Re: [Pen-l] Jared Diamond and the New Yorker, part 2

[ravi <ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 8, 2009, at 4:51 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> ravi wrote:
> > The new great white father is scientific/materialism.
>
> You mean there is no difference  between (say) Pinker & Summers on the
> one hand, Levins, Lewontin, & Gould on the other? You take your notion
> of science from the likes of Summers, which puts you on his side of  
> the
> argument.

My notion of science doesn’t matter. The question is: which side, of  
the two described above, holds the centre (and power) in science today?


> You have, I fear, a kneejerk response to the word "science," and run
> around pasting that label on everything you don't like, whether it has
> any connection to serius science or not.


That's nonsense. You have not understood a word I have written, nor  
(consequently) do you have any idea what I think about science (with  
or without quotes). For edification (though not to answer your  
confusion about me), I suggest you take a look at Chomsky's appearance  
at the Sociobiology Study Group in 1976, and work your way forward  
from there.

Note that I did not write just that:

rigour = hard science = reductionist assumptions

(the first part is true of most productive human ventures, not just  
science, and the second part of the equation is just plain wrong).

I wrote that that's the lesson that has been learnt (by those seeking  
a particular kind of advancement or recognition). The list that  
matters in this newer context is not Lewontin or Gould (one of whom is  
dead and gone), but Huffington Post blogging liberals like D.S.Wilson.

For a meaningful analysis, the last sentence of my post (and the use  
"scientific" in it) should be read in the context of this ongoing  
battles within science (not against science) and how it relates to  
those who wish to be seen as scientific.

	--ravi


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l