From: carl.camurca%travel@wugate.wustl.edu (Carl Camurca) 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
Subject: Re^3: Science&Politics
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:02:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Travel Online, St. Louis, MO
Reply-To: carl.camurca%travel@wugate.wustl.edu (Carl Camurca) 

Hi!

UA[>> UA[>I feel urged to add that I do not mean to say that national socialism
UA[>> UA[>was a necessary consequence of the science of that time (...)
UA[>>
UA[>> But the other way round.

UA[>Difficult to say (see below).

UA[>>
UA[>> UA[>The idea that there was a competition of peoples and races and that a
UA[>> UA[>race had to keep its genome pure arose from the scientific discussion
UA[>> UA[>of those days and were propagated by many biologists.
UA[>>
UA[>> Why?
UA[>>

UA[>Therefore. (Sorry, don't know what to do with the `why?')

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough.
There are directions you wouldn't try to think dictated by your ideolgy.
For example, you wouldn't think about experiments with Australian
aborigines, because you realize they are human beings. If you don't
think so, you can use them in experiments.

UA[>When reading some paper how someone has gathered what data, then
UA[>I can't see any political ideology in it, and that was what I
UA[>thought of.

True. When I try to find any ideology in a SDS-PAGE (for non-biologists:
Truthsaying-like kind of experiment), I fail. (In fact, I'm happy, when
I find *some* useful information in it :-) ).
But the design and direction of your experimenting is dictated by your
ideology. And you see only, what you want to see. The other data is
ignored (remember those zillions of PCR agarose gels with some strange
bands beside the interesting one? You ignored it, right?)

UA[>I didn't mean to say that the practice of science is independent of
UA[>society, but that there is something at the bottom of it which
directs UA[>it by setting boundary conditions, and that is the real
world. UA[>(I don't know, of course, if the real world exists, but I am
certain UA[>that its representation exists in my mind; further
discussion cf. UA[>Kant: ,Kritik der reinen Vernunft'.) It may depend of
society UA[>what data you collect, but the data themselves do not.

So you believe that the image of the real world, that science delivers
is the real world?
I would prefer to see the whole modern science as a *model* of the
world, not the world itself. Nobody ever saw an atom, only pictures of
it. I agree, the model works pretty good (I'm spending most of my life
in refining it), but it's only a model!

UA[>Our knowledge about the real world is growing, as recognition
UA[>(Erkenntnis)  is irreversible; and this has its impact on society.

What do you know about *the real* world? see above.

UA[>E. g., the more we know about the world, the less religious we are
UA[>(see also Freud: ,Die Zukunft einer Illusion'). The interaction
UA[>between science and society is no one-way street. What is the hen
UA[>here, what the egg, and what was there first?

Didn't think of that, thanks.

UA[>> Why didn't the ancient greeks use the steam power they discovered? No
UA[>> need, they had slaves. Same for ancient Romans.
UA[>> Why didn't the native Americans develop machines? Not, because they had
UA[>> less intelligence than the Europeans. They did not have the sentence in
UA[>> the bible "and RULE the Earth". The list goes on and on.

UA[>One might also argue that the native Americans had no machines and
UA[>therefore had to personalise and adore nature to create some
UA[>delusion of not being exposed to nature without any power.
UA[>I do not possess an intimate knowledge of American religions
UA[>and I suppose that there is a spectrum of these religions;
UA[>my point here is that it is probably not so easy to fix what is
UA[>the cause and what the consequence.

That's true. Again, I didn't think of that. But I feel this point of
view a little arrogant.

UA[>Now to see an example of independence of science look at physics under
UA[>national socialism: It took severe damage
UA[>because many physicists had to emigrate, but `German physics' was not
UA[>broadly accepted by those who remained. Against all NS ideology the
UA[>relativity theory and quantum mechanics continued to be valid in
UA[>Germany.

The *model* remained valid. At this place, take a look at the modern
science, and the attitude, that made it possible. It's deeply rooted in
the christian view of the world (...and rule the earth...).
With that license, you are free to see the world as a set of tools,
especially made for you. And you can use them without bad feelings.
Ironically, one of the consequences of modern science was the
undermining of the power of religion, as you pointed out above.

UA[>Waldsterben, ozone hole, greenhouse effect; these things come
through UA[>science to people's minds. Or think of the American
cholesterol hysteria, UA[>then you can see that people hear what science
says, though they UA[>might not react properly.

(I *doubt* that this is the only american hysteria, boy, I can tell
you...)

I think, the scientist has the special role of seeking out the kind of
data, he collects. But basicly, I agree with your two-role-model of a
scientist.

May this fruitful discussion be continued, until the MODERATOR reads one
of those  messages,

gruss, Carl.

 * OLX 2.1 TD * Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
                             
Xref: sparky soc.culture.german:5586 soc.culture.indian:27863