Science for the People, Peoplešs Science, Science for the 99%, etc.
On 8/13/15, 11:13 PM, "Science for the People Discussion List on behalf of
Jim West" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I agree with Sam and Charles.
>If only Charles' position could be reduced a few words.
>Presently we have "Science", which many think implies knowledge from an
>elite class providing pure results, and leading to arguments using terms
>like "Science denialists", "Science haters", etc.
>Agree with Charles-- Sam Anderson
>From: "Charles L. SCHWARTZ"
>Sent: Aug 11, 2015 10:35 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: a revised SftP mission statement
> I would suggest not using the COI - conflict of interest - phrase in the
>mission statement. It implies that there is a conflict-free, or "pure"
>and politically neutral science. One of the primary tasks of SftP, from
>the beginning, was to challenge that notion of purity, which is so
>prevalent among students and teachers and practitioners of science.
>One can and should talk about "interests" that motivate scientific
>activity. (In my class, years ago, I would start out by saying that when
>I speak of "science" I do not mean a body of knowledge but rather a
>chosen human activity.) One can identify the particular interests of
>large corporations and of military establishments in their promotion of
>particular lines of work in science. One can say, in contrast, that SftP
>identifies its interests as aligning with the needs of people, the great
>majority of people, who are outside of and often under the painful
>domination of those brutes.