass certain tests of
      social acceptability, which are cultural or quasi-religious, and may be
      themselves highly unscientific. What responsibilities are involved in
      philosophising? What is the relevance, if any, of courtesy? May one
      only be a contemporary existentialist if developing a certain toughness
      or dexterity, or does the acquisition of such skill vitiate the quality
      of thought itself?

      >

      > Louise

      >
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic