Received: from mx02.globecomm.net (mx02.globecomm.net [206.253.129.31]) by email.mcmail.com (9.9.9/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03834 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:49:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu (maelstrom.stjohns.edu [149.68.1.24]) by mx02.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA01469 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199808101349.JAA01469@mx02.globecomm.net> Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu by maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.714C5038@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>; Mon, 10 Aug 1998 8:22:14 -1300 Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:22:13 -0400 From: "L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c)" Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9805" To: Ian Pitchford X-UIDL: e851dc429440b97e82555198b72fb9b1 X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 0 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:48:22 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Charles E. Moore" Subject: Re: True/false dichotomy MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Prof Dykstra, 1. Since, presumably, you would doubt the "reality" of fluid dynamics, I surmise you refuse to board an airplane to travel to your conferences...? 2. You seem to place some intrinsic value on whether someone displays "arrogance" which goes beyond being bad because it tends to cause tunnel vision even beyond the "box" of time and place. I'm sorry, but it somehow reminds me of the unappetizing way Europeans tend to use the word "democratic", or apostate humanists use the word "elitist". -Charles Moore, PE ----------------------------- Dewey Dykstra, Jr. wrote: > > >Re: Campuses Ring to a Stormy Clash Over Truth and Reason > >== > >Scientists pretended that history didn't matter, because the errors > >of the past were now corrected by modern discoveries. But of course > >their forebears had believed exactly the same thing in the past, too. > >They had been wrong then. And modern scientists were wrong now. > >======= > >REPLY: This true/false dichotomy is really overplayed by some in > >science studies camp. I'm comfortable with the idea of degrees of > >accuracy, and believe that it is legitimate to view scientific > >theories as successively more accurate models of reality. > >Notwithstanding the peculiar observations of the likes of Collins, > >Pinch, Fuller et al, scientific knowledge clearly is cumulative and > >progressive.To take some crude examples: Does anyone expect to wake > >up tomorrow to the revelation that the heart isn't a pump, that > >oxygen isn't an element, or that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun? I'm > >always hesitant to comment on modern physics, but as I understand it > >quantum mechanics and relativity theory are not compatible, hence the > >search for a relativistic quantum field theory of gravitation. If we > >are restricted to the true/false description then I suppose you'd > >have to say that quantum mechanics and relativity theory are false, > >something that is obviously fairly ridiculous. It makes better sense > >to say that these theories represented signifcant advances in our > >modelling of reality in that they subsumed many disparate facts and > >observations, and that they impressively predicted many new ones to a > >high degree of accuracy (something that they continue to do, of > >course). Any new theory will be built on this foundation and will > >subsume all of the facts generated by these theories. But, I am sure > >the many physicists and mathematicians on this list can offer some > >more sophisticated insights here. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Ian > > Many were sure that the liminiferous aether existed. Many were just as > certain the phlogiston existed as we are sure of our knowledge now. There > were those that were certain that light was rays, later others who were > sure it was corpuscles. The point is that history abounds with examples > when whatever passed for the established science-as-knowledge included > certainties which we no longer hold, some which have been replaced several > times over. As Kuhn and others have pointed out, no one could tell what > the "new certainty" would be until it actually became the "new certainty". > Are we doomed to relive the arrogance of our predecessors; doomed to relive > history in a sense? > > There is at least one other way to view knowledge other than as "truth" > about what is. If we do not insist that the result of our efforts > generating explanatory schemes about the world as leading to or resulting > in the "truth" about what is, then we have a way of avoiding the potential > arrogance. > > Dewey > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105 > Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775 > Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330 > Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu > 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders > Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper > > "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and > are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external > world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld, > 1938. > "Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct > of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence." > --E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958. > "Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in > There Are No Electrons, 1991. > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 09:39:00 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dewey Dykstra, Jr." Subject: Re: True/false dichotomy In-Reply-To: <199805010528.XAA21154@bsumail.idbsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Prof Dykstra, >1. Since, presumably, you would doubt the "reality" of fluid dynamics, >I surmise you refuse to board an airplane to travel to your >conferences...? > >2. You seem to place some intrinsic value on whether someone displays >"arrogance" which goes beyond being bad because it tends to cause tunnel >vision even beyond the "box" of time and place. I'm sorry, but it >somehow reminds me of the unappetizing way Europeans tend to use the >word "democratic", or apostate humanists use the word "elitist". > >-Charles Moore, PE > I hope by now you have read my second installment on this topic. I believe that it answers your first question. Yes, I do place intrinsic value on a reasonable amount of humility and sensitivity as a habit of behavior on the part of the members of a profession; in part because a lack of it does generally seem to lead to a kind of tunnel vision. Wouldn't this concern anyone? Another important reason is because of the effect of this arrogance as we discharge two (not necessarily the only two) of the most important duties to society that we have as professionals. One is in how we contribute to the education of society in general. The other is in how we interact with society as we try to make possible the application or use of our "product" (knowledge, technology, etc.) by the society. If by education one means that the result is change in understanding of aspects of the the world by the student, then science education as-it-is is an almost complete failure. Our interactions with society, possibly chiefly through science education, have resulted in many people not being able to distinguish what we and what some call pseudo-science. It is all ready clear that additional doses of arrogance, insisting that science is the only true knowledge, does not work. Maybe working at it until people actually understand is a better tack, but this takes tact and a certain reserve and humility. Then, again, how we practice science education shows that in general we do not function in such a way as the bulk of the students achieve understanding even when we try. Maybe we have some major re-thinking to do. Hmmmm..... If we've got such a handle on the truth, then surely it can stand a critical eye. What do we really have to hide? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105 Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775 Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330 Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld, 1938. "Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence." --E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958. "Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in There Are No Electrons, 1991. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:22:24 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Gideon Lichfield Subject: Re: True/false dichotomy -- I & II X-To: sci-cult@SJUVM.stjohns.edu ** PRIVATE ** Dewey Dykstra wrote: >you might notice that there are two classes of entities mentioned here. >One type of example is reference to shared experience. .... >The other type of example is about entities presumed to exist and which >play a role in explaining our shared experiences with phenomena; >constructs. .... ..... >If we merely stopped insisting that our explanations tell us what "really >is," and instead thought our explanations as useful, plausible, satisfying >explanatory stories which fit our experience and which enable us to >accomplish goals and meet needs as we see them now, then the present >"debate" might not even occur to us. The "debate" you're referring to here is the one about realism: whether the entities that theories (usually of physics) describe exist. The position you argue for is instrumentalism: theories are useful tools for explaining the phenomena, not claims about what there is behind the phenomena. This recognises shared experiences (the first type of entity you mention), but not constructs (the second). Now, to bring in Ian Pitchford's comments: >Macilwain, C. (1998). Physicists seek definition of "science". Nature, >392 (30 April, 1998): 849. ... > Others are said to have been worried about public misunderstanding >of the statement's references to "falsifiability". and >Re: Campuses Ring to a Stormy Clash Over Truth and Reason >== >Scientists pretended that history didn't matter, because the errors >of the past were now corrected by modern discoveries. But of course >their forebears had believed exactly the same thing in the past, too. >They had been wrong then. And modern scientists were wrong now. >======= >REPLY: This true/false dichotomy is really overplayed by some in >science studies camp. I'm comfortable with the idea of degrees of >accuracy, and believe that it is legitimate to view scientific >theories as successively more accurate models of reality... It seems to me that philosophy-of-science courses, though they teach realism vs. instrumentalism, and though they teach theory-choice and falsification, don't bring the two together in the way that this discussion indicates they ought to. When a theory is falsified in Popper's sense, it isn't usually rejected wholesale, as we all know. Though its ontological claims may get totally overturned, its explanatory scope is usually only restricted. (eg, Newtonian physics being shown to apply at low speeds and low spacetime curvature, rather than universally.) Yet themes like falsification, or the meta-induction from past falsity - a contortion of which is expressed in the above extract from Crichton on history of science - can seem to gloss over this distinction between the different senses in which a theory can be called "false", especially presented in the abstract way they are in philosophy courses. (It stems perhaps from the philosopher's logical point that if a theory contains a bunch of propositions and one of them is false then the theory as a whole is, logically, false.) Thus, those philosophy-of-science students who don't also study science (a practice that ought to be banned, IMHO) may end up failing to notice the distinction. And this confusion may also be conveyed more widely. No wonder, then, that people are worried about the public's misunderstanding the notion of falsifiability. It's a subtle notion that easily eludes you even if you're taking a degree in the subject. And here it's being proposed that it be explained *inside* a 200-word definition of the essence of science. I, for one, would like to know what benefit such a catechism is expected to bring, and how. Gideon Lichfield science/tech correspondent --------------------- The Economist --------------------- 25 St. James's Street, London SW1A 1HG tel: +44 171 830 7066 fax: +44 171 839 2968 gideonlichfield@economist.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:07:52 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Of special interest to "Social Text" fans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII GRAVITY AND THE QUANTUM New Developments in Physics and its Philosophy A Joint Rutgers-Princeton Conference [INLINE] Thursday May 14, 1998 MORNING: * 10:00 Chris Isham, Imperial College (London), "The conceptual challenge of quantum gravity" * 11:30 Lee Smolin, Pennsylvania State University, "A proposal for the structure of quantum space-time" AFTERNOON: * 2:00 Carlo Rovelli, University of Pittsburgh, "What do we know about the quantum properties of time and space?" * 3:30 Edward Witten, Institute for Advanced Studies (Princeton), Duality, space-time, and quantum mechanics Physics Lecture Hall, Busch Campus, Rutgers University For directions and map go to Rutgers Maps and Directions For more information, send e-mail to: Gordon Belot , Princeton University Tim Maudlin , Rutgers University Bas van Fraassen , Princeton University Last updated 27 April 1998 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:38:01 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Rooney,John Peter" Subject: Re: [Automatic Reply] Re: Announcement: Charles G. Gross book JOHN PETER ROONEY ASQ CERTIFIED RELIABILITY ENGINEER #2425 E-Mail: jprooney@foxboro.com >---------- >From: Stephen P. Rogers[SMTP:Steve.ROGERS@DG3.CEC.BE] >Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 6:00AM >To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU >Subject: [Automatic Reply] Re: Announcement: Charles G. Gross book > >Thanks for your message. >I'll reply to it on Thursday 30 April. > >Regards, > >Steve > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:32:47 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: Re: The tyranny of therapeutic culture (part 1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hard cases make bad law. Does Prof. Levitt believe there is an affirmative obligation on the part of every citizen to report all evidence - even if hearsay and not eyewitness - to the police of any violations of law? What if the law itself were regarded as "wrong" - such as a law against the teaching of evolution? Or would this obligation be restricted only to certain crimes, or to certain types of evidence? The tragic - or enraging - facts of one case should not blind one to the underlying principle being advocated. Gil Whittemore, PhD, JD ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 18:57:24 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: The tyranny of therapeutic culture (part 1) In-Reply-To: <199805011833.OAA08723@mail-relay3.