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

Re: [existlist] What is science? / gender-open discussion(s)... .

Expand Messages
  • NEFILIM001@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/28/2007 7:06:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hecubatoher@yahoo.co.uk writes: Is science a set of current theories, enshrined in information
    Message 1 of 1 , May 28, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/28/2007 7:06:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      hecubatoher@... writes:

      Is science a set of current theories, enshrined in information
      systems, including books? Does it include attendant practical
      skills, and the products of those skills?
      Authority is enforced, or else persuasive. Enforcement may involve
      the exploitation of ignorance, concerning scientific knowledge, as
      well as the superior weight of technology, whether, say, on the
      level of the individual and his family, who may have high walls
      round his property, telecommunications, computers, motor vehicles,
      etc., or at the level of the state, with guns, tanks, aeroplanes,
      and so on. I am pitching this in quite a simple-minded fashion,
      because am unsure whether the underlying premises for debate are
      shared, a familiar uncertainty for me personally at this forum.
      Another aspect of the alliance between scientific knowhow and the
      practice of authority would be the gradual shift in the form of its
      raw material, so to speak. From the physical to the symbolic, from
      the strong man and his weaponry, to the tokens of money and their
      ultimate transfer to a world of ideas, examined only by accountants,
      or not at all. The state evolves, the nodes of authority and
      influence diffuse and concentrate in ways quite inaccessible to the
      common man. There is the continuance of that particularly twentieth-
      century dilemma, when the individual man at the end of his tether
      finds there is no-one to shoot. Just what is the art of living,
      when the right is so hard to find? It is an ethical term, the
      right, and traditionally linked to ideas of truth. So we come back
      to philosophy, or at least as an individual existentialist that is
      my own experience.


      ............................................................... ][

      Hi Louise;

      I enjoyed your wonderful analysis on the evolution of how we regard the
      knowhow and practice of authority; and this new way of thinking about Science and
      its protractor's/detractor's understanding of this very important
      discipline. (I know, I know I'm somewhat off the mark, but I do get the gist of what
      you are explaining.)
      I always read your commentary, (as well as the opinions and exchanges
      of all the other Members of this Wonderful Forum and have enjoyed 'listening'
      as well as participating in these Existential Wars {::smiling::} over the
      past few years.
      But...and I expect you and many other members will delight in
      hating-the-INFOmaniac for such an intrusive observation, [but I expect this needs to
      be stated or restated on occasion.]
      I am speaking of the 'scatter-gun' mis-gendering of people, places and
      things which can not [momentarily] be concluded. Needn't we give as much
      preciseness to our clarity-of-Beings, as about discussing those fellow beings in a
      philosophic context? This note is not so much about grammar but
      INFOrmation--or the obvious lack of it.
      I am concerned about our use of: "He" ['Man'] and "His" when the
      person, place or thing is not yet clearly identifiable to us.

      An amazingly consistent kind of commonplace example is that of a person
      looking out toward the ocean while commenting on a lone turtle swimming
      against the strong tide. Though we are all quite ignorant of the animal's true
      nature a person will inevitably state something on the order: "Don't worry,
      he" looks as if he will shortly make it safety to the beach." Or when a mixed
      group of coeducation students call out: "Hey you [guys]".
      In some police actions--we don't yet have any clues as to WHO killed the
      local loving family, but, "I can assure you, He will not get far!" Females, are
      not only working and studying side-by-side with males in the twenty-first
      century, but also committing more and more capital crimes, so states CNN and
      other networks. Why not reserve judgement on gender until we have the
      facts--what is with the rush to judgement?!

      Yes, you may challenge the proposition and call it a wee thing, what with
      all the 'heavy' philosophical lifting you do here. I know the comments which
      will be forthcomming. Someone does however need to state the obvious in a
      general commentary, though it be small in comparison to the topic of the
      moment. Such small details in this the strangely 'changing' twenty-first century
      can in many situations lead not only to petty confusion, but also to
      (important) disinformation and in "Home-Land" situations--chaos! I am not in any
      manner attempting to be melodramatic with this commentary, so much as I am
      attempting to remind us all that the effort to speaking precisely is often an
      additionally important bridge to sharing opinions in a narrow field of philosophy
      such as Existentialism.
      ~~Have a praiseworthy Memorial Day. /:-)


      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.