Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 06-27-2002, 05:59 PM

I'm finishing it up and would be interested in discussing it. Here's a summary of what it is about over at amazon.com:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582431418/qid=1025229583/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-2705066-1277607" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582431418/qid=1025229583/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-27050 66-1277607</a>

It's basically a critique not of science but of the mentality that science produces, the notion that... as one reviewer put it... science = technology = progress = good. He posits that one of the primary goals of applied science is correcting the damage to the planet done by applied science. He suggests that we should subtract the damage done by applied science from the problems it has solved to see how much is net gain. He condemns reductionism, the relationship between universities and corporations in regards to scientific endeavors, and the notion of E.O. Wilson that the fields of science and the humanities can be combined into one unified field of knowledge.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

luvluv · 06-29-2002, 07:49 AM

C'mon Pompous? Vork? You guys read everything.

Pomp · 06-29-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
C'mon Pompous? Vork? You guys read everything.

Hahahaha!!

Er, sorry, apparently, I've read everything but that.

If you want to talk about the ideas as you've presented them, without reference to the book, I'm up for that.

Vorkosigan · 06-29-2002, 11:52 PM

I've never read it either. But it seems like pretty straightforward sci-tech criticism. I mean, you can hardly disagree with the statements about corporate science....

Vorkosigan

luvluv · 06-30-2002, 11:23 AM

Nuts!

Well, he does take on materialism and reductionism in the begining of the book, and the "hubris" that science produces, and the what he considers to be the absurd notion that science can know everything. I think it's a pretty decent challenge or critique of the materialist worldview on a couple of levels. Being an environmentalist though (and a farmer) he does spend a lot of time attacking corporate science and specifically the alliance of big business with college science courses. At any rate, the guy is supposed to be one of the best essayists in the country and the book is only 153 pages. You guys could read that in the shower.

Vorkosigan · 06-30-2002, 06:06 PM

Like I said, a pretty standard mix of nonsense, half-truths, and dead-on critique. Most of this stuff is old hat in the science studies field. See stuff like Primate Visions, The Social Construction of Technology, The City in History, Autonomous Technology, The Whale and the Reactor, The Technology Pork Barrel, Normal Accidents, When Corporations Rule the World, Cadillac Desert.....

Vorkosigan

luvluv · 07-02-2002, 01:03 PM

Did you read it? What was the nonsense and what were the half-truths?

Vorkosigan · 07-02-2002, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
Did you read it? What was the nonsense and what were the half-truths?

I read your thumbnail. He condemns reductionism and materialism -- that's the nonsense. EO Wilson's claim I know nothing about, so no comment. The rest is half-truths and dead-on critique.

luvluv · 07-02-2002, 02:30 PM

I don't know how you can conclude that his condemnations of reductionism and materialism are nonsense without seeing how he condemned them. You may have read so much like this that it would really be a waste of your time to read this one, so I won't pressure you to (I doubt my pressuring you would matter, anyway

) I just wanted to discuss it here is all.

He says that reductionism is useful but it is not entirely true, it is an abstraction. He doesn't say materialism is untrue but that it is limited by human knowledge and that it is applied beyond our ability to apply it. Maybe it's nothing you haven't heard but I have been told that the guy is one of the country's top two or three essayists, but you might be able to dispute that. (Maybe that's what I get for believing book jackets!)

ohwilleke · 07-02-2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
 It's basically a critique not of science but of the mentality that science produces, the notion that... as one reviewer put it... science = technology = progress = good. He posits that one of the primary goals of applied science is correcting the damage to the planet done by applied science. He suggests that we should subtract the damage done by applied science from the problems it has solved to see how much is net gain. He condemns reductionism, the relationship between universities and corporations in regards to scientific endeavors, and the notion of E.O. Wilson that the fields of science and the humanities can be combined into one unified field of knowledge.

No, I haven't read it.

Science ==> Knowledge ===> Good. I agree with. I have a hard time supporting ignorance.

I also think that most technology has been created in an effort to solve genuine human problems. CFCs that damage the ozone layer were developed so that ordinary people could have fresh meat and vegitables in an afforadble refrigerator, instead of dried goods day after day. The nuclear bomb was developed out of fear that facist regimes would conquer the world. Strip mining of coal was developed so that poor people could have warm homes and cheap transporation by train at an affordable price. Damage caused by damming rivers is largely a result of a desire to creat cheap electricity that doesn't pollute the air and to provide water in times of drought to grow food and sustain people.

Science has given us the possibility of doing harm with our good intentions, but, it has also made it possible to recognize the harm we are doing (something humans couldn't when they wiped out all large mammals in North and South America 10,000 years ago, or started air pollution in Spain 500 years ago).

06-27-2002, 05:59 PM	#1
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Has anyone read Life is a Miracle by Wendell Berry? I'm finishing it up and would be interested in discussing it. Here's a summary of what it is about over at amazon.com: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582431418/qid=1025229583/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-2705066-1277607" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582431418/qid=1025229583/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-27050 66-1277607</a> It's basically a critique not of science but of the mentality that science produces, the notion that... as one reviewer put it... science = technology = progress = good. He posits that one of the primary goals of applied science is correcting the damage to the planet done by applied science. He suggests that we should subtract the damage done by applied science from the problems it has solved to see how much is net gain. He condemns reductionism, the relationship between universities and corporations in regards to scientific endeavors, and the notion of E.O. Wilson that the fields of science and the humanities can be combined into one unified field of knowledge. [ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2002, 07:49 AM	#2
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	C'mon Pompous? Vork? You guys read everything.

06-29-2002, 11:52 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I've never read it either. But it seems like pretty straightforward sci-tech criticism. I mean, you can hardly disagree with the statements about corporate science.... Vorkosigan

06-30-2002, 11:23 AM	#5
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Nuts! Well, he does take on materialism and reductionism in the begining of the book, and the "hubris" that science produces, and the what he considers to be the absurd notion that science can know everything. I think it's a pretty decent challenge or critique of the materialist worldview on a couple of levels. Being an environmentalist though (and a farmer) he does spend a lot of time attacking corporate science and specifically the alliance of big business with college science courses. At any rate, the guy is supposed to be one of the best essayists in the country and the book is only 153 pages. You guys could read that in the shower.

06-30-2002, 06:06 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Like I said, a pretty standard mix of nonsense, half-truths, and dead-on critique. Most of this stuff is old hat in the science studies field. See stuff like Primate Visions, The Social Construction of Technology, The City in History, Autonomous Technology, The Whale and the Reactor, The Technology Pork Barrel, Normal Accidents, When Corporations Rule the World, Cadillac Desert..... Vorkosigan

07-02-2002, 01:03 PM	#7
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Did you read it? What was the nonsense and what were the half-truths?

07-02-2002, 02:30 PM	#9
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I don't know how you can conclude that his condemnations of reductionism and materialism are nonsense without seeing how he condemned them. You may have read so much like this that it would really be a waste of your time to read this one, so I won't pressure you to (I doubt my pressuring you would matter, anyway ) I just wanted to discuss it here is all. He says that reductionism is useful but it is not entirely true, it is an abstraction. He doesn't say materialism is untrue but that it is limited by human knowledge and that it is applied beyond our ability to apply it. Maybe it's nothing you haven't heard but I have been told that the guy is one of the country's top two or three essayists, but you might be able to dispute that. (Maybe that's what I get for believing book jackets!)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.