> Well, I've worked in the industry for over a decade. I've studied at
> a top school and talked with many reserach professors in the sciences,
> business, and science policy, as well as scores of graduates students
> in engineering, computer science, technology policy, science and technology
> studies... I have friends in industry. I have travelled widely, attended
> conferences. I've interviewed vice-presidents of fortune 100 firms.
> I run a technology consultancy, as you know. etc.
Yes, but it seems to me that these places would be the least likely to
promulgate knowledge about "alternative trends". For example, there are
a number of people in physics who are continuing Reich's work or are
pursuing research that assumes the existence of an energetic aether.
Now these people are not regarded by mainstream scientists as doing _science_,
they are regarded as crackpots. Many of them undoubtedly _are_ crackpots,
but the point is: you probably won't hear about them as "scientists" if
you talk to "official scientists".
> You write as if books like _Higher Superstition_ -- basically a backlash
> against science studies written by scientists -- were never written, and
> that there is no sustained resistance to these ideas populated entirely
> by scientists and engineers who see it as a threat.
I have no doubt that they see it as a threat, but this doesn't mean that
the conclusions of science studies come as some kind of shock which,
ideally, should cause people to change their ways. The threat, I think,
is not that the science-studies stuff is new and shocking, but that it is
sort of in vogue and so a ritual wrist-slapping is in order. Just like there
is nothing new and shocking about the fact that politicians have sex with
interns; nevertheless, if it is revealed, there must be a ritual denial.
-m
> a top school and talked with many reserach professors in the sciences,
> business, and science policy, as well as scores of graduates students
> in engineering, computer science, technology policy, science and technology
> studies... I have friends in industry. I have travelled widely, attended
> conferences. I've interviewed vice-presidents of fortune 100 firms.
> I run a technology consultancy, as you know. etc.
Yes, but it seems to me that these places would be the least likely to
promulgate knowledge about "alternative trends". For example, there are
a number of people in physics who are continuing Reich's work or are
pursuing research that assumes the existence of an energetic aether.
Now these people are not regarded by mainstream scientists as doing _science_,
they are regarded as crackpots. Many of them undoubtedly _are_ crackpots,
but the point is: you probably won't hear about them as "scientists" if
you talk to "official scientists".
> You write as if books like _Higher Superstition_ -- basically a backlash
> against science studies written by scientists -- were never written, and
> that there is no sustained resistance to these ideas populated entirely
> by scientists and engineers who see it as a threat.
I have no doubt that they see it as a threat, but this doesn't mean that
the conclusions of science studies come as some kind of shock which,
ideally, should cause people to change their ways. The threat, I think,
is not that the science-studies stuff is new and shocking, but that it is
sort of in vogue and so a ritual wrist-slapping is in order. Just like there
is nothing new and shocking about the fact that politicians have sex with
interns; nevertheless, if it is revealed, there must be a ritual denial.
-m