"I don't want to get off on a rant here."   Dennis Miller in "The Rants" and 
"Ranting On"

In a message dated 5/19/99 11:35:47 PM EST, Remo Ruffini writes:
>  Val Dusek wrote:
>  >>First I wish to deny that I have any "training" in physics, and did not
>  >>claim to have such.  I am not even house trained.  If I misled Ruffini or
>  >>others on this list I wish to set the record straight.  My jocular
>  >>reference to getting a degree in Austin Texas was to a philosophy
>  >>degree.<<
>  
>  Then spare us the bullshit Val.  Who do you think your fooling?
>  
>  R.R.

This seems an odd reply for someone concerned with truth and validity as 
opposed to credentials and social background.  The appropriate reply for 
someone concerned with the defense of "science and reason" and enlightenment 
rationality should be to refute the content.

Perhaps this was just an intemperate response to the first few lines of my 
post as later Ruffini writes: 

<<  Val Dusek even tells us that he has no training  (self-training and/or 
formal training – it makes no difference, so long as one KNOWS the material), 
NONE, in physics (and possibly in mathematics as well).  How, then, can he 
cogently and credibly critique ever-more-advanced scientific theories???  The 
answer is (and in light of his above-exposed ignorance and errors in physics 
and mathematics) that he, like his postmodernist buddies, *cannot.* >>

Here Ruffini appears to grant that self-training is acceptable.  He certainly 
should, as Popper, for instance, Saint of enlightenment rationality that he 
is, had his degree in educational psychology but learned enough physics to 
write some interesting stuff about statistical mechanics and quantum theory, 
and even to intelligently debate the EPR with Einstein.  (Now please don't 
write an 8 page flame about how I dared compare myself to the Divine Popper.  
I'm just used him as a fairly exemplary example of what someone self-taught 
in physics could do.)

I did not mean Ross-like, to deny any study of QM -- just that I was not a 
physicist and had no degree, which Ruffini seemed to assume in his first post 
of criticism.  I've read a few hundred books on the subject, both popular and 
textbooks, audited a few graduate courses, and attended dozens conferences in 
Boston on the topic, as well as the Notre Dame 1987 conference which 
presented quantum measurement and the Aspect experiment for non-specialists.  
I gave four philosophy of science colloquia over the years at my local 
Physics Dept. and helped arrange two this year.  I meant only to state that I 
do not have a degree and am not a physicist or mathematician by profession.

The only substantive criticism of my discussion of Stenger that Ruffini 
presents is that I mis-describe Ruffini as a Bohmian.  He replies that he 
holds a Ghirardi-Rimini- like theory presented in his except from a New 
Scientist article.  Contrary to what Ruffini infers, I do know the difference 
between Bohm and GRW.  I am not familiar with the Gisin and Percival theory, 
and I thank him for posting the New Scientist piece on this (and other) 
listserves.  But I don't believe I ever claimed Ruffini was a Bohmian.  I 
merely said many of the science warriors were Bohmians (meaning Shelly 
Goldstein, followed by Levitt, Sokal, Bricmont, etc.) but noted that Weinberg 
was not, meaning to point out that all the science warriors are against 
subjectivity in QM, but disagree about how to get rid of it.  

Perhaps Ruffini, used to stereotyping people, assumed that since I said many 
science warriors are Bohmians that that must mean he was a Bohmian, just as 
he lumps me with all his devil-figures in science studies, and even makes me 
paradigmatic of them-- "the Val Duseks of this world"-- without bothering to 
read what I said about scientific realism and political analyses of science 
--viz. that discussing social influences on science doesn't mean one denies 
that science ever describes the world truthfully.  He himself discusses 
social impacts and contexts of scientific research without being his 
straw-man social constructionist/subjectivist/relativist.  For all his 
denouncing of dogmatism, Ruffini, like many science warriors, becomes very 
dogmatic at times and sounds more like an inquisition witch-hunter and 
heretic-burner about science studies and multiculturalism than like his 
self-presentation as a skeptic or enlightenment thinker.

I certainly said a lot of things that could be criticized rationally in my 
discussion of Stenger's article.  I imagine Stinson, if he knows as much 
about QM as he appeared to about GR could whip my ass, and invite him to do 
so if he's still lurking. ( I was unable to reply to his learned and erudite 
rants as I was very busy at the time.)  But Ruffini (if he's not just an 
alternative screen name for Stinson and Levitt) didn't really criticize any 
other of my remarks, for instance, 1.) that von Neumann and Wigner, hardly 
New Age granolas or grungers, held radical mentalistic interpretations of QM 
2.) that Bohr isn't as innocent of subjectivity as Stenger makes him out, 
though Folse and other commentators have attempted to defend Bohr as realist. 
 3.) that two kinds of holism seem to pop up in QM construals, a.) holism of 
measurement in Bohr and Copenhagen, and 2.) holism (or monism) of the 
universe in Bohm and Bell. 4.) that Stenger identifies holism in physics with 
aether theory in his book (and hints at this in the posted excerpt) and in 
his book claims that the refuation of the aether by discovery of the electron 
and Einstein's SR alleged elimination of the aether, but that field realism 
and rejection of particles as fundamental is in fact still held by people 
like Weinberg, which by Stenger's account, would make Weinberg a bad holist.  
(A former colleague once even read a paper on "The Born Again Aether," 
concerning drag-like effects in QFT.  I don't defend this, but just note the 
unholy alliance of born again and aether.)

If I recall correctly Jacques Distler had some interesting criticisms of 
Stenger's interpretations which were posted with stuff by Stenger, Bricmont, 
Smolin, and others by Levitt on the Kansas City STS list "as an experiment" a 
year or two ago, and should be available in its archive.

Speaking of the STS list out of Kansas City, I suggest that Ruffini subscribe 
to it.  Instead of having to rest content with taking me as paradigmatic of 
"science studies racketeers" and "Cultural Studies propagandists" he could 
debate with some real science studies people  such as members of Edinborough 
and Bath schools (at least a half dozen of whom do have PhD's or MAs in 
physics), as well as Steve Fuller and other science studies people, and 
critic Norm Levitt. He might actually learn something about the variety of 
views in the field, instead of just quoting Levitt about what they say.  Here 
is their (I hope, up to date) info:

[log in to unmask] 
 
COMMANDS 

These e-mail messages are intended to cause some action to occur, such as 
subscribing the FROM address to a mailing list. Commands are usually one or 
two word phrases which should be entered in the SUBJECT field of the message. 
Any other fields are ignored... it doesn't matter what you put in them. 

 The following commands are accepted: 

subscribe 

       adds your e-mail address to the list of subscribers 
       you will then receive all posts 
       you are then allowed to post from that address

Val Dusek