Jean Baudrillard Did Not Die

[nomadologist]

Oh for God's sake - what exactly does science, as a pure intellectual discipline, have to do with specific applications of science? Fuck all, that's what. As a case in point, the Einstein/bomb thing is one of the biggest white elephants in the history of science.

Scientists, being people, can be moral or immoral as their personal character dictates. Science itself is inherently amoral, just as the field of ethics takes no particular stance on atomic theory.

Because science can be used for good or evil, it is hardly the case that it is ALWAYS NEUTRAL to practice science.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Mr. Tea: why don't you get back to us after you actually, I don't know, READ THE TEXTS we're talking about.

Because I'm enjoying this argument. OK, so I haven't read any Baudrillard, and this thread was started about him, but that doesn't mean I'm not in a position to counter statements like "science is a kind of religion".

 

[nomadologist]

Who Said Science Is A Kind Of Religion? Not Baudrillard

 

[Edward]

OK so when you talk about some people following science with a dogmatic or religious fervour, you mean people who don't really understand what the scientific method is?
They are just fans of "sciency stuff"?

I'm just trying to follow what everyone means.
If that's what you meant then I agree with you.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Who Said Science Is A Kind Of Religion? Not Baudrillard

No, that was zhao, a few hours ago.

 

[Edward]

Mr Tea, you are trolling!
Stop pulling her leg.
Nobody said science was a kind of religion did they?

 

[nomadologist]

OK so when you talk about some people following science with a dogmatic or religious fervour, you mean people who don't really understand what the scientific method is?
They are just fans of "sciency stuff"?

I'm just trying to follow what everyone means.
If that's what you meant then I agree with you.

No, Edward. The Nazis thought they were practicing "science" when they were euthanizing old people and the disabled. Of course, this does not mean they were practicing science. But "science" can be easily manipulated to justify all kinds of terrible things.

 

[Edward]

Ah.
There is no scientific reason for any action. Science is a method for finding out information. It has no agenda.
So we are talking about bad people misappropriating the word "science" to justify their own ends and others falling for it because they believe science is good and haven't noticed the switcheroo?

 

[nomadologist]

Yes. Partially. Using science to draw larger conclusions about life (conclusions that can't be verified scientifically) is called into question by a lot of post-modern thinkers. But that is hardly the number one preoccupation of the "post-modernists" as Zhao or anyone here was defining them.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't really see where this is taking us. People pervert and misuse science for all sorts of reasons. What I was getting at is that the scientific method is not a 'belief system', in the sense that religions and other ideologies are, as they are in general unsupported by either empirical evidence or analytical reason.

This may have nothing to do with Baudrillard (so I hereby formally apologise for being off-topic, mmkay?), but I started talking about it in response to something zhao said. Nukes and Nazis are not relevant to a discussion of the scientific method.

 

[Edward]

ok i sign off now having done my bit to defend science.
i might try and read some baudrillard but last time i went there were only 6 philosophy books in my local library and they all had titles like "an introduction to philosophy" or "the philosophy of football"
I expect there is a scientific reason for the fact that british libraries have fuck all books in them these days

 

[nomadologist]

If you can't see how nuclear weapons (which many see as a very unfortunate effect of scientific dogmatism and volatile political conditions) and the hideous bastardization of logical positivism masquerading as science that the Nazis purported relate to a discussion of science as praxis in the 20th century, then I don't really have anything further to say to you about any of these topics, let alone Baudrillard.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I don't understand. I'm talking about the process by which science progresses, how scientists assimilate the information they gather about the natural world, how theories are developed, evolve and are often eventually superceded. Nazi racial theory is an example of this process being perverted and mutated out of recognition for political purposes, so it's interesting from a historical and political perspective, but has no more to do with strict philosophy of science than drink-driving statistics have to do with a discussion on auto engineering. The development of nuclear weapons, from a purely scientific viewpoint, is an example of some truly astounding theoretical physics and feats of engineering, facilitated by some of the finest minds of the 20th century.

 

[Guybrush]

I think you were getting at something there, Mr Tea, though I disagree with your saying scientific methods are not belief systems (in all fairness, you used the term within brackets). Is not the clinging to empirical evidence and analytical reason as discerners an obvious belief system? A belief system, but a very powerful one.

Nomadologist: I don’t understand why you are claiming that the Nazis dealt with pseudo-science. They carried out numerous experiments which were ghastly, but scientific all the same.

 

[nomadologist]

I think you were getting at something there, Mr Tea, though I disagree with your saying scientific methods are not belief systems (in all fairness, you used the term within brackets). Is not the clinging to empirical evidence and analytical reason as discerners an obvious belief system? A belief system, but a very powerful one.

Nomadologist: I don’t understand why you are claiming that the Nazis dealt with pseudo-science. They carried out numerous experiments which were ghastly, but scientific all the same.

Their experiments determining the "inherent racial inferiority" of Jews were scientific? Since when?

 

[Mr. Tea]

I put 'belief system' in inverted commas because, as the term is usually used, it describes a set of unjustified beliefs. God created the world 6,000 years ago, the Earth floats through space on the back of a giant tortoise, blowing up that school bus will get you into Heaven. Whatever. I believe that my body is made of atoms and that we're whizzing through space on a ball of rock in a huge conglomeration of stars because I have very good reasons to believe those things. They're justified beliefs, hence my assertion that science is not a belief system like a religion or a political dogma, even if it is a 'belief system' of sorts. I find the term distasteful because it is often used by those attacking science and/or who do not understand it.

 

[nomadologist]

strict philosophy of science .

who is talking about the "strict" "philosophy" of science?

 

[nomadologist]

The development of nuclear weapons, from a purely scientific viewpoint, is an example of some truly astounding theoretical physics and feats of engineering, facilitated by some of the finest minds of the 20th century.

A lot of great minds (my boyfriend's grandfather, for example, a German scientist educated at MIT) respectfully DECLINED to work on the Manhattan projected, because they OBJECTED to it ETHICALLY.

 

[zhao]

For the record, I don't think anyone has ever been killed over a purely scientific dispute, much less a war started over one.

but, scientific theory, however wrongly interpreted, has been (mis)used COUNTLESS times to justify crimes and wars. for instance Darwin's theories have been used to justify racisim, slavery, imperialism, etc, etc, etc. just as religion has been (mis)used.

science has been used to justify human (destructive) behavior and greed just as religion has been used in past times. I don't see much of a difference in the application. it's like humans will do what they want to do, and use whatever "grand narrative" happens to be popular at the time to make a case for it being OK.

 

[Mr. Tea]

who is talking about the "strict" "philosophy" of science?

Er, me, for a start. I meant the methodology, epistemology and so on of science itself, not the attendent social and ethical considerations. If you want to talk about them, that's fine, but it's a whole different kettle of fish.