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 1 May 1998, GilWhittem wrote: > Hard cases make bad law. Does Prof. Levitt believe there is an affirmative > obligation on the part of every citizen to report all evidence - even if > hearsay and not eyewitness - to the police of any violations of law? What if > the law itself were regarded as "wrong" - such as a law against the teaching > of evolution? Or would this obligation be restricted only to certain crimes, > or to certain types of evidence? The tragic - or enraging - facts of one case > should not blind one to the underlying principle being advocated. > Gil Whittemore, PhD, JD > This is a straw-man argument and hardly worth responding to, but here goes anyway. Obviously, what Froistad confessed to was a moral enormity on any reasonable scale of decency. That this makes it utterly incomensurable with, say, unpaid parking tickets or chiseling on your income tax or smoking a joint is so utterly obvious that one would think it not worth mentioning in a conversation among presumptive adults. What is fascinating--and repellent--is that this little hermetic community was willing to throw decency to the dogs for the sake of a psychological sop--being able to comisserate endlessly with each other within the illusion of "virtual" privacy. It is a signal case of what Christopher Lasch called the "culture of narcissism," a myopia that makes one's own discomfiture with the viscisitudes of life so central to one's thinking that serious moral reflection is all but impossible. It also speaks to the hubris of "therapists" who manage to confuse their expertise (such as it may be) with sacerdotal status. In particular, Rotgers was in over his head, should have recognized the fact promptly, and simply called the cops. But that would have deprived him of oracular standing. There are lots of situations where I wouldn't dream of calling the cops-- and the hell with the law! But this is an antithetical case if ever there was one. N. Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 19:40:04 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: C. Brand. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In regard to the Chris Brand case, here are the facts as best as I can make them out. If I am wrong in any material sense, I apologize and would appreciate being set right--with appropriate references. Brand is--or rather was--a psychologist at U. of Edinburgh, specializing in psychometrics. His woes began when he attempted to publish a book, based on his own research, on heritability of intelligence &c. The book was peer reviewed favorabley and a major American publisher took it on. However, among the propositions for which the book argued is the idea that "group differences" in intellectual capacity are real and genetically based--in other words, the thesis ntoriously popularized by Herrnstein and Murray in "The Bell Curve." When the publishers took note of this, the book was put in limbo; that is to say, they refused to bring it out, but used certain legal technicalities to obstruct it's being published elsewhere. Eventually, the fuss caught the attention of the Edinburgh academic community. Demonstrations ensued, with the result that Brand was summarily barred from lecturing. That set the stage for chapter 2 of the affair. To understand this, you must be familiar with the Nobel Prize laureate physiologist, Gadjanek, (pardon if I misspell the name; I don't have it in front of me) who got his award for proving that the neurological condition "Kuru" (endemic to New Guinea) is, in fact, caused by an unusual kind of infectious agent (then called a "lentivirus", now thought to be a "prion".) Gadjanek's work, by the way, led to such understanding as we now have of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ("mad cow" disease), and, of course, laid the groundwork from the prion theory, which itself won a Nobel Prize. However, on a personal level, Gadjanek is an unconventional character--that is, he is homosexual, with a predilection for very young partners. On one of his visits to Micronesia, he acquired a young companion, and brought him back to the States as his "student." When the facts came to light, Gadjanek was tried as a sex offender for consorting with a boy under the age of consent. He was convicted and sentenced to prison for something over a year (a term which he completed just the other day.) Brand comes into the picture because he circulated an e-mail petition protesting the justice meted out to Gadjanek. Brand's arguments were twofold. First, he asserted that Gadjanek's prior and prospective service to humanity should be taken into account. Secondly, he claimed that the sort of relationship for which Gadjanek was punished does not, in most cases, do any severe damage to its purported victim. It is my understanding that Brand made these remarks without having any hidden agenda--in other words, he doesn't appear to share Gadjanek's proclivities. However, the University of Edinburgh instantly decreed that Brans's remarks were beyond the pale and that he had dirtied Edinburgh's "good name" by uttering them (from a university e-mail adress!!, horror of horrors). Brand was suspended from all university connections and proceedings were begun to dismiss him outright. In due course, he was fired, and the propriety of his firing was then confirmed by an appellate tribunal of some sort. Here, a disclaimer: I'm very skeptical of Brand's theses concerning group differences in intellectual capacity. I don't really agree with him on the issue of sex with minors either--I think Gadjanek got what he deserved, frankly. The point, however, is that, so far as I am aware, Brand was given the bum's rush for merely making cogent, reasoned arguments for ideas that various people find it unpleasant to contemplate, even for arguments sake. He was, or so it seems to me, the victim of intolerable censorship on a number of occasions. Finally, I only bring this up in connection with the Froistad murder because I doubt very much that Dr. Rotgers, the head of the Rutgers Center for Alcohol Studies, will suffer the least retribution or restriction as a result of his appalling conceit, his lack of good judgment and simple decency, and his arguable criminal liability. We'll see. Norm Levitt ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:06:35 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE [USEMAP] =20 Statement by Staff of Department of Psychology agreed unanimously 12/11/96 =20 At its Staff Meeting earlier today, the twenty academic staff present unanimously approved the following statement: =20 "Mr Chris Brand's views on sex, race and paedophilia, as reported in the press and on his web home page, in no way represent the views of the Psychology Department, whose members wish to disassociate themselves wholly from such views." =20 Staff were also strongly of the view that this statement should be made public at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues felt that their position should be made immediately known to the rest of the University, to students, the parents of students who have expressed concern, and to parents of children in the Departmental Nursery. =20 The Staff Meeting also decided that it would make no further public statement until disciplinary proceddings against Mr Brand are concluded. =20 Published by IPRS The University of Edinburgh Centre, 7 - 11 Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH8 9BE. Tel (University Switchboard) : +44 (0)131 650 1000 Last modified: Wednesday, 17-Dec-1997 12:17:34 GMT Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright =A9 The University of Edinburgh. Statistics for IPRS Server ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:05:48 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (1) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Here, pace Brad McCormack, are some documents relating to the Brand affair at U. of Edinburgh, easily found on the Web. I leave it to readers to make their own characterizations, according to what they understand as "academic freedom" and, more generally, freedom of publication and communication. =20 My apologies to subscribers who may be uninterested or bored. NL -------------------------------------------------- =20 Disciplinary proceedings and Chris Brand =20 Issued by the University of Edinburgh's Information & PR Services to He= ads of Academic and Admin departments for information: 11.11.96 =20 Given the extensive media coverage devoted to this topic over the last two or three days, Heads of Department and members of staff more generally may wish to be aware of the following facts: * In the Daily Record published on Friday, 8 November, reference was made to an article of comment published by Chris Brand of the University's Psychology Department in an internet newsletter - which is believed to have been originated outwith the UoE. That article, criticising legal proceedings being taken against a 73-year-old Nobel Prizewinner, included a number of references to paedophilia, suggesting it was harmless when non-violent with a consenting partner over the age of 12, provided both partners were of above-average IQ and educational level. The press article also included the following statement attributed to Mr Brand, "The vast majority of young partners suffer no harm, especially where there is a cash payment involved", and included comments from a number of organisations. Mr Brand was also interviewed on radio that day. The publicity given to this matter led to many approaches to the University, for clarification of its position in relation to these statements and Mr Brand's position. Mr Brand was interviewed by the Dean of Social Sciences and did not deny these reports, providing a copy of the text he had published. * After an interim response to these queries, early on Friday evening, the University issued the following public statement: =20 1. As indicated earlier today, the University views with deep concern the views attributed to Chris Brand in the press and has been investigating the source and context of that report. 2. It was also stated that the University was, at the same time, taking professional advice about Mr Brand's position and will be taking, as a matter of urgency, whatever action is necessary in the light of that advice. 3. It is now possible to confirm that the office of the Secretary to the University has, this afternoon, served notice on Chris Brand that, under the University procedures governing these matters, he will be facing disciplinary charges. These are, in essence, that his "conduct has brought and is bringing the University into disrepute and that the work of the Department of Psychology may be seriously disrupted". These proceedings are being instituted, following a complaint from the Dean of Social Sciences, in the light of representations made to him by members of staff. He has also been informed that he has been suspended from his teaching and administrative duties within the Department of Psychology, with immediate effect, under procedures which empower the Principal to take this action where gross misconduct is alleged. 4. As previously stated, whatever allegations have been made to the contrary, the University of Edinburgh and its senior officers have, in recent months, gone out of their way to defend the concept of academic freedom, within the law, and to support the rights of academic staff to speak about and openly publish the results of their research, even where this might offend sections of the community. The University can, however, have no truck with the condoning of paedophile acts which transgress laws designed to protect the interests of minors". =20 Against this background, and the fact that he has also now published an article referring to paedophilia, using UoE computing facilities, on his home Web page, Mr Brand's entitlement to use UoE-based network facilities - as opposed to those mounted via non-UoE servers - has, pro tem, been curtailed, to protect the University's own position. =20 In view of subsequent reports, it may also be helpful to confirm that the University has not associated the institution of disciplinary proceedings in any way with 'a lucrative severance package' or the offer of sabbatical leave, though he had, some time earlier, received confirmation of his eligibility to apply for sabbatical leave. =20 The University has earlier issued three public statements in relation to Chris Brand, in the context of previous actions and statements attributed to him, and a letter from the Principal was published in The Scotsman on 4 November (all of which may be consulted, if wished, under Latest News (24.4.96, 31.5.96, 15.10.96 and 4.11.96). =20 Published by IPRS The University of Edinburgh Centre, 7 - 11 Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH8 9BE. Tel (University Switchboard) : +44 (0)131 650 1000 Last modified: Wednesday, 17-Dec-1997 12:17:35 GMT Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright =A9 The University of Edinburgh. Statistics for IPRS Server ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:07:19 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE =20 Chris Brand dismissed following disciplinary tribunal =20 Mr Chris Brand has today been notified that, following the completion of the proceedings of the University's duly-constituted Disciplinary Tribunal and its unanimous conclusion that he has been guilty of gross misconduct in relation to the principal charge laid against him, the Principal of the University has authorised termination of his employment as a Lecturer at the University, to take immediate effect. =20 Mr Brand was suspended from his teaching and administrative duties in November of last year, following complaints about his conduct. An initial report by one of the University's Vice-Principals led to the decision to establish the three-person Tribunal, appointed by the University Court. =20 The Tribunal has had several meetings since then, at which Mr Brand and his adviser were present and presented statements, and to which a range of witnesses were called and questioned both by the officer representing the University and Mr Brand/his adviser, as well as by members of the Tribunal. The Tribunal recently submitted its final report to both the Principal of the University and to Mr Brand himself. =20 Mr Brand now has some 28 days in which to lodge an appeal against dismissal, if he wishes to do so. =20 The Principal of the University, Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, has now made known his decision, in the following terms: =20 "Given the degree of publicity previously associated with this matter, I think it necessary to take the exceptional action of summarising, via this public statement, why the proceedings instituted by the University against Mr Brand have led to this decision." =20 "This outcome arises from an independently-reached judgement on the principal charge made against him: that aspects of Mr Brand's conduct - and particularly his public comments on paedophilia - have been 'of a disgraceful nature, incompatible with the duties of (his) office or employment'. =20 "I advisedly use the word 'conduct', because this is, in my view, in no sense a conclusion which inhibits the entirely proper exercise of academic freedom, under which academic staff must be able to undertake exacting research, carefully assess the evidence and publish and speak about their conclusions. 'However', in the words of the Tribunal report, ' it is incumbent upon any citizen to act responsibly in the manner of his public utterances. This is particularly true of the academic in exercising his academic freedom which does not give licence to express an opinion in any way one chooses: one must be acutely aware of the manner in which material is expressed and individual views should be set in a suitable framework with due care to the sensitivity of the issue and regard to the implications of controversial statements made.' =20 "Neither I nor my colleagues at this University have sought in any way to censor Mr Brand's researched conclusions on ethnic background and intelligence, for example - indeed, we went out of our way to defend his right to express them in a reasoned manner, however unpopular it was for the University to make that case - but it was made clear to him, well before he publicised views on paedophilia, that he also had responsibilities to act with care, whether in a departmental, teaching or wider situation; advice which he apparently chose to ignore. =20 "The Report continues, 'What makes Mr Brand's case extraordinary, and his statement on paedophilia different from the general case, is the way he has courted further controversy and showed a desire to pursue his own goals at the expense of others.... it appears his remarks were clearly chosen to inflame an already difficult situation, through a series of deliberate actions...' Quite apart from the issue of how this was perceived by the public at large and by students, 'The effect was to undermine completely any of the remaining trust and confidence which members of the Department of Psychology might have had in Mr Brand as a colleague' " =20 "The Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal is a long and thoroughly-argued document*. Three charges were brought against Mr Brand: the principal one referred to above; a second one alleging his conduct within his Department (of Psychology) had fallen short of due performance of his duties; and a third, alleging that references to the University/Department of Psychology in his Internet Newsletter involved publication of material damaging to the reputation of the University or its Departments. Charge 1 was unanimously found proven; Charge 2 was found proven by a majority judgement; as regards Charge 3, the majority judgement was that a disciplinary offence had clearly been committed, but that the evidence did not support the University's charge. The majority view of the Tribunal was that I should consider dismissal, but all took the view that were I, as Principal, not to proceed on these lines, it would not be appropriate for Mr Brand to return to the Department of Psychology." =20 "Having given careful consideration to the findings, recommendations and background arguments within the Report, I have come to the conclusion that termination of employment is the most appropriate decision. I see no case for continuing to employ such a member of staff at this University, effectively at the expense of others carrying out their duties and at a continuing cost to what is, ultimately, the public purse." =20 *It is the first case to be heard at the University under internal regulations designed to meet the requirements of the relevant 1988 Parliamentary legislation and subsequent Commissioner's Ordinance, specifically designed both to protect academic freedom and require properly rigorous procedures within any university disciplinary code. =20 Information relating to Mr Chris Brand =20 Published by IPRS The University of Edinburgh Centre, 7 - 11 Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH8 9BE. Tel (University Switchboard) : +44 (0)131 650 1000 Last modified: Wednesday, 17-Dec-1997 12:17:37 GMT Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright =A9 The University of Edinburgh. Statistics for IPRS Server ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:08:42 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (4) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE =20 Decision Of University Disciplinary Proceedings Upheld _________________________________________________________________ =20 For immediate release (Tuesday 24 March 1998) =20 Queen's Counsel rejects appeal by Chris Brand against termination of his employment =20 The University announced today (Tuesday 24 March) the conclusions of the Hearing - conducted by Mr T Gordon Coutts, QC - of an Appeal, lodged by Mr Chris Brand, formerly a Lecturer in the Psychology Department, against the decision to dismiss him from the staff of the University, taken following the findings of a 3 person Tribunal that he had been guilty of gross misconduct. The summary conclusions of the written Decision by Mr Coutts are cast in the following terms: =20 The appeal fails. I reject all the revised amended grounds of appeal. I find that the appeal does not raise any question of academic freedom. Academic freedom is a principle which is defined and then imposed on the University by Statute although no doubt the University recognised it before it was statutory. I find it amply established that the Appellant (Mr Chris Brand) was dismissed by the Principal (Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland) who was the appropriate person after considering for himself the relevant facts found by the Tribunal i.e. the conduct of the Appellant as a Lecturer and member of the University and his disregard of any consideration for the University or its members in pursuit of his own ends. Those were publicity for his book and expression of the dismay he no doubt rightly felt when it had been effectively censored by the publishers. In pursuit of his objectives he set out to promote controversy. In that he succeeded but cannot now complain if the effect of his behaviour has been to render his continued employment by the University impossible. The Tribunal did not recommend that he be dismissed for views he held; the Principal of the University did not dismiss him for views he held, he was dismissed because it was established that his behaviour made it impossible for him to work within a University department. That behaviour was "good cause" and also in this case gross misconduct. On the facts dismissal cannot be said to have been improper or inappropriate =20 Both the Tribunal and Mr Coutts were appointed by the University Court under the University's Disciplinary Procedures. This latest decision confirms Mr Brand's dismissal, which took effect on 8 August 1997. It completes procedures under internal regulations designed to meet the requirements of the relevant 1988 Parliamentary legislation and subsequent Commissioner's Ordinance, specifically designed to both protect academic freedom and require properly rigorous procedures within any university disciplinary code (This was the first case to be brought at the University of Edinburgh under this code.) =20 The Appeal Hearing was conducted by Mr Coutts, as 'a person qualified in terms of both the Statutory Instrument and the University Disciplinary Policy, Procedures and Regulations 1993' (Appeal Decision), before Mr Brand and the Secretary to the University and their respective legal counsel, on 10 and 11 February 1998. The written Decision has now been delivered to the solicitors for both parties. =20 Commenting on the outcome of the Appeal, the Principal, Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, said: =20 I am naturally content that this procedure is completed and that an independent legal expert has endorsed in the clearest possible terms, via his written Decision, both the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal and the decision which I took, in the light of its findings of gross misconduct, to terminate Mr Brand's employment with the University. =20 This University - like any other institution of higher education - does not lightly embark upon such proceedings, but believes it must be in a position to take effective action when there is good cause and, where that action is sufficiently serious, to be able to dismiss the person concerned. =20 The duration of these proceedings has been lengthy. They have been so principally because the University took the view that the obligation lay upon it, having brought these charges, to see that the proceedings met fully the demanding framework of our Disciplinary Procedures, with Mr Brand given his full entitlement to put his case, given the seriousness of the charges. =20 I would repeat that it is for aspects of his conduct, not his opinions, that Mr Brand has been dismissed. Mr Brand has again, in recent months, been reported in the press as alleging this process was an attack on academic freedom (though this was not argued by his Counsel at the Appeal Hearing). It is not and never has been, such an attack, as independently confirmed by the Appeal Decision. =20 I repeat my earlier remarks =D4Neither I nor my colleagues at this University have sought in any way to censor Mr Brand's researched conclusions on ethnic background and intelligence, for example - indeed, we went out of our way to defend his right to express them in a reasoned manner, however unpopular it was for the University to make that case - but it was made clear to him, well before he publicised views on paedophilia, that he also had responsibilities to act with care, whether in a departmental, teaching or wider situation; advice which he apparently chose to ignore.' =20 As stated in the Report of the Disciplinary Tribunal, 'What makes Mr Brand's case extraordinary, and his statement on paedophilia different from the general case, is the way he has courted further controversy and showed a desire to pursue his own goals at the expense of others.... it appears his remarks were clearly chosen to inflame an already difficult situation, through a series of deliberate actions...' Quite apart from the issue of how this was perceived by the public at large and by students, =D4The effect was to undermine completely any of the remaining trust and confidence which members of the Department of Psychology might have had in Mr Brand as a colleague'." =20 The University's procedures are now completed with this confirmation of Mr Brand's dismissal. Should he, however, choose to pursue this matter further before the Courts or Industrial Tribunals, the University, against the background of the results of the Tribunal and of the Appeal Decision under its Disciplinary Proceedings, is prepared fully to justify its actions in that setting. =20 NOTES FOR EDITORS:=20 =20 1. Notice was served of the University's decision to implement Disciplinary Proceedings against Mr Brand on 8 November 1996 and he was suspended from his teaching and administrative duties from that date. A Vice-Principal was appointed to conduct a preliminary investigation and, following his findings, the University Court appointed a 3 person Tribunal in April 1997, to consider the charges made against him. Following the report of the Tribunal, Mr Brand's employment was terminated with effect from 8 August 1997. He then lodged an internal Appeal against dismissal, which was heard by Mr Coutts in February of this year, with the written Decision to reject the Appeal having now been delivered. =20 2. Mr T. Gordon Coutts, QC, was appointed by the University Court, under the University's Disciplinary Proceedings, to hear the Appeal =D4as a person, not employed by the University and not a member of (the University) Court who holds, or has held, judicial office or who is an advocate or solicitor of at least ten years standing. If practicable, this person should have experience of Industrial Tribunals (as Mr Coutts has).' =20 For further information, please contact: =20 Ray Footman, Director, or Anne McKelvie, Deputy Director, Information & PR Services, The University of Edinburgh Tel: 0131 650 2249/2248/2252 =20 Published by IPRS The University of Edinburgh Centre, 7 - 11 Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH8 9BE. Tel (University Switchboard) : +44 (0)131 650 1000 Last modified: Tuesday, 24-Mar-1998 16:24:34 GMT Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright =A9 The University of Edinburgh. Statistics for IPRS Server ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:11:25 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (4) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII BRIEF CURRICULUM VITAE Name : Christopher Richard BRAND. Date of birth : 1 June 1943. Nationality: British. Education: Queen Elizabeth's Boys' Grammar School, Barnet, Hertfordshire; The Queen's College, Oxford. Degree: M.A. (Oxon.) (Psychology & Philosophy). Employment: Home Office, Prison Department (H.M.P. Grendon), 1965-68; Nuffield College, Oxford, 1968-70; U.S.Navy (Naval Personnel Research & Development Center, San Diego), 1982; Edinburgh University (Psychology Department), 1970-1997. RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS My academic work has been concerned with identifying and elucidating the main dimensions of human variation in personality and abilities (especially as reflected in objective measures). I have taken the view that the more interesting questions about personality differences and their biosocial and psychodynamic significance can only begin to be answered seriously once there is a consensus as to what are the main, objectively measurable 'dimensions of personality' (and as to what is still mysterious). Since 1984, I have maintained that there are six main dimensions - rather than the 'Big Five' that have enjoyed more popularity with psychometrician-psychologists; and that several dimensions have primarily Freudian interpretations. However, since the existence and importance of even a dimension of 'general intelligence' is often disputed in and around psychology and the social sciences, my work has especially concerned the g factor (the psychometric backbone of IQ), its possible basis in 'speed of apprehension', and its relation to personality and attitudes. Publication of my practical conclusions (chiefly that parents and schools should be able do more to tailor education to children's intelligence levels) and of my willingness to acknowledge deep-seated racial differences provoked a storm of controversy, the withdrawal of my, The g Factor, book by the US publisher, and eventually my sacking by Edinburgh University (on the pretext that I had counselled against the mounting paedohysteria in the USA and UK of 1996). Selected Publications etc. * 1982 'Intelligence and inspection time.' (C.R.BRAND & I.J.DEARY) In H.J.Eysenck, A Model for Intelligence. New York : Springer, pp.133-148. * 1984 'Personality dimensions: an overview of modern trait psychology.' In J.Nicholson & Halla Beloff, Psychology Survey 5. Leicester : British Psychological Society, pp.175-209. * 1989 'Has there been a 'massive' rise in IQ levels in the West? Evidence from Scottish children.' (C.R.BRAND, SUSAN FRESHWATER & W.B.DOCKRELL) Irish J. Psychology 10, 3, pp.388-394. * 1993 'Special Review' of H.J.Eysenck, Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire. Behaviour Research and Therapy 31, 1, 129-131. * 1993 'Cognitive abilities: current theoretical issues.' In T.J.Bouchard & P.Propping, Twins as a Tool of Behaviour Genetics. Chichester : Wiley. * 1994 'Intelligence, personality and society: constructivist vs essentialist possibilities.' (C.R.BRAND, V.EGAN & I.J.DEARY.) In D.K.Detterman, Current Topics in Human Intelligence 4. New Jersey : Ablex. * 1994 'Open to experience - closed to intelligence: Why the 'Big Five' are really the 'Comprehensive Six'.' European Journal of Personality 8, 299-310. * 1994 'How many dimensions of personality? - The 'Big 5', the 'Gigantic 3' and the 'Comprehensive 6.' Psychologica Belgica 34, 257-273. * 1996 THE g FACTOR: GENERAL INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS. Chichester :Wiley. (Available in UK bookshops February 29 - April 17, 1996; now available by Inter-Library Loans.) * 1996 'The importance of intelligence in Western societies.' J. Biosocial Science 28, 387-404. * 1996 'Doing something about g.' Intelligence 22, 3, 311-326. * 1997 'Ten arguments for the existence of racial differences in intelligence, and why we should welcome race realism', Mankind Quarterly 37, 3, 317-326 * 1997 'Hans Eysenck's personality dimensions: their number and nature.' In H. Nyborg, The Scientific Study of Human Nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at Eighty. Oxford : Pergamon. * 1997 'Obituary for Hans Jurgen Eysenck.' Mankind Quarterly 38; Psychologemas [Spain]; and on the Internet at . * 1998 'Beware Feminazies!' ['Feminazisterna i farten'], Finanstidningen [Sweden] 13 February; and on the Internet at ('Kultur' section). * 1998 'Beware Educationists!' In press for Finanstidningen. I have broadcast for BBC IV UK, have written quite often for Nature and Times Higher Educational Supplement and am a Fellow of the Galton Institute [London]. There is considerable coverage of my case against Wiley and Edinburgh University in print: * 'IQ and PC', National Review [USA], ii '97 * 'Don't mention the P word', Independent, 18 viii '97 * 'Controversial academic gets the axe', Science 277, p. 5329, 22 viii '97 * 'Raymond B. Cattell and the Fourth Inquisition', Mankind Quarterly 38, Fall/Winter '97 [pp. 107-8] * 'Academic freedom versus the culture of comfort: NAS joins SAFS on the Brand case', Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship Newsletter [Canada], ii '98 * 'University urged to uphold appeal', Scotsman 5 ii '98 * Times Higher, 10 iv '98, p. 5, Olga Wojtas, Scottish Correspondent * 'The new enemies of evolutionary science', Liberty [USA], iii '98). * Student [Edinburgh University's student newspaper], 23 iv '98 The verdict on my Appeal against Edinburgh University from Mr T. Gordon Coutts QC was that British universities can fire their staff just whenever they want. There has apparently been no effective 'academic freedom' or 'security of tenure' for dons since the Education Act of 1988. Currently I am working (with US writer Kevin Lamb) on a biography of William McDougall FRS (1871-1938). Like myself, McDougall fell foul of environmentalism, egalitarianism and utopianism in psychology. I publish a weekly 'William McDougall NewsLetter' at my website . Prepared by Chris Brand. Last Modified: 21 April, 1998. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:13:27 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (5) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE This from a National Association of Scholars spokesman on the Brand Affair. I have found no comments from presumably liberal organizations, the ACLU, or AAUP. ------------------------------------------- Comment on: =20 Dismissal of Chris Brand from Edinburgh University =20 by Bradford P. Wilson Executive Director and Acting President National Association of Scholars =20 On August 8, 1997, the Principal of Edinburgh University, Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, issued a press release announcing the immediate dismissal of Edinburgh psychologist Chris Brand from the teaching faculty. Mr. Brand's dismissal followed upon the completion of a report by a specially constituted three-person "Disciplinary Tribunal." According to the press release, the tribunal determined that Mr. Brand was "guilty of gross misconduct," in that "aspects of Mr. Brand's conduct . . . have been of a disgraceful nature, incompatible with the duties of [his] office or employment." The "majority view" of the tribunal recommended that the Principal "consider dismissal." =20 The Disciplinary Tribunal conducted its investigation in private sessions, and its report has not been released to the public. This state of affairs hampers the ability of anyone not a witness to the investigation and to whom the report is unavailable to make a fully informed judgment as to the fairness of the investigatory process and its results. =20 Our concern with Edinburgh University's dismissal of Mr. Brand derives from our interest in promoting the intellectual integrity of the academy, and, in particular, the academic freedom of the community of scholars. We have had occasion to comment on Mr. Brand before. In April of 1996, the publishing house of John Wiley & Son suspended its publication of, and withdrew from circulation, Mr. Brand's book The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications. It did so because of its objection to (and, no doubt, embarrassment because of) statements made by Mr. Brand to the media in which he reacted to the publication of severe moral censure of his scientific work by a group of critics by describing himself as a "scientific racist," the epithet used by some of those critics. On May 20, 1996, the National Association of Scholars issued a joint press release with the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (in Canada). We said then that: =20 We view with deep concern the decision of the American publishing house, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., to suspend British publication of, and withdraw from circulation, Christopher Brand's The g Factor. We recognize the editorial freedom of publishing houses to decide what and what not to publish, but the withdrawal of a book following an agreement to publish--and after the processes of scholarly review, approval, and production have been completed--seriously impedes the free flow of ideas, chills the intellectual climate, and encourages efforts to suppress opinions of every stripe. While we understand and sympathize with Wiley's discomfort over some of the statements made to the British press by The g Factor's author, we believe that its actions constitute a dangerous precedent, and fall far short of the level of professional responsibility expected of a leading academic publisher. =20 The Principal of Edinburgh University, in a letter to The Scotsman newspaper on November 4, 1996, expressed an understanding much like our own. He criticized Wiley's action of withdrawing the book from circulation as "a matter for regret, since my hope has always been that the publishing industry exists in part to promote the free flow of ideas . . . even those which may cause offence to some readers." The Principal went on to say that it was wrong to "shout down a speaker because he or she might express views, . . . within the law, that you do not agree with. For my part, this indicates not true depth of view and integrity but an unwillingness to enter into debate and lack of confidence that your own arguments and conclusions will prevail." He concluded by saying, "The University is a place for ideas to be explored and debated-even the uncomfortable ones-and we shall continue to do all we can to protect that principle, whether that involves Mr. Brand . . . or whether it does not." =20 Given the Principal's public pledge to protect the freedom at his University to explore and debate uncomfortable ideas, we are surprised and troubled by his dismissal of Mr. Brand. In the absence of a public report by the Disciplinary Tribunal, we must rely on the August 8 press release announcing and justifying the Principal's decision. The Principal alludes to the existence of a context in which Mr. Brand's specific "conduct" occurred that is somehow relevant to judging its legitimacy. He quotes from the Report: "It appears his remarks were clearly chosen to inflame an already difficult situation, through a series of deliberate actions." Unfortunately, the Principal does not describe the nature of the situation, nor does he identify the "series of deliberate actions" the tribunal had in mind. =20 All we are left with is the proximate cause of the tribunal's investigation, what the Principal describes as Mr. Brand's "public comments on paedophilia." Those comments "particularly," the Principal stated, constituted "conduct" that justified Mr. Brand's dismissal. =20 This reference is to comments made by Mr. Brand in his internet newsletter in an article critical of the indictment and trial in the United States of a Nobel Laureate for alleged paedophilic activities. Among the arguments Mr. Brand brought to bear on the indictment was his statement that "Academic studies and my own experience [as a choirboy] suggest that non-violent paedophilia with a consenting partner over age 12 does no harm so long as the paedophiles and their partners are of above-average IQ and educational level." =20 After Mr. Brand's remarks on paedophilia were picked up by the media, Mr. Brand publicly stated that his remarks referred only to the question of psychological harm, not to questions of morality or jurisprudence. He insisted that he did not condone paedophilic behavior, and that he did not wish to see a change in the laws against such behavior. =20 As we take the Principal's press release as an accurate account of his reasons for dismissing Mr. Brand, we must conclude that the quoted statement of Mr. Brand above was the primary cause of his dismissal, as it constituted, for the Principal, "conduct" of a "disgraceful nature, incompatible with the duties of [his] office or employment." =20 As we said about Wiley & Sons, Inc., we can understand and sympathize with the discomfort of the Principal and other members of the Edinburgh University community at Mr. Brand's comments on a sensitive issue of social concern. Nonetheless, Mr. Brand's comments appear to us to be well within the civil freedom of academics to express opinions, however controversial, on matters of human behavior. That Mr. Brand's comments on psychological harm are also within his field of academic competence should place beyond doubt Mr. Brand's right to be free from administrative punishment for the utterances in question. =20 It is of course possible that a scholar's competence may be challenged on the basis of the quality of his arguments and conclusions. Nothing in the Principal's public statement, however, suggests that such a challenge had been made to Mr. Brand's competence, or that any judgment was being passed on Mr. Brand's competence. =20 The publicly available evidence, then, is that the Principal visited upon Mr. Brand the extreme administrative punishment of dismissal because of the opinions he expressed in his personal newsletter. Furthermore, the Principal's decision is rooted in his view that Mr. Brand, in stating his opinions, had "chosen to inflame an already difficult situation." Without more, we must assume that the "difficult situation" referred to by the Principal is the discomfort among parties at the University at Mr. Brand's prior statements that led Wiley & Sons to cease distribution of The g Factor. It is difficult not to conclude that the Principal's dismissal of Mr. Brand is an abandonment of the defense of Mr. Brand's freedom of opinion that the Principal had previously advanced in his public reaction to Wiley's decision. In making the University's situation less "difficult," Mr. Brand's academic career has been sacrificed. =20 Our view of Wiley's decision applies to the Principal's decision to terminate Mr. Brand's employment with Edinburgh University: it "seriously impedes the free flow of ideas, chills the intellectual climate, and encourages efforts to suppress opinions of every stripe." Edinburgh University's action "fall[s] far short of the level of professional responsibility expected" of a leading institution of higher learning. =20 back to top of document _________________________________________________________________ =20 home academic questions / affiliates / comment / conferences / home / index / information / membership / nas in the news and print / nassnl / newsletters / press releases / statements / nas update _________________________________________________________________ =20 =A9 1994-97 National Association of Scholars, Princeton, NJ/updated 11 December 1997 / Rita Zurcher ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 23:14:43 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Brand (6) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE [USEMAP] =20 Disciplinary proceedings and Chris Brand =20 Issued by the University of Edinburgh's Information & PR Services to He= ads of Academic and Admin departments for information: 11.11.96 =20 Given the extensive media coverage devoted to this topic over the last two or three days, Heads of Department and members of staff more generally may wish to be aware of the following facts: * In the Daily Record published on Friday, 8 November, reference was made to an article of comment published by Chris Brand of the University's Psychology Department in an internet newsletter - which is believed to have been originated outwith the UoE. That article, criticising legal proceedings being taken against a 73-year-old Nobel Prizewinner, included a number of references to paedophilia, suggesting it was harmless when non-violent with a consenting partner over the age of 12, provided both partners were of above-average IQ and educational level. The press article also included the following statement attributed to Mr Brand, "The vast majority of young partners suffer no harm, especially where there is a cash payment involved", and included comments from a number of organisations. Mr Brand was also interviewed on radio that day. The publicity given to this matter led to many approaches to the University, for clarification of its position in relation to these statements and Mr Brand's position. Mr Brand was interviewed by the Dean of Social Sciences and did not deny these reports, providing a copy of the text he had published. * After an interim response to these queries, early on Friday evening, the University issued the following public statement: =20 1. As indicated earlier today, the University views with deep concern the views attributed to Chris Brand in the press and has been investigating the source and context of that report. 2. It was also stated that the University was, at the same time, taking professional advice about Mr Brand's position and will be taking, as a matter of urgency, whatever action is necessary in the light of that advice. 3. It is now possible to confirm that the office of the Secretary to the University has, this afternoon, served notice on Chris Brand that, under the University procedures governing these matters, he will be facing disciplinary charges. These are, in essence, that his "conduct has brought and is bringing the University into disrepute and that the work of the Department of Psychology may be seriously disrupted". These proceedings are being instituted, following a complaint from the Dean of Social Sciences, in the light of representations made to him by members of staff. He has also been informed that he has been suspended from his teaching and administrative duties within the Department of Psychology, with immediate effect, under procedures which empower the Principal to take this action where gross misconduct is alleged. 4. As previously stated, whatever allegations have been made to the contrary, the University of Edinburgh and its senior officers have, in recent months, gone out of their way to defend the concept of academic freedom, within the law, and to support the rights of academic staff to speak about and openly publish the results of their research, even where this might offend sections of the community. The University can, however, have no truck with the condoning of paedophile acts which transgress laws designed to protect the interests of minors". =20 Against this background, and the fact that he has also now published an article referring to paedophilia, using UoE computing facilities, on his home Web page, Mr Brand's entitlement to use UoE-based network facilities - as opposed to those mounted via non-UoE servers - has, pro tem, been curtailed, to protect the University's own position. =20 In view of subsequent reports, it may also be helpful to confirm that the University has not associated the institution of disciplinary proceedings in any way with 'a lucrative severance package' or the offer of sabbatical leave, though he had, some time earlier, received confirmation of his eligibility to apply for sabbatical leave. =20 The University has earlier issued three public statements in relation to Chris Brand, in the context of previous actions and statements attributed to him, and a letter from the Principal was published in The Scotsman on 4 November (all of which may be consulted, if wished, under Latest News (24.4.96, 31.5.96, 15.10.96 and 4.11.96). =20 Published by IPRS The University of Edinburgh Centre, 7 - 11 Nicolson Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH8 9BE. Tel (University Switchboard) : +44 (0)131 650 1000 Last modified: Wednesday, 17-Dec-1997 12:17:35 GMT Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright =A9 The University of Edinburgh. Statistics for IPRS Server ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 06:27:26 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: C. Brand, Tec. / Free Speech beyond shouting radius MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Norman Levitt wrote: > > In regard to the Chris Brand case, here are the facts as best as I can > make them out. If I am wrong in any material sense, I apologize and would > appreciate being set right--with appropriate references. [snip] > However, on a personal level, Gadjanek is an unconventional > character--that is, he is homosexual, with a predilection for very young > partners. On one of his visits to Micronesia, he acquired a young > companion, and brought him back to the States as his "student." When the > facts came to light, Gadjanek was tried as a sex offender for consorting > with a boy under the age of consent. He was convicted and sentenced to > prison for something over a year (a term which he completed just the other > day.) Would a person risk their social status (job, etc.) these days if they spoke approvingly of Robert Anderson's 1953 play "Tea and Sympathy"? > > Brand comes into the picture because he circulated an e-mail petition > protesting the justice meted out to Gadjanek. Brand's arguments were > twofold. First, he asserted that Gadjanek's prior and prospective service > to humanity should be taken into account. Secondly, he claimed that the > sort of relationship for which Gadjanek was punished does not, in most > cases, do any severe damage to its purported victim. It is my > understanding that Brand made these remarks without having any hidden > agenda--in other words, he doesn't appear to share Gadjanek's > proclivities. > > However, the University of Edinburgh instantly decreed that Brans's > remarks were beyond the pale and that he had dirtied Edinburgh's "good > name" by uttering them (from a university e-mail adress!!, horror of > horrors). Brand was suspended from all university connections and > proceedings were begun to dismiss him outright. In due course, he was > fired, and the propriety of his firing was then confirmed by an appellate > tribunal of some sort. [snip] I find this very interesting. (Obviously, I don't know if Prof. Levitt's synopsis fairly represents the particluar case, but I want to address certain hypothetical issues, which, in a way, I myself have encountered.) If a university's email cannot be used for free expression of ideas (at least to the general limits of free speech supported, e.g., by the United States' Supreme Court), then it seems to me that we have a problem. The problem can be addressed in part by persons conducting their correspondence via email from a personal account. But, especially for "mental workers", whose "work" and "personal views and the expression thereof" are complexly intertwined, such a "solution" may impact the person's *work* (if the person is thereby prevented from working on important aspects of their work except when they are physically not at work). If universities (and, a fortiori, private corporations) do not want ideologically non-conformant discourse going out under their electronic "letterhead" (we've all seen postings from employees that say "these opinions are mine and not my employer's" --> if this is not "good enough"), then is it acceptable (can it be made a norm [no pun intended, NL...]...) that persons could use their computers at work for this kind of correspondence, *provided* the mail came in from the person's own account (e.g., a POP3 mail client on TCP/IP port 110), and that it also went out via a non-university facility (e.g., SMTP server on TCP/IP port 25). Of course, even this idea would entail messages being *composed* on the organization's hardware, but the alternative: that the employee use a dial-up connection over the institution's phone lines has already been prohibited by some large computer companies (Sun is one, I think???). So do we accept that work, even for university faculty, is a place of directed activity and directed thinking, according to administrative policy specs? Or do we try to come up with some kind of reasonable modus vivendi, as if we were free and responsible individuals in a community of reciprocal support? (Note the "as if" -- I am not asking for true material democracy, but only for a reliable semblance of civility) In a world in which few persons can come anywhere close to being *independent* (Bill Gates and Donald Trump and any phisicist/other scientist who needs laboratory equipment they cannot buy from personal funds certainly are not!) -- for to approach independence seems to me to mean becoming a hermit incommunicado -- it seems to me that there needs to be a large measure of control over the exercise of power by institutions, from which it is the height of self-righteous hypocrisy to say: "If you don't like the way we do things here, go some place else." (Where? off the edge of the flat earth?) Perhaps today the story of The Tower of Babel could have a new twist: God does not intervene. The tower gets built. The Chief Administrators silence all discourse except that which can be deductively generated from their policy vectors. I'm looking for resources for my own situation (which I tend to deal with by "speaking" from my "home computer" -- but even that is not, per se, a solution, since one's employer could conceivably argue that one could not afford the "personal" computer except as a logical consequence of their paychecks...), and for ideas "in general". \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@cloud9.net 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 08:43:10 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: E.O. Wilson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII May 2, 1998 The Forces That Explain Human Enterprise By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN W ASHINGTON -- This time around, no cold water was dumped on Edward Wilson's head. Margaret Mead did not have to stand up in his defense and denounce a professional audience for having the equivalent of a "book burning." And it is doubtful whether a dozen distinguished scholars like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould will feel compelled to send a letter to The New York Review of Books, as they did 20 years ago, accusing Wilson of providing a "genetic justification" for racism and sexism. Political times have changed since Wilson's 1975 book, "Sociobiology," was published to these accompanying protests. The capacity audience at a symposium presented by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here last Monday even gave Wilson (no relation) a warm welcome as he came to speak about his new book, "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge" (Knopf). Jay Tolson, the editor of the center's Wilson Quarterly (which published a mild-mannered debate on Wilson's ideas in its Winter issue), introduced the Harvard biologist, noting that "Wilson's scandalous notion has been accepted almost as a commonplace." Since "Sociobiology," the notion that many aspects of human society bear the marks of its evolutionary past has been amplified in a generation of books from Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" to Robert Wright's "Moral Animal." Wilson has since won two Pulitzer Prizes, for his speculative book, "Human Nature," and his magisterial study "The Ants" (written with Burt Hoelldobler). And it seems to have become fairly widely accepted that we are indeed partly beholden to our animal heritage, that we are unusually intent on being fruitful and multiplying our genes, and that this might possibly affect everything from how we mate to how we worship. But the acceptance of the idea also seems to vary according to political convictions. The discussion at the Wilson Center was thoroughly decorous, with Wilson presenting his argument, the pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty challenging Wilson's view of the centrality of evolutionary biology, and the biologist Paul Gross challenging Rorty's challenge. Politics has nevertheless affected the book's reception, with some criticisms remaining unusually harsh. In a scathing review of "Consilience" in The New Republic, for example, the literary critic Tzvetan Todorov challenged Wilson to demonstrate how sociobiology is different from social Darwinism, "the doctrine that was adopted by Hitler." Steve Jones, in The New York Review, jested about the book's purported allegiance to Newt Gingrich, who is thanked in the acknowledgments for being a prepublication reader of the manuscript. And Gross' defense of Wilson at the symposium also had a political dimension as he questioned the "ulterior motives" of some Wilson critics. Even the symposium's rather subtle debate between Rorty and Wilson suggested that vastly different political perspectives were involved. At the heart of the conflict is Wilson's innocent revival of the word "consilience," which refers to a "jumping together" of forms of knowledge, linking different disciplines and theories by finding common foundations. Wilson praises the drive toward unification of the sciences and humanities that began in the Enlightenment and mourns that it has gone astray. But while earlier attempts to discern consilience drew inspiration from religion or reason, mystical theories or physical laws, Wilson seeks the common foundations of human knowledge in the principles of evolutionary biology. He argues that they are central to the humanities and social sciences and therefore should be the vehicle linking them to the natural sciences. He asserts, in fact, that esthetic tastes and culture, forms of government and religious beliefs are all affected by genetic tendencies that have evolved over millions of years, tendencies that need to be better understood. They leave their imprint on every human act, with research showing, for example, that every known culture treats incest as a taboo, classifies colors in similar groupings, and has clearly defined notions of status and territory. Wilson suggests that such universals and other more complicated characteristics yet to be explored -- our "human nature" -- would, if properly understood, help reveal underlying forces shaping all human enterprise. This would also, he argues, help in very practical ways as well, showing which human enterprises may be doomed to fail and what dangers are latent in each social contract.. For instance, he suggests that evolutionary biology would have led us to expect the downfall of communism (which attempted to bypass the claims of human nature) and the rise of ethnic warfare (a tendency coded in our genes). But as some critics have pointed out, these examples remain curiously cursory. Some of the objections raised to Wilson's enterprise have pointed to the disparity between the largeness of his claims and the small scope of his examples. Skeptics have asked why knowledge of biological factors would affect our understanding of artistic achievement, and how the study of ethics would profit more from learning about genetic predispositions than by examining historical examples and using reasoned argument. Wilson acknowledges that right now, too little is known to make more detailed analyses. Even the narrower conclusions must be qualified. Human nature, Wilson points out, does not determine culture, it just determines tendencies. At the symposium, Gross pointed out that there is so much variation in culture that some Wilson critics might be right when they argue that the actual genetic contribution to culture may be smaller than expected. At the end of the symposium, Betty Friedan, who was in the audience, asked whether the development of feminism was consistent with Wilson's views of evolutionary biology. Both Wilson and Gross responded that indeed it was, that sexual differentiation does not restrict these forms of cultural change. But arguments have been mounted in the other direction as well. Such ambiguities and speculations, though, have not been the main cause for the political passions Wilson has inspired. In the book he anticipates that his effort will be welcomed like a "vampire in the sacristy" simply because of the attempt he is making: to discern a biologically based "human nature." Wilson's view of human nature is a view of human limitations. It suggests that there are boundaries on the possibility of creating different kinds of societies, that we are not completely free to remake ourselves and our world as we wish. Belief in such limits raises suspicions, particularly on the political left, where there is desire for deep-seated social change. Rorty points out in the Wilson Quarterly: "We have come to distrust the people who tell us that 'you cannot change human nature' -- a slogan that was employed against the education of women, interracial marriage and gay liberation." The symposium's interchange between Rorty and Wilson, in fact, showed how deeply political these disagreements are. Rorty said that rather than thinking about human nature ("which strikes me as having very little interest"), rather than seeking to reduce human activities to biological tendencies, he is more interested in the multiple ways in which humanity can be studied and described. He used the analogy of a computer. Wilson, he suggested, gives too much importance to the hardware, while what we really care about is the software: the cultural and social lives that surround us. Far from seeking a unified, consilient approach -- a single piece of software -- we revel in variety: "We have lots of programs for different purposes." And so it should be when we study the humanities and social sciences. Wilson's consilience, he suggested, is limited and limiting. This represents a vastly different view of human nature. Wilson, for example, does not really accept Rorty's computer analogy. For Wilson, software -- culture, behavior and social organizations -- is not added onto hardware, it grows out of it and is partly indistinguishable from it. We cannot separate our biology from our culture. These contrasting views are intimately linked to interpretations of how much political change is possible and how it should be attained. For Rorty, it seems, humanity can evolve through self-invention: Choose a different program and there is no reason that it cannot be used; the emphasis is on possibility. For Wilson, such experimentation is dangerous; the emphasis is on limitation; some software -- to extend the analogy -- might cause the system to crash or corrupt important files. The hardware, for instance, simply won't let us design a society built around either incestuous family relations or nonexistent family relations. These are almost archetypal political differences. Rorty would probably look at the disagreement as another example of how many ways there are of looking at the world and how strong the tendency is to mistakenly elevate one over others. For Wilson, the disagreement may have a darker meaning, providing evidence of how strong the human urge is to believe that we can remake ourselves without bounds, and how urgent the need is for consilience. Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 08:45:04 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Park on Seitz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII May 2, 1998 Scientists and Their Political Passions By ROBERT L. PARK W ASHINGTON -- I received a note a few weeks ago, urging me to sign a petition card opposing the global climate change accord. So, it seems, did just about every scientist in the United States. The note was signed by Frederick Seitz, a physicist who once served as president of the National Academy of Sciences. An accompanying article that looked like a reprint from the academy's journal explained what we can all do to make this a better world: burn more hydrocarbons. This was a new concept for me. Maybe I should crank up the thermostat and trade my fuel-efficient car for a sports-utility gas guzzler? I wanted to learn more, but there was no letterhead, and the only return address was a post office box in La Jolla, Calif. The National Academy of Sciences disavowed any connection with the petition. The article had not been published in the academy's journal -- or anywhere else. Moreover, a study conducted by the academy had reached the opposite conclusion. If scientists all have access to the same data, why, you might wonder, is there such passionate disagreement? What separates the two sides may not be so much an argument over the scientific facts, scientific laws or even the scientific method, but profoundly different political and religious views. Most climatologists agree that as a result of increased burning of fossil fuels, the temperature of the earth has gone up perhaps 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Climatologists warn that if the buildup continues, low-lying land masses, including many of the world's great cities, may be flooded in the next century by rising sea levels as the polar caps melt. Drastic changes in rainfall patterns could wreak havoc on food production. "Nonsense!" insists a highly vocal minority. The increase in carbon dioxide is actually "a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution," to quote an opinion article published a few months ago in The Wall Street Journal. These optimists say that carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth, making the world more lush and productive, and that our unrationed burning of hydrocarbons allows the world to support a larger population -- fulfilling the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply." The great war over global warming, then, is more about values than it is about science. It sounds like a scientific debate, with numbers and equations tossed back and forth. The antagonists themselves may even believe they are engaged in such a debate. But the average scientist is exposed to religious and political views at his mother's knee, long before he is exposed to science. Such views have a way of occupying whatever gaps are present in scientific understanding. And there are gaps aplenty in the climate debate. There are holes in the data and uncertainties in the computer models, and small changes in the assumptions could result in very different projections. Both sides acknowledge these limitations. But to allow unlimited growth in greenhouse emissions is a reckless acceleration of a global experiment the industrialized world is already engaged in -- the consequences of which are potentially catastrophic. Until the numbers are in, however, it's easy to be misled. That brings us back to the petition. The source turned out to be the tiny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, based in Cave Junction. I don't know how many petition cards were sent out, but I can guess who paid for the mailing. There is a well-financed campaign by the petroleum industry to recruit scientists who are skeptical about global warming to help convert journalists, politicians and the public to their views. Few of the scientists who received the petition are climate experts -- and there aren't any in Cave Junction either. But when uncertainty abounds, scientific judgment has a way of conforming to the religious and political views of the scientist. As for me, global warming or not, my mother taught me to keep the thermostat down. Robert L. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, is author of the forthcoming "Voodoo Science." Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 12:14:11 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: GilWhittem Subject: Due process and regulating speech on the Internet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit On Fri, 1 May 1998, GilWhittem wrote: > Hard cases make bad law. Does Prof. Levitt believe there is an affirmative > obligation on the part of every citizen to report all evidence - even if > hearsay and not eyewitness - to the police of any violations of law? What if > the law itself were regarded as "wrong" - such as a law against the teaching > of evolution? Or would this obligation be restricted only to certain crimes, > or to certain types of evidence? The tragic - or enraging - facts of one case > should not blind one to the underlying principle being advocated. > Gil Whittemore, PhD, JD Prof Levitt replied, in part: >"This is a straw-man argument and hardly worth responding to, but here goes anyway. [snip] There are lots of situations where I wouldn't dream of calling the cops-- and the hell with the law! But this is an antithetical case if ever there was one." Gil Whittemore replies: I believe Prof. Levitt's final sentence illustrates precisely the point I was trying to make. Extreme cases make bad law. Recall this discussion arose because of a statement in this public forum that a named individual should summarily be deprived of his livelihood, and likely his career, because of his failure to report to the police a communication over the Internet, after said communicaiton had already been reported by others. Presumably this is not a recommendation made lightly or casually. Also distinguish between the crime confessed to, murder, and the offense for which this person should lose his job: failure to report an Internet communication already reported to the police. If, as Prof. Levitt says in his last sentence, there are cases in which one would not dismiss a faculty memeberr for such a failure to report (which was my point in presenting the "straw man" exampole of a law against teaching evolution), the following issues arise: 1. Can one develop a standard suitable to guide people's future actions which would specify what Internet communications must be reported? Prof. Levitt seems to regard as relevant in this case the general nature of said person's earlier Internet communications - but is this relevant to the point at issue? Is the claim that said person was contributing to a "culture of narcissism" at all relevant to deciding whther he should lose his job? If so - that is is the general content of one's communications over the Internet are relevant - then the problem of developing a standard is even more difficult. 