From: dr@ducvax.auburn.edu (David Roller)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.anthropology (LONG) (long response, too)
Summary: I ment "science culture", not _science_ (dogmatic emphasis) culture.
Keywords: usenet science culture anthropology pollution
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:17:33 GMT

In article <yz0tb8l@rpi.edu>, mccombt@cs.rpi.edu (Todd McComb) writes:
> In article <1992Apr15.120841.2357@ducvax.auburn.edu> David Roller writes
> about some unpopular usenet behavior, ending with:
> 
>>In a _science_ culture, such attacks and pollution would be considered
>>deviant; ...
> 
> You expect us to believe that those things are directly related to
> science (or the absence thereof) rather than individual maturity?

In hindsight, rather than saying '_science_ culture' I should have said 
"science culture" (with quotes), as opposed to "technologist culture"
or "usenet culture" (all with quotes).  I only meant that the scientific
community, as a whole, has put considerable (and conscious) effort into 
establishing a culture which is different from that of (say) technologists 
or usenet fans.  I do think that the establishment of that culture has
been fairly successful in achieving the stated ideals of that culture.

There are of course counterexamples.  Certainly I have seen horrific 
examples of viciousness, immaturity, etc by scientists.  In my personal 
experience, the worst violations germane to the creation of sci.anthropology 
seem to have occured when those scientists have wandered outside their field 
and refused to recognize they had done so (the other major (but non-germane) 
concordance seems to involve $$$$ - but I digress).

> Science is over-rated.  (IMHO, of course -- though I spent a substantial
> piece of my life to get a phd in applied math just to be able to make that
> statement as an insider.)
> 
> -- 
> Todd McComb                             mccombt@turing.cs.rpi.edu [128.213.1.1]

I really do regret using the syntax [_science_ culture] instead of 
["science culture"]; I can see how it might be construed as an advocacy
of what has been called "a cult of science", or an instance of "the 
arrogance of science".  I did not mean to deify science or particularly 
emphasize science over culture.  

I'm sufficiently ordinary that the only thing remarkable about me is the 
good fortune of occasional associations with remarkable people (disclaimer:
"Everyone's remarkable if you look close enough").  I thought a long time 
about whether to include the following disclaimer in my post, and decided 
not to because it might discourage people from responding:

    "...It merely tries to explain; and the explanations -all of them 
    theories- are in the nature of suggestions and arguments even when 
    they are stated in what seems a categorical tone.  I can do no better 
    than quote Montaigne: 'All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing 
    by way of advice.  I should not dare to speak so boldly if it were 
    my due to be believed.'"
			  -- Eric Hoffer "The True Believer"

	D.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Roller  |  Internet = dr@ducvax.auburn.edu   |  "Because we're all
Auburn Univ.  |    Bitnet = dr@auducvax            |   in this together."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: news.groups