Ralph D, particle physics, and BS -Reply
EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at EMAIL.STATE.UT.US
Mon Jun 19 17:14:12 MDT 1995
Right on, Rahul.
>>> Rahul Mahajan <rahul at hagar.ph.utexas.edu> 6/18/95, 10:59am >>>
I'm not asking you to speak on MY terms or on the terms of scientists
at all. When we speak English, we mean something by the word
"demonstrate" -- we don't mean "assert." This may surprise you, but
the enterprise of science is about a lack of dogmatism. It's a
dialectical process -- when you abandon dogmatism completely, and
work hard at finding all the conceivable flaws in what you're doing,
sometimes after a lot of time and effort you gain the ability to make
provisionally categorical statements.
Postmodernists should try it, instead of starting out with dogmatic
BTW, the fact that they didn't give a shit about science in itself is
exactly the problem -- if they don't, they have no right to make
substantive statements about it. The power-effects generated by
scientific discourse are obvious to a five-year-old -- so are the
problems of entanglement of what passes for scientific truth with the
politics of science. This says nothing at all about lack of validity
of the concept of scientific truth. ....
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism