Print

Print


The 'mainstream' of most professions or disciplines is the same. At the 
time of Nixon's Christmas Bombing of Hanoi, the MLA was in session and 
we introduced a motion in the Delegaet Assembly condemning it. One woman 
argued that her training fitted her to judge a Renaissance text (or 
something like that) but she didn't think she was professionally 
competent to pass judgment on bombing Hanoi. In the mid-60s, just as I 
was becoming politically active myself, I passed around a statement 
dealing with some prosecution of Huey Newton (my memory is very vague on 
the details here). I approached one liberal sociologist, a senior 
professor, and his response was he did not think people should interfere 
in the judicial process. And so it goes.

Carrol

On 10/28/2011 10:37 PM, Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
> Indeed, it barely appears that Kidd and Meyer are reviewing the same book or even the same author. Where Kidd emphasizes Feyerabend's background in physics, Mayer mentions theater. Kidd emphasizes F's depth of learning, Mayer his "Dadaism". Kidd makes the book seem cogent and worthwhile, while Mayer more or less can make neither head or tail of it.
>
> However, this is all explained by the editors' little "experiment." Presumably not to our great surprise, we learn that the average scientist is not in the least interested in considering his or her discipline with any critical distance, and in fact probably is unable to do so. That unfortunate situation has dogged SftP from the beginning and surely still does.
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Kamran Nayeri<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> I fins Axel Meyer's review lacking a serious appreciation of philosophy. Let's not forget, philosophy is where it all started (aside from religion).  Philosophy deals with question that science does not and it is the meta-theory for any science.  So, I am baffled by reviews of a book by a philosopher by those who belittle philosophy as such.  How could it be doing justice to a philosophical work?
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Larry Romsted<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> And a good purpose it is too.  I just remember all the scientists working
>> happily on improving the science of war.  Strictly objectively, of course.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> On 10/28/11 8:41 PM, "Charles Schwartz"<[log in to unmask]>  wrote
>>
>>> Thank you, Stuart, for that interesting reading.  I continue to be
>>> undecided about the precise role of philosophy re science; but it is
>>> certainly necessary to reject the notion of socio/political "neutrality"
>>> in science. That rejection has been, in many ways, the defining purpose
>>> of Science for the People.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>> On 10/28/11 10:44 AM, Stuart Newman wrote:
>>>> On the Nature of Scientific Progress: Anarchistic Theory Says ³Anything
>>>> Goes²‹But I Don't Think So
>>>> Review of the new English translation of philosopher Paul Feyerabend's
>>>> The
>>>> Tyranny of Science by biologist Axel Meyer: http://tinyurl.com/3wml4yc
>>>>
>>>> Rethinking Feyerabend: The ³Worst Enemy of Science²?
>>>> by Ian James Kidd: http://tinyurl.com/3g4jpl7
>>>>
>>
>