Ralph D, particle physics, and BS (fwd) -Reply

Rahul Mahajan rahul at hagar.fusion.utexas.edu
Mon Jun 19 19:49:43 MDT 1995


Lisa, you may have been a bit too subtle for him.

As I understand it, Darwin himself never categorically denied the
possibility of Lamarckian evolution -- in fact, at times he was ready to
concede that it could have been an important mechanism. When did they put
the nail in the coffin?

Rahul


>Oh Dear Lord Marx,
>
>There are blasphemers among us!  They do not sub*scribe to the one
>true interpretation and orthodox application of the holy DiaMat!  One
>of them "sneered", another one claimed that his interpretation of
>your Word was just as legit as mine, and even worse, one suggested
>that (dare I say it) You, yes You might have been wrong about
>something!
>
>And the worst thing of all is that they do not give proper respect to
>your only true interpreter!
>
>Oh, Lord, what shall I do?  How shall I drive the money-changers from
>the temple?  How shall I eliminate those pretenders to your Name?
>
>(Imagine much gnashing of teeth here.)
>
>-----------------
>
>
>
>
>Jim J. wrote to Rahul:
>You know, I'm REALLY starting to not like your attitude...
>...
>Listen, kid:  You've got a lot more than physics to learn...
>...
>'Dialectical Materialism' is indeed a belief system which implies
>that the holder of the beliefs can be partly, or even completely
>wrong about their view of reality....
>
>YOU MEAN, EVEN JIM COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG?  HOW NICELY HUMBLE
>
>(I hate having to argue with supposed 'socialists' who are really
>closet bourgeois liberals...)...
>
>Just why are you sniffing at 'Diamat' that way?? You think the
>reductionist crap that passes for much of scientific thinking these
>daze is so much more superior?? You think Popper's view of reality is
>superior  to Marx's??
>
>...[on Lamarckianism]
>I am indeed implying that the 'jury is still out' on the matter --
>which I'm sure will come as a surprise to a few generations of
>'scientists'...
>
>PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS?
>
> DON'T patronize me, kid -- I doubt there's much else besides physics
>where you could hope to best me...
>....
>
>TALK ABOUT ATTITUDE?
>
>There's a book by, of all people, Arthur Koestler -- the guy who
>wrote 'Darkness at Noon' -- regarding unfinished research in this
>field.
>
>I'm not saying it necessarily *IS* true, but I *AM* saying that my
>and other peoples' experience with the arrogance, stupidity and
>corruption of Establishment Science EASILY leads me to believe that
>any research into
>Lysenko-ism yielding positive data WOULD be suppressed.
>
>I am suspicious of ALL present attempts to denigrate such research
>-- ESPECIALLY if it is of an eager anti-communist kind...
>??
>....
>
>I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY SUCH ATTEMPTS - CITATIONS?
>
>YOU are the pompous little one who came in here and sneered at
>dialectical materialism. (Not unlike a few so-called 'socialists' in
>here.)
>
>I didn't come to the **MARXISM LIST** to argue with non-marxists
>frankly. It's like what goes on in feminism echos where women have to
>put  up with no END of opinionated males infesting the bandwidth...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list