Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
digest 1998-03-16 #001.txt
11:31 PM 3/15/98 -0800
From: "Society for Literature & Science"
Daily SLS Email Digest
-> FWD: commentary on "culture wars"
by "Wayne Miller"
-> FWD: Latour Debate....
by "Wayne Miller"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Mar 1998 11:39:44 -0800
From: "Wayne Miller"
Subject: FWD: commentary on "culture wars"
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:38:42 -0800
From: "Michael Gregory, NEXA/H-NEXA"
Subject: Online Discussion: Culture Wars,
on The Chronicle's Web site [Chronicle of Higher Education] (fwd)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:21:42 -0600
From: H-Net Announcements Editor
The Chronicle is holding an on-line colloquy on the questions: 'Have
the
culture wars ended? If so, who won?' We solicited commentary by Todd
Gatling, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Evelyn Hu-DeHart, Annette Kolodny,
Lawrence
W. Levine, Nell Irvin Painter, and Ray Suarez. We are now hoping that
other scholars will want to join in.
I thought that editors and readers within H-NET may be interested in
the
debate, as well as the commentaries. Our site also provides eight years
of
background stories on the "Culture Wars," in sections
including "Political
Correctness," "Cultural Studies," and
"History," among others.
The on-line debate and accompanying essays are available free, without
the
need for a password. You can reach them by clicking to:
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/98/culturewar/culturewar.htm
Please feel free to forward this message to whomever you think might be
interested.
Best regards,
Lisa Guernsey
Asst. Editor, Information Technology
The Chronicle of Higher Education
lisa.guernsey@chronicle.com
http://chronicle.com/infotech/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Mar 1998 11:52:34 -0800
From: "Wayne Miller"
Subject: FWD: Latour Debate....
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 09:47:20 -0800
From: "Michael Gregory, NEXA/H-NEXA"
Subject: Latour debate (Sci-Cult)
To: Recipients of H-NEXA digests
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 06:42:27 EST
From: Val dusek
Concerning Latour, here is a letter which appeared in Physics Today.
-Val
Dusek
SCIENCE IS A HUMAN CREATION
Harvey Shepard, University of New Hampshire
In recent months important and stimulating articles by David Mermin(1)
and Sam Schweber (2) have appeared in Physics Today relating to the
cluster of issues broadly termed the "science wars." Although
Alan
Sokal's spoof (3) may have brought the issue to the surface for many
scientists and led them to speak out, it has been simmering for a very
long time.
Both Mermin's and Schweber's essays can be read as a plea for
tolerance, moderation, and lack of defensiveness on the part of
scientists in general, and physicists in particular, who are well
known to others in the academic community for their "ex cathedra
sneering" (to quote Mermin's lovely phrase) and general all
purpose
"arrogance." Schweber says: "I worry when we turn against
our
colleagues in other disciplines and breach their trust."(2) And
Mermin
states: "Fronts are opening in the science wars on which some
scientists are misrepresenting and oversimplifying as egregiously as
those at whom they direct their fire."(1)
I believe that these pleas for better behavior will be ignored -- or
the outward behavior may improve with the mind and heart unchanged --
unless specific examples, good reasons, and new ways of thinking about
the issue can be offered to the community of scientists. This is the
intent of the present brief essay.
Mermin contributes to the new attitude by a careful and sympathetic
reading of Bruno Latour's essay on relativity (4), especially in his
discussions of Einstein's operational approach to the seemingly
primitive notions of space and time.
Schweber argues that a change of attitude away from the "extreme
nature/culture dichotomy,"(2) which he attributes to many particle
physicists, such as Steven Weinberg, is already under way and can even
be justified by recent developments within physics, especially the
weakening of the belief in reductionism and unification as ultimate
goals. This, he argues (5), has been generated by theoretical work in
recent decades on the theory of broken symmetry, the
renormalization-group, and effective field theory methods.
For Schweber the issue is a very broad and critical one: " . the
current science wars and culture wars will make support for the
humanities and the social sciences more difficult, and will result in
giving ever greater control over academic matters to university
administrators and boards of trustees. . . At stake is thus the future
of the university as a unique agency of culture, . . " He calls for
us
" . . . to learn from one another what scientific knowledge is,
what
culture is and how one goes about trying to understand these
matters."(2)
For me the foundation for a change in attitudes can be based on the
following observations (6):
1. Although we are usually trained to believe that fundamental
scientific laws are impersonal and describe the world independent of
human beings, it is significant to appreciate that science is a human
activity -- like history, anthropology, sociology, or the arts and
literature. It is we who are curious about the world and pose the
questions, the puzzles and problems to be studied. And it is we who
formulate answers to these questions and decide when the answers --
the explanations and understanding, the solutions to our puzzles --
are satisfactory. Surely, our questions and answers depend in some
ways on being human -- our perceptual and cognitive neurobiology, as
well as our culture and history.
2. Each area of human study or activity has its own unique questions,
aims, and procedures -- and its own standards for success or
satisfaction. To take an extreme example, a poet is generally not
trying to solve a puzzle, to resolve or simplify or understand
something. Rather the goal -- if that word can be applied to an art so
varied and idiosyncratic -- is often to use the craft of language to
stir us to see (with all of our senses) and feel deeply.
3. I am not arguing that scientific knowledge is the same as all other
knowledge, or that all beliefs have equal truth claims.It is not easy
to state a complete characterization of "science." I would
include in
my definition: the attempt to achieve the maximal objectivity possible
(but see point 4. below) and something about science's
validation by its efficacy in manipulating nature.
What also distinguishes good science -- besides the unique nature of
its
questions, methods, and answers -- is the requirement of consensus
achieved by rigorous rational discussion among the
community of skilled practitioners.
4. I do not believe it is correct to view science as
"objective" and
all other culture based studies, including the arts, as
"subjective."
Rather, it seems clear that, like all creative activities, science --
though it seeks the greatest objectivity possible -- results from, and
is created at, the intersection of the perceived "outside"
external
world, with the "inside" world of the individual. (D. W.
Winnicott,
the great British psychoanalyst, referred to this region as the
"transitional" or "potential" space.(7)
5. Finally, let us agree with David Mermin and not let our seriousness
become a liability. Of course we have a responsibility, when it is
appropriate, to point out blatant scientific errors,
misrepresentations, and faulty reasoning. But let's not forget (as
Winnicott also reminds us (7) ) that it is the quality of playfulness
that connects us to the source of much of our creativity and to the
pleasure and meaning we find in our lives.(8, 9)
References & Footnotes
1. N. D. Mermin, Physics Today 50, 11 (October 1997).
2. S. S. Schweber, Physics Today 50, 73 (March 1997).
3. A. Sokal, Social Text 46/47, 217 (1996); LinguaFranca 6(4), 62
(May/June 1996). These and other related articles can be obtained at
Sokal's website: www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
4. B. Latour, Social Studies of Science 18, 3 (1988).
5. S. S. Schweber, Physics Today 46, 34 (November 1993).
6. Of course the following is merely an outline, which needs much
elaboration and discussion.
7. See, for example, D. W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality (Routledge,
London & New York, 1982), pages 95-110.
8. I am grateful to Kathleen Brownback, Val Dusek, Steve Heims,
Hildred Krill, and Don Murray for helpful comments on the manuscript.
9. A greatly abbreviated version of this essay appears in the Letters
section of Physics Today (February 1998).
Harvey Shepard
Department of Physics
DeMeritt Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3568
phone: 603-862-1980
email: shepard@curie.unh.edu
Fax: 603-862-2998
- ------------------------------