JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  November 2009

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING November 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science and Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions

From:

Simeon Nelson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:55:25 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (211 lines)

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
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager