if richard dawkins and others like him had their way science would be at the top of the tree of knowledge or the tip of the pyramid hierarchy of knowledge,and what they could not make subservient they would destroy,obliterate and render as impossible as they could.
at the risk of being unfair to him,after all i dont know him-but frankly would not want to do so because i would find him unaproachable and he would i am certain treat me as his mortal enemy,i think he wants to replace the pope/patriarch/archbishop(head of various christian churches),dalai lama(buddhism)and head of islam-not simply by abolishing theology,religious(and spiritual?)thought and all related institutions not with simple abolition but by putting himself at the head of science,therby to rule us all,much in the way of the 9 and 1 rings in"lord of the rings".i have heard esotericist friends say that he was an inquisitor in a previous existence/life.i dont think i believe in reincarnation-transmigration of sould might be abetter idea but im not sure i understand its greater subtleties or superiority.but the viewpoint i think makes the point.
professor dawkins seems to think the bible/christians/anyone of religious bent is responsible for child abuse.im certain he thinks that religious education is itself child abuse!somehow he does not apply his own stern,unrelenting and dare i say un-humane scientific logic to his own thoughts.
released by this failure from any similar responsibility,i am certainly of the view that neither religion nor spirituality had ANYTHING to do with hiroshima or nagasaki or the ongoing nuclear theat,which may not be as dark or as imminent as at some times in the recent past,since say 1945 when the damned things were inveneted,but the threat as"dirty",terrorist bombings or rogue states is still there.
i dont doubt such scientists would want to apply their peculiar forensic logic again here to evad their responsibility on what im afraid they weould view as"technicalities",which magically exonerate themfrom responsibility.
i would want to aks questions about other evets like bhopal,chernobyl,3 mile island,flixborough,fukuyama...the list could go on.
at the very least it begs questions about the relationship of science to technology-the applications of science to social and machine applications.beyond that it begs questions about the relationship to the state and the wider economic system-the class order/society that is capitalism.
i tend therefore to refer to science as scientism,with its unresolved relations and theories about science and society,state,capitalism.
as i say,i dont do science and technology much
professor dawkins says that a scientific approach to knowledge and the world ens up its wonders,rather than cloaking them in the ignorance of religion.sorry but he is simply not applying a histrians approach to knowledge and epistemology.my main experience of science was at school and my main memory was of being taught technique and method which whilst valuable in themselves reduced scientific knowledge to abstractions and those very methods.the world was reduved to away of writing down experiments-it did not enable me to make an imaginative led alone any other conection between what i was writing down,the various coloured powders and liquids and out there in the world.i found it boring and alienating,although my science teachers were great when they make jokes,explosions,accidents or indeed set an essay about the links between smoking and cigarretes which encouraged me to ask alot of questions about the social context of scientific method and knowledge.
so i did like the soiology of science and the philosophy of science which i formally sudied later.please note professor dawkins,that was philosophy of science,not science of philosophy.if there is such a things it would be inferor in every way to the philosophy.
and as i say,i dont do science and technology much.
as a student i also came across In The Making,Undercurrents and BSSRS/british society for social responsiblity in science,most of which sadly seems to have passed into history.what indeed did becme of bssrs?i had respect for allthose initiatives and found i could talk to and understand them.
at one time professor dawkins held a key lectureship in the"public understanding of science".i was excited by that idea.perhaps it might result in things in the community that might flower and feed my imagination and curiosity for what science claims to study.but then,oops,im sorry i used that word imagination again.im sure that is not allowed in this version of science.what i experienced was a batterring over the head with religion awful(yes its me personally that caused the holocaust and the abuse of all chidren ever)science good-and dont dare to disagree.it led me to trun away from science and to treat it as suspect,at al times.after all it is according to the advertisements science that is behind everything we are supposed to need.
i do wonder why professor dawkins does not see a connection between his activity in science,in its paublic understanding and bssrs/british society for social responsibility in science or any of its international dan often more significant and prestigious variants.i think of steven and hilary rose or steven jay gould for example?
so,i dont do science and technology much.
i have equal difficulties with technology too.
some of it seems to be about age and generation.at 58 some,though not all of my generatin are the subsance and butt of a stereotype in which we cant be dealing with computers and mobile phones,and all kinds of other tech.stuff.
i do mange some of it,some of the time.im not god at it,but then im not as"rubbish"at it as my last boss used to think.gven my own time,and control and choice of it(3 things that the aleination of workers under capitalism do not allow)i fare better.my failure at work of course had NOTHING to do with the fact that capitalist markets and competiton work so badly that they DONT guarantee andy quality,genuine quality of anything at any time.nor do they explain that too many neterprises,including my employer of over 20 years want"rolls royce quality at bicycle prices".at one time they could pay £5,000 and more for a reapair call out but not the money to check let alone replace faulty technology.
the evidence,the facts point in adifferenet direction.remember the gross over anxiety and over engineering of solutions to the great date changeover from 31/12/1999 to 01/01/2000 all because capitalism pushes development towards cheap,quick and short-sighted solutions.recall the waste of multi-milllions if not now billions as the british state tried to by overarchingcomputer systems that did EVERYTHING,especially watching us-but failed on numerous occassions,in immigration,benefits,criminal justice and undoubtedly more.at one point last year 2011,in arranging i think major data migration or yet another system or server,they were reduced to instructing staff that if they worked one side of the thames they could use computers in the morning/AM and n the other side of the thames,in the afternoon/PM.
since i retired ive purchased computers which actually work for me most of the time.hacking has been a major headache but i got through it.i also bought an all singing and dancing mobile and can use it to do what i need to do.and i dont do things that bore me sick and eesmto have no purpose either!i will not have to complete the equivalent of 42 page computerised assessment when ive written this.when i give a friend or comrade an answer or advise similarly i do not have to go through several levels of computer bureaucracy.
im also very lucky in having several good friends and comrades who have helped me out,and sometimes ive paid for help and got it.i want to acknowledge here the staff of the computer manfacturer and advice lines for patience and forbearance that was not always available when i was employed.how for example could i send an email explaining to IT that i had a fault,when i could not understand it,when the comouter had broken dwn and when it was against prtotocols to ask another colleague foruse of their computer(im not even clear whether it was actually ok to ask another to email on my behalf though it was the only pragmatic option.in turn if they are"out to get you"thats the kind of ambguity on which i could get"hung"-fired)
what i continue to find really galling with alot of this technology though is that the information someone like me is NOT in the handbook,not findable easily,if at all,not comprehensible when found,always couched in computer-ese and there is no guarantee that its in the fAQs either.often the illustrated instructions do not match what is on the screen,or the apparently simple step by step instructions leave out a key,alwys simple step but that leave me completely stumped even if a computer whizz knows the answer.
as i say i dont do much science or technology.....
and ive written all that,and repeated the statement a good few times
all in order to get to this.........
that i thought id also use my blog to as those daft/technical questions in search of some answers..
im genuinely interested to see if it is possible to get answers that make sense and are understandable
i do know for example that sometimes.maybe often things are just complex and difficult,but wonder if its still possible to make understanding easier.
i can only comment from my own discipline in socal sciences and marxism.....
i have been genuinely impressed that during the period i regularly read capital and class journal it went in format and writing style from being dense and difficult however well intended to accessible,attractive,usable,readable
likewise historical materialism journal deals with difficut stuff but also makes it readable and usable.
i havve learned much form both.i used to learn from in the making and undercurrents but both have gone and i dont find the same help on the internet.if i have a problem with say emailing to unsubscive=be from some websites i have to wade through pages of very attracive LOOKING material but which actually does not tell me anything nor enabke me to change anything.without the help of friends"in the know"i would be comletely.......well lost
so why do you think i call myself and write as lost
but credit where it is due-thanks to nizam,margaret,steve an sandra for the help they have given to me with these issues,and in gettting me here
unfortunately,i think it will always be the case.....that i dont do science or technology.....much
No comments:
Post a Comment