As far as I can tell, it seems as though Dov Henis is the only one flying
in from beyond Pluto to declare the omni-benevolence of science as distinct
from other areas of culture where the rest of us here are aware that
'science-as-culture' refers to science as a cultural practice (even tho'
some of us may not think that that is all science is). Your reading of the
various uses of this listserv (and your suggested topics of conversation)
seem, therefore, to be quite valid.

----------
> From: Erik A. Mattila <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: taking off in the wrong direction
> Date: Tuesday, 5 January 1999 20:00
>
> Dov,
>
> I am obviously in error in my understanding of this forum, and as I have
no
> wish whatsoever to ride a dead horse, I'll happily withdraw my subject
from
> the three that concern you.  Perhaps you can understand how I made a
> mistake if I  briefly explain how I got here in the first place.
>
> I design and maintain a major Science & Technology web site in
California,
> and while working on the links section I came across EEAST and from there
I
> found the Science as Culture website.  I enjoyed the material on the
site,
> especially as it related to Critical Theory and the social sciences, and
at
> one point in the web site I clicked a button expecting to read some of
the
> posts in the SaC discussion forum, and instead I ended up subscribed to
the
> list server.
>
> This was all about 6 weeks ago.  I read with interest many of the posts I
> received, while some others were of little interest to me personally.
When
> I read the 'Radler on Science' post, I thought it would be interesting to
> debate the specific issue of 'science's" claim to 'truth'  under the
rubric
> "Science as Culture." My post was framed around an experience I had had
> first hand which I believed related to the issue of 'truth' in science.
>
> So you see, I am quite new to this forum, and as such I have no way of
> knowing the consensus among those of you who have used this form for a
> longer period of time.  It seems obvious to me now that I have missed the
> mark, at least if I take the responses to my post as representative of
the
> general consensus of views of the users of this forum.
>
> I am generally surprised at the responses I have received.  In the first
> place what I posted under "Radler on Science (the reference) changed to
> "Matilla [sic] on Indians and Science" then "Your NSF money and mine" and
> now your "Scientists versus Critical Theorists."  In narratology these
> 'thread' titles would be called 'parametric elements,' -- 'meaning units'
> that inform the whole narrative, and they function much like a caption
> underneath a photograph.  Maybe the photograph is a good analogy:  A
photo
> of Albert Einstein, and the caption reads "Albert Einstien, author of the
> General Theory of Relativity" and it is changed to "This guy needs a hair
> cut."  The total meaning of the photograph changes, rather dramatically.
>
> Secondly, I was surprised to read in the responses several statements of
> what one does not want to talk about or what one thinks is unworthy of
> talking about.  This seems rather strange to me, as well as
contradictory.
> If one doesn't want to discuss a subject, why discuss it?  I believe it
is
> generally understood that the best way to shut-up a crack-pot on a news
> forum is a general silence.  That tactic would certainly work with me.
>
> Finally, I assumed that the "culture' in "Science and Culture" referred
to
> the social sciences. The 'investigations and studies of 'virtual
creations'
> of humans' is of course the part and parcel of the social sciences, isn't
> it?   Why don't you simply state that the social sciences don't belong on
> this forum?  I feel like I've stumbled into a claven of "Scientific
> People," as in Alfred Bestler's famous scifi classic "The Stars my
> Destination."  Consequently, my recommendation is that "Science as
Cuture"
> be changed to "Science as Religion."
>
> At any rate, I apoligise to this group for starting off the new year in
> 'the wrong direction.'  (I actually would have preferred 1998 to change
to
> 1997).  Please be sure that I "get the hint."
>
> Erik Mattila