 |
 |
Hi simon et al to further your critique of Daawkins, I attended a talk by Rupert Shedrake on Henri Bergson at a Scientific and Medical Network evening recently where he accused Dawkins of a form of animism, the assigning of purpose to 'selfish' genes. This assignation is a rhetorical strategy of Dawkins to increase the 'memetic stickyness' of his ideas but it has the effect of propogating a myth about genes as purposeful agents, surely not what he intends? Is this a case of reductionism collapsing into that which it is attacking? His poetic idea of a river of life in River out of Eden has strong mythic overtones as well to me. Strange for someone who disavows any form of knowledge apart from Science. I have found Dawkins to be an inspirational and passionate science writer when he sticks to the science but when he tries to posit science over other forms of knowledge as Simon points out he becomes a bullying voice, eerily similar to some of the strident certainties of the religious right. Terry Eagleton takes Dawkins and Chris Hitchens fallacious scientism and philosophical ignorance apart in a very entertaining way in his new book, Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate. A version of it can be found at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching I favour scientific approaches that take account of cognition and subjectivity, eg complexity theorists like Stuart Kaufmann of the Santa Fe Institute and the late Francisco Varela who are anti reductionist and see agency, value and meaning as emergent and irreducible properties of complex systems like humans and societies. Simeon on 3/11/09 12:24 PM, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Tom > > Some scientists regard science as you do as the best of a set of > relatively better or worse options. However, many are absolutist. I agree > with most of what Richard Dawkins says until he gets to the point of > articulating his belief in science over other systems of belief. At that > point he loses me and, I fear, loses his argument. His adamant belief that > science is not only the best available system but the best of all systems, > full stop, appears both arrogant and ignorant. > > Science is not a system for delivering truth. Nor should it become a belief > system. It is as constrained by cultural and historical factors as any other > epistemology. Where it differs, importantly, is in having a methodological > system in place that works against things becoming doctrinaire and allows > for change in our understanding of the world. That is a big improvement on > previous systems. However, those methods do not always deliver on that > promise and many scientists, and the technocrats who develop their > half-baked ideas on the basis of that science, often come to see science and > its methods in absolutist terms. They might philosophically accept the > limitations of scientific method but in practice they treat it as a system > for divining truth. That is very dangerous and Dawkins repeatedly makes this > error. In his recent Darwin TV series he stated explicitly that science was > not only the best known system but also the best imaginable system and no > other system of apprehension could deliver knowledge that could stand > against it. He did not argue that Darwin¹s theory offers us a best-fit > model, given our current constraints, but rather that it was the truth (he > used that word). He set Darwinism in direct contradistinction to religion. > Big mistake as this simply makes science look like religion. He has lost the > argument at that point. > > OK, let¹s generously assume that when Dawkins says ³best imaginable² he is > also ironically reflecting on a lack of human imagination. Nevertheless, he > dismisses thousands of years of human history and experience with his > rhetorical flourish, not recognising the damage he has done to any > likelihood he will achieve the agreement he seeks in what he regards as a > war against the dark forces of religion and misguided belief systems (I > agree religion is a dark force, but his methods will not banish it). > > If science was practiced as you suggest it should be then I would have no > argument with you, nor with science or those who employ its outcomes. > However, that is not how science is practiced and people are expected to > defer to systems of authority that compound that malpractice. A good example > here is how the introduction of genetically modified organisms into > agriculture and the natural environment was handled. Thankfully, in that > case, at least in Europe, the dark forces of ignorance won the argument and > GM is not being developed here. However, the other day I attended a day-long > workshop on Synthetic Biology, the objective being to find ways that GM can > be introduced again without the contentiousness that previously occurred. As > somebody who is staunchly anti-GM (on the basis that it compromises the > freedom of those who want their food to be organic and do not want > agri-business dictating how we produce our food) I found this an interesting > event to be part of. I am going to sustain my engagement with this process, > for the time being, to see where it goes but given who is involved (Craig > Venter, for example) I have few illusions where it will end up. Expect the > GM argument mark II but by stealth and with smiley faces attached. > > I could have used the current renewed focus on nuclear power as another > example here. I sustain my position against that form of energy for the > reasons I always have. It is not a renewable energy source, its produces > highly toxic waste and it is part of a weapons cycle. However, science will > be used instrumentally by politicians to convince us that it is good for us > truthfully...and many scientists will go along with it, certain in their > belief they are right. To me that looks no different to the ignorant priests > who 1000 years ago dictated public policy on how to deal with the plague > (with disastrous results). > > So, I am all for engaging with science (as you know) but with a lot of > scepticism about both science and those who do it and (ab)use it. There is a > bigger picture... > > Simon > > Simon Biggs > > Research Professor > edinburgh college of art > [log in to unmask] > www.eca.ac.uk > > Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments > CIRCLE research group > www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > [log in to unmask] > www.littlepig.org.uk > AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk > > From: tom corby <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: tom corby <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:25:19 +0000 > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science and > Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions > > Simon, Armin, List..... > > I find some of these characterizations of science unhelpful - they rake > over old arguments that I thought we'd junked years ago i.e. culture > wars. Science believes in it's propositions according to the best > possible evidence. It doesn't claim absolute truth. As for the belief in > universal laws, again these are presented as hypotheses backed up with > best possible evidence. Science gives us a very good method for > understanding material and environmental processes such as climate change. > > Facing environmental catastrophe we need more interdisciplinary practice > not less, I do however agree that the terms for these collaborations > need to be carefully framed. > > best > > Tom Corby > >> >> From: Armin Medosch <[log in to unmask]> >> Reply-To: Armin Medosch <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:51:57 +0100 >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science > and >> Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions >> >> Hi all >> >> the problem is not just instrumentalism but what science studies >> scholars call the ideology of science or scientism, the believe that the >> results of science are objective, that the 'laws of nature' are >> universal and eternal and exist outside society. If an institution or an >> individual scientist are wedded to that idea then I cant see how any >> self-respecting artist can work with them except as some ethnographer or >> social anthropologist of science. Unfortunately most institutions have >> scientism built into their belief system so that in any collaboration >> the artist would have to submit to a strong apriori decision about the >> superiority of science as a system of knowledge to be admitted to the >> institution, there is no reconciliation possible between the epistemic >> cultures of science and art on that basis. >> >> Furtherly, I am afraid that pure science is not necessarily a remedy >> against that ideology of science, it can grow there as well as in a >> commercial R&D lab; rather, pure science itself is an ideological >> construct to justify certain types of funding, whereas in reality most >> science is strongly connected with R&D anyway and empirically speaking, >> by far the majority of science is conducted in a commercial R&D context. >> Those points are not my 'opinion' but paraphrasing an interview with >> philosopher and historian of science Simon Schaffer from Cambridge. >> >> All that does not mean that artists and curators should not engage with >> it, but, if possible, on their own terms and with a careful approach >> that checks and selects methodologies, projected outcomes, etc. >> Otherwise the questions that can be asked are very narrow indeed >> >> best >> armin >> >> > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > >