From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 13:28:46 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov11.183824.13651@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu writes:

 > I am sorry, but these examples have nothing whatever to do with the
 > set of mathematical results known as catastrophe theory. Indeed, far
 > from requiring abstruse modern mathematics, the example of the tipping
 > shopping cart has been thoroughly understood since Newton, and the
 > principle to which Mr. Hardwick refers is even older than that. It is
 > known in certain circles as Fudd's First Law of Opposition: "If you
 > push something hard enough, it will fall over."
 >  
 > This principle is certainly germane, indeed central, to many problems
 > in environmental science, and I thank Mr. Hardwick for reminding us of it.
 > Nevertheless I would hope that he might choose to present his points with
 > more precision and succinctness in the future.

What I respect here is that you appreciate that the principle I have
offered is central to environmental management. I am not even remotely
interested in entering argument with you, however, on what you choose
to call what. However you might wish to refer to some thing you describe
in the language of mathematics as catastrophe theory and in English as
Fudd's First Law of Opposition does not alter that thing. Neither is
the matter of whether it was described in Newtons time relevant to how
it is described today. Describing something anew within a different
discourse, or differently within a new discourse, does not alter it.

 > I have no intention of censoring you. I only wish to point out to those
 > who might otherwise take you seriously that your offhand references to
 > recent advances in mathematics are not based in a particularly deep 
 > understanding of them. 

At no time have I claimed to be a mathematician, or attempted to present
anywhere a deep understanding of mathematics. Your criticisms are simply
not valid and I suggest that you might reasonably address them with
reference to my own particular discourse.

This is neither a specialist mathematics forum; I have the same right
to speak here that you do concerning the environment without feeling
any need to warn others you feel might take me seriously. That you do
so causes me grave concern as to your political motives, obviously of
inclination toward dictatorial fascism. For my part I have no doubt
that those others are quite capable of making up their own minds on
whatever material is posted here from time to time.

 > Apparently you have some sympathies for the "science is merely politics
 > by other means" camp among sociologists. I suppose it is your right to
 > believe this sort of nonsense if you choose, but given that, don't you
 > think it is somewhat disingenuous to be pointing to (or at least attempting
 > to point to) Very Important Theorems in modern mathematics to buttress 
 > your points?

Sorry, but your own pointing here to Very Important Theorems in modern
mathematics is not a criticism of any statement I have made anywhere. I
have never at any time used anything found only in modern mathematics
to buttress my points, but speak entirely from my own premises. If I
had ever at any time in my career felt a need to buttress my arguments
with mathematics I would surely have taken up mathematics myself and
argued as a mathematician. Then if I were in error I would indeed have
accepted your criticism as valid, of course.

For the record, in this instance the particular introductory statement
I had originally made to the group as a new user (showing the courtesy
you lack in advising others of what I do and where) in fact stands
entirely alone. The statement was wholly of phatic intent, and I made
no effort to support it in any way at all.

Whatever may appear to you about sociologists (which I am not BTW),
as scientists engage in politics so their engagement is political,
and nothing else. If you want to join the work of science, on the
other hand, please do so. The evidence I have presented to me here
is of persons from the other side of the world and wholly unknown
to me, challenging something I have said on the basis of something
they refer to as their BS Detectors going off. I simply do not care
for such puerile crap, and I shall persist in holding to my position
on the basis of the evidence I have available to me.

Anything else is entirely unacceptable, wholly preposterous! Who on
earth do you people think you are?

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology