From: davidc@panix.com (David C. Chorlian)
Subject: Re: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 02:28:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug11.143846.24840@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.025306.26510@panix.com> davidc@panix.com (David C. Chorlian) writes:
>>
>>
>>In sci.math you write:
>>
>>
>>>     Compare the scientific breakthroughs in Victorian England where
>>>     nothing much of note was happening socially.  Compare breakthroughs
>>>     in the US between 1947 and 1960 when nothing much exciting
>>>     was happening socially.
>>
>>In fact, Victorian England was the site of perhaps the biggest
>>social change in human history--from an agrarian to an industrial
>>society.  The fact that this occured without a great deal of
>>overt violence does not mean that nothing was happening.  And it
>>is not difficult to embed Darwin's course of development in
>>the general context of social and cultural life.  And then
>>what about Duhem's remarks about the difference between
>>French and English physicists--could this be related to the
>>different social contexts from which they came?

>     Certainly there are differences in great agglomerations of 
>     people.  I believe below I stated 'other than the obvious
>     effects societies have on their pursuits'.

>     However, I would claim that society remained much the
>     same for a very large timespan in Victorian England.  If
>     insist otherwise, then you would have to insist that there
>     is *always* something happening of note (the cold war was going 
I make a specific claim, and I certainly DO NOT have to claim
that something is always happening.
Briefly, 19th Century Britain saw an enormous population increase
massive urbanization, the formation of new and distinctive social
classes, and the beginnings of mass political participation.
Subsequent changes have been less dramatic.
>     on during the other timespan that I mentioned, probably the
>     most dangerous period in human history if you want to take this
>     tack).  As far as Darwin goes, it certainly is not difficult to 
>     put his work in social context for the time, especially since 
>     his work was used a posteriori by a number of people to justify
More to the point is the influence of modes of thought from
economics.
>     things that they were going to do anyway.  This certainly does
>     not say anything about the a priori significance of social
>     context in the development of the theory (I suspect that 
>     the fact that society allowed him a bunch of free time and
>     a free ride was of much more importance).

>>>      Claiming great concurrent undercurrents of history between 
>>>      social history and scientific history (other than the obvious
>>>      effects societies have on their pursuits) is a bit far-fetched.
>>>      It strikes me as a bit Marxist, and we all know how successful 
>>>      this has been at describing/predicting economic systems.
>>
>>Some parts of Marx's work is quite useful in illuminating the
>>capitalist process of production, even prescient for the time
>>when it was written.  It's stupid to take it dogmatically, and
>>equally stupid to think it can only be taken dogmatically.

>     This certainly was not dogmatic.  It was simply the recognition
>     that the 'great currents' idea seems to be held in common by
>     both Marx and the previous poster.  I believe that the 'great
The implication of your earlier remark is that you see Marx 
through the eyes of his most dogmatic proponents, which makes
him appear stupid.  I chided you for this.  I didn't say that
you were dogmatic.  
>     currents' idea has pretty much fallen by the wayside in 
>     Economics (though there are always holdouts).  As far as the usefulness
>     of other parts of Marx's work, I suppose that is always open 
>     to debate, though probably not appropriate here.

>     One final comment:  humans are very good at finding patterns,
>     even when they do not exist. 


The patterns exist, the question is of their significance.

>                                dale bass
>-- 
>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926

David B. Chorlian
Neurodynamics Lab,  SUNY/HSCB