Snow, Two Cultures and the Science Wars

Humanities Forum lecture at UMBC by Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology, University of Warwick, UK.
The contest for authority to speak about science and technology, called the science wars, has often been framed in terms of C.P. Snows analysis. Fuller argues that few recent commentators are familiar with the historical trajectory that transports us from Snows earlier concerns to concerns of the present. He focuses on the curious alignments that have transpired over the course of the Science Wars.

Note from Steve Fuller:
"Also after the talk last night, I realized that I misspoke in the final
question (which I think was asked by one of your deans), concerning the
parallels between economic arguments for blue-skies science and for the
arts. This was a really good point - but I botched it by giving the name of
the wrong economist. It wasn't James Tobin (who happened to be a jazz
aficionado!) but William Baumol. There's actually a handbook on the topic:

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/622130/description#...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• umbctube
• UMBC
• humanities
• science
• science wars
• humanities forum

[pr9301]

That's why none of them defended James Watson who made politicaly - ideologically unpopular but scientifically TRUE statements about race.

And PC's comes from Marx and Marx's thinking - its foundation is steeped firmly in - drumroll - the 18th century Englightenment ideology!

And THAT is why Brockman chose the writers he chose!

[pr9301]

Steve "Ok" Fuller. He says "Ok" between every other sentence. BAD Public Speaker.

But, he makes an interesting point, indirectly, of course.

He lists science writers like EO Wilson, Pinker, etc. and Brockman the Literary Agent.

He says that they are all united in their desire to ask the big questions. He then compares them to 18th century writers.

Well, the Wison, Pinkers are united in their willingness to subordinate science to the RELIGION of Political Correctness.

[traccan]

@goPistons06 It also extends itself directly into politics: Fuller's view is too typically 'ivory-tower' in one sense, that he totally overestimates the public's ability (or even more accurately, their motivation) to critically assess the information that is out there on the internet and in print and tv journalism, etc. If the public can't even distinguish complete idiocy and nut-job extremism in the political arena (ie, Sharron Angle, Pat Robertson) what makes him think they can for scientists

[goPistons06]

the science wars are more than about science. this intellectual debate rightfully extends itself into philosophy. the 20th century saw the divergence of of philosophy into two schools, the so called analytics and and continentals. as i see it, many of the "continentals" are are paid charlatans who dominate academic circles and establishments. the analytics are the heirs of common sense philosphers like Hume.

[TedDGPoulos]

Think of the underlying law of nature. The way of all things.

Consider its astounding inferences and implications.

The single, underlying law ... of nature! Not merely of physics, chemistry, psychology, biology, etc., but of all known fields of inquiry. The law we can all relate to, identify, understand and apply.

Ask yourself. What is the underlying law of nature?

Delight in the question. Have fun in the process of finding the answer firsthand for yourself.

Google it, as a start.