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