Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?

William Edward Woody (
Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:39:41 -0700

In article <4u3868$>, (Bryant) wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.92.960804074110.1653A-100000@Ra.MsState.Edu>,
> Marty G. Price <mprice@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
> >Sorry, Bryant, but even in the Western cultural context, you will find
> >interpretations which vary enough from the ones you stated to allow the
> >"social context" interpretation (which in malicious hands becomes "social
> >bias"). [...]
> >Blessed Be, Gale
> None of which provides support for the contention that Newton's Laws
> reflect his social biases instead of describing the real world.

You know the funniest part of this whole debate about the validity
or invalidity of Newton's Laws?

Newton was wrong.

Gravity is not an attractive force, but is the result of a warping
of the space-time continuum (you know, that popular plot device
in Star Trek) which causes objects to accelerate towards each other.
While on a macroscopic level it seems that Newton was correct, on
a subatomic level his theories don't hold any water at all.

How does Newton's physical description reflect his social bias?
Simple: Newton had a very mechanical view of the universe, which
reflected his beliefs in a Deterministic "God as the ultimate
watchmaker who wound up the universe and let it go" point of view.
This theistic viewpoint was all the religious rage throughout
Europe during his time, and without it Newton and a lot of other
great thinkers would never have done the science they did--they
simply would not have had the idea of the universe as a precise
watch crafted by God, with Newton and others at the forefront
understanding how that watch was put together.

Which of course flies in the very face of the world as we understand
it today.

And before saying "well, at least his point of view seems right
and works most of the time", first, why should his point of view
be more accepted over the Aristitolian "object seek their own level"
theory? After all, in most cases, both theories serve the useful
purpose of being predictive and correct most of the time. (But not
all of the time.)

And second, without Quantum Mechanics (and a whole boatload of
other more recent scientific theories) no-one would have been able
to design the very microchips in operation in the computer in front
of you. So no fair dismissing the more 'esoteric' scientific thinking
in order to make your point.

Unless you're willing to give up your computer for the day.

- Bill

William Edward Woody | e-mail:
In Phase Consulting | WWW:
1545 Ard Eevin Ave | Fax: (818) 502-1467
Glendale, CA 91202 | ICBM: N:34.15' W:118.25'