----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D., Scipolicy -The Journal of Science and
Health Policy
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:55 PM
Subject: The Scooping of Science
A recent posting in the evolutionary-psychology discussion group highlights
an on-line book by John Brockman, titled "The Third Culture." Brockman, a
pseudo scientist and noted literary agent, assembled a collection of
important articles, and from them he points to a philosophical-cultural
scientific trend.
The Third Culture - Beyond the Scientific Revolution
by John Brockman http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html
He states: "The third culture consists of those scientists and other
thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository
writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering
visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are."
Brockman makes it sound like he discovered the enlightenment and age of
reason all over again to be residing in the hearts and minds of postmodern
scientists. He draws on an important selection of contemporary scientific
writers (links to passages by the authors are given below). Does he think he
has discovered "The Enlightenment 2000?" Should his discovery be taught in
all the schools and colleges in the nation?
Brockman is another lay-writer like John Horgan who themselves are not
scientists but are at the fringes it by virtue of their reporting about
others' discoveries. They delight in scooping scientists and in publicly
issuing and defending their own speculations. They try to make news not just
report it. When the likes of Brockman and Horgan tackle profound issues and
take them to the public directly, they short circuit science and avoid being
subjected to trial by fire by scientists in academia and in research
laboratories everywhere.
If one interviews enough scientists from a broad selection of disciplines,
commonalties and trends may always be identified about the culture of the
population interviewed. The methodology is fine for art and cultural
discussion but not necessarily for science. There is a big difference
between speculating about the results and cultural impact of scientific
works and the making of original discoveries about
nature (including culture).
Original discovery is serious academic business. Work in science writing and
literary agency hardly suffices for scientific competence. Moreover,
speculative science writings by pseudo scientists damage the public market
for bone-fide scientific writings. This is not the case of whatever is
printed about science is good for science. Still, there is always the
possibility that some upstart will hit the nail on the head. Science fiction
and scientific speculation may generate trade market sales. However, the
thing that really propels science in the hearts and minds of the public are
actual hard scientific discoveries -especially about medicine, prolonging
life, technologies to make life better, and technologies for defending our
civilization while minimizing the loss of human life.
Marketplace-wise Darwin did it right on behalf of science. In contrast,
Horgan and Brockman injure science because the give a false impression of
what science is and what it takes to make bonefide discoveries and have them
become adopted by science generally. After all, science is what scientists
do; It is not about what science writers do.
Best wishes, Stephen Miles Sacks, MPA, Ph.D.,
Editor and Publisher, SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy
Box 504, Haverford, PA 19041
Voice and Fax: 610-658-2332 (24 hours)
Website: http://www.Scipolicy.net
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Pitchford" [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 8:46 AM
Subject: [evol-psych] The Third Culture
The Third Culture - Beyond the Scientific Revolution
by John Brockman http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html
<snip>
|
