Print

Print


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.

Jim West
NYC

--------------------
Agree with Charles-- Sam Anderson

-----Original Message----- 
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.

Charlie