2. Can one develop a process - "due procedure" - for enforcing such a standard? 3. How would such a standard and procedure interact with the application of freedom of speech as applied to the Internet? It is better to think through proposed laws and actions - whether those of a university, a learned profession's self-regulation or a government - before embarking on them instead of simply relying on a personal, ad hoc "to hell with the law" response to the issues presented above. Robert Bolt put it far better in Act One of "A Man for All Seasons": "[Earlier in the scene More had likened the laws of England to a great forest. Roper is now opposed to King Henry VIII and does not believe the king should have the protection of "law"] ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." Gilbert Whittemore ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 12:04:52 -0800 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Simon Subject: Re: The tyranny of therapeutic culture (part 1) In-Reply-To: <199805012257.PAA15682@smtp1.teleport.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Norman: You write, > What is fascinating--and repellent--is that this little hermetic > community was willing to throw decency to the dogs for the sake of a > psychological sop--being able to comisserate endlessly with each other > within the illusion of "virtual" privacy. It is a signal case of what > Christopher Lasch called the "culture of narcissism," a myopia that > makes one's own discomfiture with the viscisitudes of life so central > to one's thinking that serious moral reflection is all but impossible. I must admit that the scenario did make me reflect a bit on when I ought to call the cops -- and when not. At one time I was an attorney. In that position I heard a lot of confessions and was generally prevented by law from disclosing that information to authorities. No case ever arose of such moral enormity that I was willing to subject myself to the legal sanctions that would have followed from taking a higher moral road and reporting the crimes. After being an attorney for a while I did a stint as a criminal and drug addict. Although the honor among thieves is severely overrated, the social pressure not to disclose the crimes of one's cohorts is fairly strong in that social milieu. I did not. Finding crime and addiction a bit too stressful I found it necessary to join a twelve step group. It is a tough group where status is measured by penitentiary time rather than post-graduate degrees. Our particular group is the oldest one in my state and has a long standing policy of not cooperating with legal, medical or social service authorities. I never heard an unprosecuted murder confessed in the group, but I have heard lots of felonies. I have never know a member to report these crimes, but many members have cut down on committing them. Now I work in business. Crime in business is normal business. The crimes may have enormous impact, but the impact is spread so widely that normally no individual is all that severely hurt. Being that I value my job and might well -- considering my background -- have a difficult time finding another one, I don't blow the whistle here either. > There are lots of situations where I wouldn't dream of calling the > cops-- and the hell with the law! I guess I want to ask for a little more direction. When have you notified authorities about the illegal activities of your social and professional associates, and what personal losses have you suffered from doing so? It would be easier for me to understand the standard you propose if I could see how you have put it into action on the tough cases. Orrin "Simon" Onken oro@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~oro Listowner, Netdynam -- Group Psychology in Internet Communication http://rdz.stjohns.edu/lists/netdynam ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 13:22:34 -0600 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Dewey Dykstra, Jr." Subject: Re: True/false dichotomy -- I & II In-Reply-To: <199805011700.LAA10740@bsumail.idbsu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Gideon Lichfield writes: >Dewey Dykstra wrote: > >>you might notice that there are two classes of entities mentioned here. >>One type of example is reference to shared experience. >.... >>The other type of example is about entities presumed to exist and which >>play a role in explaining our shared experiences with phenomena; >>constructs. .... >..... >>If we merely stopped insisting that our explanations tell us what "really >>is," and instead thought our explanations as useful, plausible, satisfying >>explanatory stories which fit our experience and which enable us to >>accomplish goals and meet needs as we see them now, then the present >>"debate" might not even occur to us. > >The "debate" you're referring to here is the one about realism: whether the >entities that theories (usually of physics) describe exist. The position you > argue >for is instrumentalism: theories are useful tools for explaining the >phenomena, >not claims about what there is behind the phenomena. This recognises shared >experiences (the first type of entity you mention), but not constructs (the >second). Since I AM "recognizing" constructs and instrumentalism, which in your view, *does not*, then I must NOT be arguing for instrumentalism, but *something else* instead. (Maybe a more "complete" position, since it includes both entities and instrumentalism, according to your claim, does not.) I agree that "realism or not" is a way of characterizing what I see as the underlying issue, but I am wondering what labeling "my position" as instrumentalism actually accomplishes, especially considering the contradiction which exists between your characterization of and what I have actually argued in the quote above. >It seems to me that philosophy-of-science courses, though they teach realism >vs. instrumentalism, and though they teach theory-choice and >falsification, don't >bring the two together in the way that this discussion indicates they >ought to. I wonder how many of the participants of the "debate" overall have actually even taken a philosophy-of-science course. Hence, I'm wondering why what happens in such courses is of any actual import in the framing of the debate in our society on the whole. One can be pretty sure that all of the participants have had way more hours of instruction in science than philosophy-of-science in their schooling. Obviously this is true of the scientists in the debate. What about the non-scientists? In the US very few who would be participating in the debate can have "escaped" quite a number of hours of science instruction just getting through high school and it is hard to get the first four year degree (B.S. or B.S.) without one or two more science courses. (Is it very different in other countries from which the participants come? I kind of doubt it.) In addition, research in student conceptions of the phenomena over the last 20 years reveals that, on a world wide basis, science instruction has little effect on student conceptions of the phenomena. Unless those who teach philosophy-of-science know something the rest of us do not know about teaching, I doubt that such courses have much effect on the conceptions of science of those who take the courses. Hence, on both counts, I'm wondering why anything that happens in such courses would be expected to have had an effect on the debate concerning the "science wars." >When a theory is falsified in Popper's sense, it isn't usually rejected >wholesale, >as we all know. Though its ontological claims may get totally overturned, its >explanatory scope is usually only restricted. (eg, Newtonian physics being >shown to apply at low speeds and low spacetime curvature, rather than >universally.) But, it is the *ontological* aspects and the *distinction* between them and the explanatory scope of particular constructs which *are* the issue here. Such distinctions are quite obviously not the result of the many hours of instruction in science which essentially everyone in the debate have experienced, including the non-scientists and nearly the whole population of the countries from which the "debaters" in this discussion come, not to mention many other countries. Then again, there are those who have pointed out that even Popper's position on falsification may have flaws. While bringing up his position may make it possible to cast the discussion in terms of the distinction between ontological claims and explanatory scope, it is *this* distinction and not Popper or falsifiability which are at the "bottom" of the debates in my view. >Yet themes like falsification, or the meta-induction from past falsity - a >contortion >of which is expressed in the above extract from Crichton on history of >science - >can seem to gloss over this distinction between the different senses in >which a >theory can be called "false", especially presented in the abstract way >they are in >philosophy courses. (It stems perhaps from the philosopher's logical >point that if >a theory contains a bunch of propositions and one of them is false then the >theory as a whole is, logically, false.) I think you may be attributing notions to Crichton that are not justifiable based solely on the quotation. I certainly am not and no reasonable person I know would agree that the explanatory scope of particular constructs is changed when new constructs occur to us which accommodate experiences which the old ones cannot. I believe this is Crichton's position and it is certainly mine. I'm saying that I think Crichton is quite aware of this distinction between the ontological claims and the explanatory scope of constructs. In fact, it is hard to understand how Crichton could knowingly and logically make such a statement and without recognizing the distinction. It could only be "contorted" if you assume that Crichton does not think about what he writes and doesn't know any better. His formal education includes more mathematics and science than many in the debate. As a comentator on aspects of our society, in speeches I have heard, I have found him to be more penetrating and thoughtful than most practicing scientists I know. >Thus, those philosophy-of-science >students who don't also study science (a practice that ought to be banned, >IMHO) may end up failing to notice the distinction. It appears to me that the way the arguments have been constructed by those "defending" science, even people with advanced amounts of formal education in science (and then many years in the practice of science) don't make the distinction. Given the results of science instruction now, why should adopting such a requirement *really* be expected to have any effect? One conclusion is that what we expect of education is not in fact the outcome of education-as-it-is. Could education be different? I think so and there is evidence of it in isolated cases. >And this confusion may also be conveyed more widely. Obviously, it is, but is it conveyed or is it part of our culture, reproduced in each successive generation via education-as-it-is? You can probably guess what my answer to this question is. >No wonder, then, that people are worried about the public's misunderstanding >the notion of falsifiability. It's a subtle notion that easily eludes you even > if you're >taking a degree in the subject. And here it's being proposed that it be > explained >*inside* a 200-word definition of the essence of science. I, for one, >would like > to >know what benefit such a catechism is expected to bring, and how. Ahh... now on this we DO agree, but apparently via different routes. Gideon, thanks for the response and making the opportunity to respond. Dewey +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105 Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775 Department of Physics/MCF421/418 Fax: (208)385-4330 Boise State University dykstrad@bsumail.idbsu.edu 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper "Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."--A. Einstein in The Evolution of Physics with L. Infeld, 1938. "Every [person's] world picture is and always remains a construct of [their] mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence." --E. Schrodinger in Mind and Matter, 1958. "Don't mistake your watermelon for the universe." --K. Amdahl in There Are No Electrons, 1991. