|
|
Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Marty G. Price (mprice@Ra.MsState.Edu)
Sun, 4 Aug 1996 07:49:56 -0500
On 3 Aug 1996, Bryant wrote:
> In article <32028668.2C7D@byu.edu>,
> Shannon Adams <shannon_adams@byu.edu> wrote:
> >Bryant wrote:
> >> Please explain (or "deconstruct" or whatever) how each of the following are
> >> expressions of political or social bias:
> >> 1. E=mc^2
> >> 2. Newton's second law
> >> 3. the identification by Francis and Crick of the structure of DNA
>
> >All of these are example of the Western cultural context.
>
> Wrong. All of these are descriptions of the physical world. Newton's
> observations about gravity may not be described mathematically by WaiWai
> hunters, but they still exhibit caution around waterfalls.
>
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"). For example, Aristotle's explanation for gravity ("things seek
their own level") is very different from Newton's. It is possible (&
easy --- we're not *that* far divorced from Aristotle's world) to envision
a world order in which Aristotle's definition is significant & Newton's is
silly, if not meaningless. So, while Aristotle, Newton, and your distant
hunters will all watch their step around waterfalls, there will be
culturally significant differences in the explanation they give for doing
so.
Blessed Be,
Gale
(who once tested the law of gravitation by falling off a farmhouse roof.
It worked. :) )
|