Old Email Archive

digest 1997-02-27 #001


11:28 PM 2/26/97 -0800
From: "Society for Literature & Science" 

Daily SLS Email Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1997 10:11:29 -0800
From: jal@cco.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: literature and science?
In response to the support of SLS offered by two L's, may I offer a
couple
of comments from the S side?  I presume there is a connection between
Don
McGraw's feeling unwelcome and the "culture siege mentality"
Ann Weinstone
mentioned.  Actually, my sense of the Atlanta meeting was that *in
general*, at the panels I attended, the culture wars were *less* in
evidence than at previous meetings; but everything was colored by the
initial keynote speaker who, in my opinion, came fully prepared and
eager
to fight those wars, and that's what everyone talked about for the rest
of
the meeting.
A modest proposal: a little voluntary rhetorical disarmament is called
for
on occasion.  We're all in the business of demonstrating our rhetorical
prowess, and it's hard to pass up opportunities, but maybe it would not
be
such a bad idea to think about how a certain statement might be received
by
people who don't necessarily share one's starting assumptions, if part
of
the goal is to enlist them in a joint effort.  Those at Atlanta may
remember that, during the discussion following the keynote, when Sid
Perkowitz complained about Paula Treichler's zingers at the expense of
physicists, she replied that they were "irresistable."  Even
at that point,
a more temperate response might have substantially improved the
subsequent
atmosphere.
I note Joe Duemer's comment: "It might be argued, in fact,
following Kuhn,
that scientists are uniquely unqualified to describe their work--sort of
a
sociological uncertainty principle."   I'm sure this was not
offered as a
universal claim, and I understand the point being made (although I
doubt
whether it does follow from Kuhn, who was after all a scientist!), but
it
isn't hard to imagine a scientist just beginning to get interested in
SLS,
reading that ("uniquely unqualified"?) and getting turned
off.
The other point: I certainly agree with Ann that her work does not need
legitimation by "real" scientists (Gross and Levitt
notwithstanding).  And
I would certainly not argue with Don if he feels that SLS doesn't
provide
what he is looking for--how could I?--although I could wish that he
would
stop there and not try to extend this deficiency to all scientists. 
And
no, Ann, scientists are not an oppressed minority (again contra
G&L).  But
you must have noticed that there are in fact relatively few scientists
in
SLS.  If the "science-by-real-scientist panels" are your
favorites, why do
you think it's not your (or anybody's?) job to try to attract more
scientists?  Who is going to give those panels?  Joe Duemer mentions
teaching classes with science colleagues--can you interest them in SLS?
Right now the *vast* majority of practicing scientists are completely
unaware of the work going on in SLS and other areas that can be loosely
gathered under the heading of "science studies."  And G&L
are out there
trying to convince scientists that they *should* become aware in order
to
fight them, because those are forces out to destroy science.  Shouldn't
we
be looking for positive actions we can take?
Jay
Jay A. Labinger
Beckman Institute
California Institute of Technology
139-74
Pasadena, CA 91125
tel: 818-395-6520
fax: 818-449-4159
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1997 10:58:55 -0800
From: psgossin@utdallas.edu
Subject: Re: Session on jointly taught courses for SLS Pittsburgh
Steve, you might be interested in an interdisciplinary environmental
science and society course team-taught by faculty in several scientific
disciplines and the humanities at three institutions.  Contact: Prof.
Gregg Mitman, History of Science, Univ of Oklahoma  Norman, OK 73019
405-325-2213 (I think).  I also participated in a team-taught seminar
in Law, Lit and Sci with faculty from OU's English Dept and Law School.
I supplied the Hist of Sci.  Best of luck recruiting for such an
interesting and valuable session, Pamela Gossin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1997 11:14:10 -0800
From: Carol Colatrella 
Subject: Reminder: SLS97 deadline
Greetings,
Thanks to everyone participating in the current discussion focusing on
conversations between scientists and humanists; I think we're finally
getting to the root of what disturbed everyone at the last meeting. 
And
just think, only a few months until the next one!  I don't have
anything
profound to add to Ann Weinstone's comments or Jay Labinger's, because
I
found those messages to be helpful in configuring my sense of what
people
want.  I would like to say that now is the time to continue posting
messages based on courtesy and respect for difference.   On that note,
I'll
segue into my reminder notice:
The 1997 Annual Meeting of the Society for Literature and Science will
be
held in Pittsburh at the Marriott Hotel in Pittsburgh City Center from
October 30 to November 2, 1997.  The deadline for submissions is
February
28, 1997.  Instructions for submitting abstracts and proposals are
available at
http://mickey.la.psu.edu/~hquamen/SLS_97.htm
Or you can send an abstract or panel proposal to Susan Squier via
email:
sxs62@psu.edu or
Richard Nash via email: nash@ucs.indiana.edu
Special panels, seminars, poster sessions, roundtables are also
welcome.
Indicate keywords that can be used to categorize your submission and
whether you would like to serve as chair of another panel.
Thanks for your attention.
Carol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1997 15:36:28 -0800
From: Joseph Duemer 
Subject: Re: literature and science?
I take Jay Labinger's injunction to cool the rhetoric to heart even
though I think we are often not passionate enough rather than too
passionate. (The passion, of course, ought to be directed toward the
play of ideas, not the people who think them, and perhaps I erred on
this point in my last posting.
I do read Kuhn as sanctioning--even if not directly--the idea that
science is too important to leave to the scientists. In chapters 5 &
6
of _Structure_ he advances the "priority of pargdigms" and
describes how
scientists--& others, including poets!--tend to see what they expect
to
see in a given set of data or observations. Collins and Pinch, in _The
Golem_ make this case even more powerfully, though I think they
sometimes read the history of science so as to fit THEIR expectations.
But if science is so bound by paradigm--especially if the case can be
made that it is peculiarly or particularly so bound--then it could be
argued that they are unable to step back from the system of their
endeavors. At least until a crisis occurs within the paradigm
community., when all bets are off, and all options up for grabs. This
is
when the emergence of complex and multiplex thinking takes place.
If larger cultural paradigms exist that include science, and, say,
literature, then we are all bound by our belief systems--poets and
scientists together. Perhaps we are at a moment of crisis in this
larger
paradigm; if so, perhaps by getting the poets and scientists together,
it will be possible to help a new paradigm emerge. The moment of crisis
is a moment of discovery. Multiplex thinking requires great forbearance
of the members of the paradigm community. We will have to learn to
listen patiently to the critiques of our beliefs and practices offered
by those we sometimes will feel are unqualified. The process can be
galling. Maybe that's why SLS meetings have been so contentious.
Personally, I haven't gone to one for a while, but now I can't wait!
- --
- --
Joseph Duemer
School of Liberal Arts
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
315-262-2466
"Poets are the only people to whom love is not only a crucial,
but an indispensable experience, which entitles them to
mistake it for a universal one."
-- Hannah Arendt
"People do not deserve to have good writing, they are so
pleased with bad."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1997 16:16:09 -0800
From: Michelle Kendrick 
Subject: Re: Omni article
Hello,
A couple of years ago a collegue and I collaborated on an article for
Omni
magazine on the cultural critique of science.  For this article I
interviewed some twenty well known figures in the field (Harding,
Rouse,
Bono, Levine, Merchant...etc).  Some of you may remember the
interviews.
The idea was to write an article for a lay audience on just
"what" the
cultural critique of science was, what areas it appropriately
encompassed,
how it was defined by scientists and nonscientists alike.
Unfortunately the article -- though bought my Omni -- never was printed
- -- Omni was in the process of going out of business, I believe.
I offer that article now on the web.  Perhaps it might summarize some
of
the important aspects of what it is that we do, and what makes it so
contentious, and why it might be important -- as expressed to me by
some
of our best scholars.
it can be read at
http://boron.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/kendrick/papers/omni.html
I would welcome any comments, criticisms, etc.  Anything you disagree
with was written by Bob. :-)
Michelle
_______________________________________________________________
Michelle R. Kendrick
Assistant Professor of English
Washington State University
14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue
Vancouver, Washington 98686
(360)546-9645
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1997 17:58:22 -0800
From: Joseph Duemer 
Subject: Re: Query
To Martha Bartter, re: Beauty & the Beast.
I seem to be becoming a specialist in not-quite-to-the-point responses.
Anyway, there is an interesting (and I think still funny) poem by David
Wagoner called "Beauty and the Beast" in which the Beast is
presented as
an emblam (in contrast to Prince Charming) of natural, sexual
authenticity. I don't have the book at hand, but the poem is collected
in a Collected Poems from around 1979. Hope this is of at least passing
interest.
- --
- --
Joseph Duemer
School of Liberal Arts
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
315-262-2466
"Poets are the only people to whom love is not only a crucial,
but an indispensable experience, which entitles them to
mistake it for a universal one."
-- Hannah Arendt
"People do not deserve to have good writing, they are so
pleased with bad."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson