From: Sengen Sun (sengensun$##$yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2006 - 20:01:56 EDT
A friend just wrote me about my internet post that I
misunderstood the meaning "Science Wars" by Jay A.
Labinger. Yes, I agree that I made a mistake. I
apologize to every one, especially to Jay A. Labinger
and the FOCH journal about my absurd mistake if the
"science wars" do not have the meaning as I
understood. In Jay's article, "Science wars" means
those between two different cultures such as between
science and arts, not those between scientists of
different scientific opinions as I learnt from another
article I read recently.
I don't know anything about the "Science Wars" meant
by Jay. I would like to learn something about it. I
will read the whole articles (I need to go to UCSD
library to get the full articles).
But anyway,is the phrase "science wars" a good
description of the conflicts meant by Jay?
Apologies again to every one.
Sengen
--- Sengen Sun <sengensun$##$yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
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