Re: The scientific harvest (Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory")
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Thu, 25 May 1995 03:24:52 GMT
In article <ONEAL.95May22141432@aloha.astro.psu.edu>, Doug O'Neal (oneal@astro.psu.edu) writes:
> Without rudimentary science (i.e., observation of the natural world), you
> wouldn't know when to have those festivals or how to predict the changing
> of the seasons, therefore when to plant and when to harvest. Nor would
> you be able to make a calendar bearing any relation to the real cycles of
> the seasons.
Ah, "rudimentary science", is it? Let me suggest to you rather that
traditional knowledge is in fact the SUBSTANCE of science. By that I
would suggest further your reading up on the British Natural History
tradition instead of wallowing away there in that American pseudo-
scientistic crud which some would pass as science in order to qualify
for the next round of NSF funding.
Traditional science MUST be substantial, because people's very lives
depended directly on its reliability, else face famine.
> Of course, I hasten to point out that in many early societies the
> "scientists" (astronomers, who did these observations) were also the priests,
> because their knowledge gave them the predictive power that people
> respected.
Not "predictive power" as if it were some mystical talent available
only to the few, merely widespread and well deserved respect for the
intelligent human mind at work. It is only the contemporary West that
has decided rather to set up its systems of learning catering to the
average mind, while the clearest and most able minds are cast aside as
"special cases" alongside the intellectually handicapped.
> If you have no one who tinkers around with naturally-occuring plants to
> see which ones grow well under domestication, you won't have a crop to
> improve. Simple scientific investigation there.
How does that dispute what I have already posted here about "science"
and "religion" over a very long period indeed? Let's rid ourselves of
these polarised constructs of yours, shall we, and recognise that the
human mind is very well capable of seriously assimilating the facts of
nature while at once appreciating the majesty of its own religious
life.
As you wish, I can go back even further in my discussions, to the
time I was being so roundly screamed at and abused by my professors,
publically in the Departmental corridors, for daring to suggest that
the Aboriginal elders are acknowledged as scientists in their own
right, after their own custom; as Elkin described them as Aboriginal
Men of High Degree in his landmark monograph of that title.
As you wish further, I can name any number of Western scientists who
had established very substantial working relationships with their
indigenous counterparts over very long periods indeed. Neither of them
finding it at all unusual that they were both participants in their
respective religious lives as well. All the more deserving of mutual
respect, I'd say.
It is only coming back out here to face this unrelenting crud garbage
from the Americans in particular here, encouraged by one or two of
our own resident philosophers, that somebody like me finds himself so
roundly abused and hated all over again for reporting such facts to a
world scientific conference.
> Whatever your judgment is, traditional practice ain't gonna support six
> billion people.
Now what sort of crud scientific non-statement is this supposed to
represent?
It is established fact that the "agriculture" imposed on the "Third
World" by American "science" in particular has led to widespread
famine and mass starvation, while at once enriching the few who had
managed to take ownership of the technology, and impoverishing the
remainder.
I tell you now, bozo, that unless we return to traditional farming
practice on a global scale, we are not going to be able to feed
anybody much at all.
If you want to pursue a thread arguing against me on this question, do
go right ahead. Be warned that you had better do some homework first,
fellow, before going off half-cocked like you have here and making a
complete fool of yourself.
Instead of merely a common, garden variety innocent wanting to venture
abroad as you reveal yourself to this point.
Note that I have adjusted follow-ups so as to allow this thread to
proceed as a legitimate issue without some of the others worrying so.
|