From: Sengen Sun (sengensun$##$yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2006 - 13:03:29 EDT
Science is about natural logics of non-arbitriryness.
This non-arbitrary nature distinguishes science from
religions, arts, politics, etc. Pure or fundamental
science is about the understanding of natural logics.
For example, why is there a general gravity? A good
mathematical formulation of gravity is not an
equivalence to an understanding of it.
Are there general logics behind the organic synthesis.
I can confidently say yes. A general logic I have
formulated based on my computational studies of
cycloadditions is that the easiness of electron
migration decides the chemical reactivitity.
When I checked the TOC and abstracts (but not the full
papers) in the most recent issue of Foundations of
Chemistry, I find some of the very sensitive words
such as Radical, attack, naive.... But I cannot find
the phrase "suicide bombers", which I guess should be
the task of the next issue of FOCH.
A "Science War" is actually a good thing for science,
while a political war in science is bad to the human
society. True science won't be hurt in a "Science War"
simply because of its non-arbitrary nature. The
natural logics won't be altered by human. The more we
debate, the more evident a particular natural logic.
"The Science Wars have pitted defenders of science
against those accused of attacking it with the weapons
of constructivism and relativism." (Jay A. Labinger,
FOCH, 2006, 8(2), 97).
This is interestingly absurd philosophy no matter how
I think of it. "Attacking science" surely means to
prevent or to destroy any scientific activities. To
me, advocating intelligent design in science, playing
political tricks, etc. would belong to the category of
attacking on science
Further, who specicifically are the attackers in the
author's opinion? Is Dr. Eric Scerri (Editor of FOCH)
an attacker as he criticizes some nonsense in Nature?
Am I an attacker due to my desperate disagreements to
some issues in FOCH? Or, other people are attackers as
they have different views from yours or your
authority's?
It is "a direction of slipery slop to head down" for
"Radical", "attacker", "naive", etc. to be assigned
arbitrarily to your opponents. About hundreds years
ago, there was an "attacker" when all people believed
that the sun evolves around the earth. A hundred years
ago, there was "an attacker" who broke the Newton
mechanics.....
I feel greatly honored when I was labelled as an
"attacker" by two poeple including a friendly person
who wanted to make a joke of me. When I stated in CCL
that science must be fairly discussed as a driver must
be free from alcohol, the friendly person replied:
"you attacker are too naive if you think that all
drivers are free from alcohol...." A funny metaphor
even though I generally don't like metaphors in
science!
My mission in the public debate on science is merely
to bring the specific controversies of theoretical
chemistry onto the table, so that every person
(including me) can examine the issues independently
with his/her own mind by looking at some specific
sentences documented in the chemical literature.
Some current specific questions are: who is the
representing figure of the "attackers", and what
he/she said specifically is to attack science? Do
current authorities dare to give some room for the
"attackers" to explain their views?
Sengen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
ORGLIST - Organic Chemistry Mailing List
Website / Archive / FAQ: http://www.orglist.net
To post a message (TO EVERYBODY) send to everybody$##$orglist.net
To unsubscribe, send to everybody-request$##$orglist.net the message: unsubscribe your_orglist_password your_address
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Feb 13 2007 - 14:17:01 EST