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 02:15:29 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: ARCHIVE1 Subject: writers(graffiti)manifesto Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit int.work-group on graffiti-research: A"writers`manifesto"(extracted from 30 000 sources)has been published(52 key- sentences)in ALT.GRAFFITI A.Thiel(coordination) Kassel(Germany) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 10:46:21 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Scientific fightback MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT A response to John Ziman's review of *The Flight from Science and Reason* in the letters column of this weeks *Times HIgher Education Supplement* (May 1 1998) _______________________________ John Ziman misunderstands the purpose of *Flight from Science and Reason* (THES, April 24). Far from trying to create a new philosophy or history of science it is forging a resistance to what has become a naked assault on the Enlightenment and any kind of rational dialogue, made by those who are privileged enough to profit from its fruits. Such attacks are also directed at history. Assaults on science are coming from New Age mysticism, "feminist scientific (sic) theory", Afrocentrism, anti-Darwinism, techno-occultism, political correctness and pre-millenial anxieties masquerading as critiques of contemporary society. It is significant that this centenary year of Trofim Lysenko has been met by a deafening silence. *Flight* is an essential toolkit needed to overcome Hydra-headed madness. Without a fightback the consequences would be too dreadful to contemplate. Mazin Zeki ______________________________________ **************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email: Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 **************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/ InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html **************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 10:49:40 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Origin of the enemies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Letters, *Times Higher Education Supplement* May 1 1998. Those who are so inclined may want to contemplate the use of juridical metaphor in reference to Einstein's work, and pathological metaphor in relation to dissent from the aims of science studies. _____________________________ Origin of the enemies RAY MONK's review of Raymond Tallis's *Enemies of Hope* (THES, March 20) is mostly a carve up of me. Tallis says his book began as a review of my *Origins of the Sacred* which "got out of hand". Monk wants to praise Tallis but is deeply puzzled and annoyed that this versatile sharpshooter has wasted some 30,000 words on a ludicrous twerp like me while dealing cursorily with such heavyweight baddies as Marx, Freud, and Foucault. The answer to this puzzle might just be that Tallis really did think that I required 30,000 words, but that in the forensic excitement of zapping the enemy he only embraced my phantom, and hence what got shot was the straw man and not the sheriff. By way of chastising my wicked refusal to see that "science works and magic does not", Monk relays irrelevant and nauseating details of a tasteless story about a sick Nigerian girl being effectively tortured by her witch-doctoring tribe before being rescued by western medicine. Mr. Monk hereby reveals more than a touch of the yobbish tendency. Of course I never suggest that science does not work. My point is the opposite, that it works so well we must need to "worship" the "magicians" who can save lives with antibiotics and put men on the moon; and this poses problems for piety. On reflection, I may have slightly overdone the implications of the idealist shunt in quantum theory but it was in any case a small part of a sustained critique of the Cartesian mind. Not only does Monk not mention Descartes, but neither does he mention that the other figure I want rounded up for questioning in my science chapter is that kindly old mathematician Einstein. My criticisms of Einstein (extending back to Renaissance ballistics) are certainly contentious, intentionally provocative, arguably unkind, and possibly wrong; and yet they are passed over in silence while I am mocked for quibbling over quarks. Such evasion of my central arguments would suggest that someone in the precinct is "in denial"; or that Tallis and Monk are both afflicted by scientism. In place of my puerilities on myth, Monk proposes Wittgenstein as a proper opponent for Tallis; but Wittgenstein's definition sounds altogether compatible with my own, which is based on Salusts's precis of Aristotle: "These things never happened but are always". This has served the mythographic community for over 2,000 years now. *Origins* was written almost ten years ago in the hope of narrowing the gap between the Two Cultures, and proposes Darwin as culture hero. The dummies in New York who nominated it for a Pulitzer Prize have by now all been sent to Wyoming and re-employed as soda jerks; and I, though unrepentant, certainly would not undertake such a project today -- doors slamming everywhere, drawbridges coming up, enemies of hope indeed. Dudley Young Department of Literature University of Essex __________________________ **************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email: Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 **************************************************************** Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/ InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html **************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 07:25:04 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Scientific fightback X-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Pitchford wrote: > > A response to John Ziman's review of *The Flight from Science and > Reason* in the letters column of this weeks *Times HIgher Education > Supplement* (May 1 1998) > _______________________________ > > John Ziman misunderstands the purpose of *Flight from Science and > Reason* (THES, April 24). Far from trying to create a new philosophy > or history of science it is forging a resistance to what has become a > naked assault on the Enlightenment and any kind of rational dialogue, > made by those who are privileged enough to profit from its fruits. > Such attacks are also directed at history. Assaults on science are > coming from New Age mysticism, "feminist scientific (sic) theory", > Afrocentrism, anti-Darwinism, techno-occultism, political correctness > and pre-millenial anxieties masquerading as critiques of > contemporary society. > It is significant that this centenary year of Trofim Lysenko has > been met by a deafening silence. [snip] *I* certainly did not know it was Lysenko's centenary, and I am also unclear as to its/his "implications". However, anent "the Enlightenment", in going through some files in my basement, yesterday I found an article which, I feel, very beautifully and succinctly sums up the case *for* it. The article includes key quotes from Joseph Needham's _Science and Civilization in China_. I heartily recommend it, and would much like to hear any responses to it, pro or contra: 'Copernicus and the Quest for Certitude: "East" and "West"', by Benjamin Nelson, New School for Social Research, New York Now for the downside: At the time aI photocopied the article, I was not sufficiently conscientious to note what journal I got it from, and the journal was not sufficiently "modern" to include copyright information in each article. I feel it's worth finding. Anybody have a quick way to do it? (I'd appreciate the information, myself). \brad mccormick -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@cloud9.net 914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 12:40:11 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Science: historical, philosophical and cultural studies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Robert M. Young's Online Archive http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/staff/rmyoung/papers/ ___________________________________________ This extensive archive of works in the history, philosophy and sociology of science has now been integrated with a wide range of scholarly internet resources. A new guest book affords the facility to provide feedback to the author, and lengthier responses can be accommodated on the WWW site by writing to robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk. A full listing (in chronological order) of works available at this site appears below. 1960 Review of Criminological Texts =A0 1966 Scholarship and the History of the Behavioural Sciences The Divided Science: Essay Review of R. D. Laing, The Divided Self =A0 1967 The Development of Herbert Spencer's Concept of Evolution Animal Soul Review of Burrow, Evolution and Society 1968 The Functions of the Brain: Gall to Ferrier (1808-1886) Association of Ideas =A0 1969 Understanding It All: Essay Review of C. D. Darlington, The Evolution of Man and Society The Naked Marx: Review of Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilisation =A0 1970 Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century =A0 1971 Evolutionary Biology and Ideology: Then and Now The Anthropology of Science Scientific Medicine and the Social Order Mystifications in the Scientific Foundations of Sociology Science versus Democracy =A0 1973 The Human Limits of Nature =A0 1974 Braverman's Labour and Monopoly Capital 1977 Science is Social Relations Sabotage: A Spanner in the Works 1978 Getting Started on Lysenkoism =A0 1979 Why Are Figures so Significant? The Role and the Critique of Quantification ScienceIs a Labour Process How Societies Constitute their Knowledge: Prolegomena to a Labour Process Perspective Interpreting the Production of Science What if Human Nature Is Historical Reconstituting Technology: Chips, Genes, Spares Science as Culture =A0 1980 Where the Chips May Fall Between the First and Third Worlds The Relevance of Bernal's Questions Darwinian Evolution and Human History =A0 1981 The Naturalization of Value Systems in the Human Sciences Science on TV: a Critique Science, Technology, Medicine and the Socialist Movement =A0 1982 Darwinism is Social The Darwin Debate =A0 1984 No Easy Answers: Essay Review of Russell Jacoby, The Repression of Psychoanalysis Exhibiting Nuclear Power: The Science Museum Cover-up =A0 1985 Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture Is Nature a Labour Process? =A0 1986 Darwin's Metaphor and the Philosophy of Science Life among the Mediations: Labour, Groups, Breasts Freud: Scientist and/or Humanist Biography: The Basic Discipline for Human Science The Dense Medium: Television as Technology =A0 1987 Racist Society, Racist Science Psychoanalysis and Racism: A Loud Silence The Scientist as Guru: Essay Review of Sir Peter Medawar's Autobiography Transitional Phenomena: Production and Consumption Psychoanalysis and the Public Sphere Darwin and the Genre of Biography 1988 Darwin: Man and Metaphor Darwin, Marx, Freud and the Foundations of the Human Sciences Psychoanalysis, Values and Politics 1989 Persons, Organisms and...Primary Qualities The Role of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in the Human Sciences Psychoanalytic Teaching and Research: Knowing and Knowing About Review of Mrs Klein Review of Peter Gay, Freud: A Life for Our Time =A0 1990 The Analytic Space: Countertransference and Evocative Knowledge Scientism in the History of Management Theory Herbert Spencer and Inevitable Progress The Mind-Body Problem Science, Alienation and Oppression Marxism and the History of Science 1991 British Psychoanalysis and Politics Psychotic Anxieties Are Normal The Vicissitudes of Transference and Countertransference: The Work of Harold Searles Psychoanalytic Critique of Productivism =A0 1992 Benign and Virulent Projective Identification in Groups and Institutions Desmond and Moore's Darwin: A Critique Guilt and the Veneer of Civilization Psychotic Anxieties and the Fading Hopes of the Left Psychotic Anxieties in Groups and Institutions Racism: Projective Identification and Cultural Processes Science, Ideology and Donna Haraway The Ubiquity of Psychotic Anxieties Christians, Cannibals and Spite: Notes on Films Review of "Alien 3" Big Books Review of Jeffrey Masson, Final Analysis Review of "Toto the Hero" Review of Carl Rogers Reader =A0 1993 Deadly Unconscious Logics in Joseph Heller's Catch-22 The Profession of Psychotherapy in Britain Psychoanalysis and the Other: Psychopathology and Racism The Psychoanalysis of Sectarianism What Scientists Have to Learn Review of Of Mice and Men Review of The Evening Star Is "Perversion" Obsolete? =A0 1994 Across the Borderline Mental Space What I Learned at Summer Camp: Experiences in Television 1995 Conceptual Research Good and Evil, Character and Morality Human Nature Mental Space and Group Relations A Place for Critique in the Mass Media Psychoanalysis and/of the Internet Reductionism and Overdetermination in the Explanation of Human Nature We Don't Need Them to Make Culture - or to Share It 1996 Primitive Processes on the Internet The Search for Transcendent Values NETDYNAM: Some Parameters of Vitual Reality A Note on the Tar Baby and Projective Identification The Moral and the Molecular in the Future of Psychiatry Evolution, Biology and Psychology The Culture of British Psychoanalysis and Related Essays on Character and Morality and on The Psychodynamics of Psychoanalytic Organizations Whatever Happened to Human Nature? Disappointment, Stoicism and the Future of Psychoanalysis and the Public Sphere Anthropology of Cyberspace: Review of Sherry Turkle, Life on the Screen 1997 Representations of Primitive Processes in the Cinema The Concept of Psychopathology: a Critique Group Relations in a New Environment Princess Diana's "Constituency of the Rejected" and Psychotherapeutic Studies Group Relations: An Introduction Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy: The Grand Leading the Bland =A0 1998 The Messiness, Ambivalence and Conflict of Everyday Life Some Reflections on the Psychodynamics of Wealth Malthus on Man - In Animals no Moral Restraint Sexuality and the Internet =A0 **************************************************************** Ian Pitchford - Email: Ian.Pitchford@mcmail.com Ph.D. Student in Theoretical Psychopathology Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies University of Sheffield, 16 Claremont Crescent SHEFFIELD, S10 2TA, United Kingdom. Tel: 0114 222 2961 Fax: 0114 270 0619 **************************************************************** = Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Online Dictionary of Mental Health http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/psychotherapy/ InterPsych: Mental Health Debate on the Internet http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/InterPsych/inter.html **************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 21:59:06 +0000 Reply-To: Ian.Pitchford@scientist.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Ian Pitchford Subject: Active social engagement sought MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT *Social Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realism* by Gerard Delanty Open University Press, 159pp stlg9.99 ISBN 0 335 19862 7 ________________________________________________________ Reviewed by Tim Blackman, School of Social Sciences and Law Oxford Brookes University Gerard Delanty argues in the introduction to this book that social science is in a deep crisis regarding its public role in society. This phase, howeve