rjohara.net

Search:  

Darwin-L Message Log 14: 36–77 — October 1994

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.

This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during October 1994. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.

The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”


----------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 14: 36-77 -- OCTOBER 1994
----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:36>From pjblonsk@artsci.wustl.edu  Tue Oct 25 14:07:32 1994

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 14:06:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Paul Jarrod Blonsky <pjblonsk@artsci.wustl.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: emergence

As far as states are concerned, this is a topic of great interst to
myself (although I am sorry if this diverges too far from darwin-l).  To
some extent Durkheim liked to say that society in general had a life of
its own, but for him, this was a cultural construct (i.e. we simply saw
it as something larger than ourselves, it still came from human
psychology).  I think emergence holds implications for culture as well as
social and political organization.  But you are right that it is hard to
see what are the "simple rules" or "conditions" from which complex human
systems emerge.  I would like to discuss this more with interested
parties, if not in this forum.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
Paul Blonsky
Department of Anthropology
Washington University-St. Louis
pjblonsk@artsci.wustl.edu

"Listen three-eyes, don't you try to outwierd me, I get stranger things than
you free with my breakfast cereal."   -Zaphod Beeblebrox

"My cat's breath smells like cat food."   -Ralph Wiggens
0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:37>From simons@edvz.sbg.ac.at  Tue Oct 25 15:12:45 1994

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 21:12:52 +0100
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: simons@edvz.sbg.ac.at (Peter Simons)
Subject: Philosophy to Science

Mark Hineline wonders whether anyone has made the move from historian or
philosopher to scientist. I can't answer for historians, but unequivocal
moves from philosophy to science are rare indeed. Some polymaths like
Descartes and Leibniz were in their day as much scientists as philosophers
and mathematicians, but I assume we are looking for more recent cases.
There are one or two borderline cases from Austria and Poland: some people
trained as philosophers with Meinong in Graz but migrated more to
psychology: I am thinking of Stephan Witasek and especially Vittorio
Benussi, the founder of Italian Gestalt psychology. But Meinong's school
was regarded as phsilosophical/psychological: in those days there wasn't a
clear line. In Poland two people trained as philosophers ended up as formal
logicians with a very mathematical and not philosophical attitude: Jan
Lukasiewicz and Stanislaw Lesniewski. Their pupil Alfred Tarski, though he
studied philosophy too, studied mathematics with Kuratowski and Sierpinski
so he is not a good case. Anyway, formal logic is probably not what
Hineline would call "science".

I suspect that there are cases, not well-publicized, of people who turned
from the *study* of philosophy to something else and became scientists, but
it would be nice to have a clear case of someone who was known and
published as a philosopher and then went into an empirical science.

Wittgenstein used to advise his students *not* to become philosophers but
to do "something useful". Some of them followed his advice; others did not.
He is a case of an engineer turned philosopher, not an abundant species.

Explanations? Flippant ones like "philosophy softens the brain" come to
mind first; more serious ones probably have to deal with a disjunction of
cases:

(1) those who becomes philosophers but would not have been capable of
succeeding in science anyway (not interesting)
(2) those who start out in some science, and either become disenchanted
with it or enchanted with philosophy and then becomes incapable of going
back to their original subject even should they have wanted to (it might be
less a matter of brain-softening but of losing touch during one's second
study)
(3) those like in case (2) but who might go back if they wished but do not
wish to. These are clearly the interesting cases, because they seem to have
a reason for wanting to remain philosophers. In some cases at least I
suspect impatience with the grind of empirical work plays a part; in others
it may be the reluctance to come back from the attractions of abstract and
speculative theory to more mundane matters.
(4) others --

Peter Simons
Universitaet Salzburg
Institut fuer Philosophie
Franziskanergasse 1
A-5020 Salzburg
Austria
Tel. +43 662 8044-4062
Fax +43 662 8044-214

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:38>From ggale@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Tue Oct 25 17:02:00 1994

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 16:57:43 -0600
From: ggale@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, HOPOS-l@ukcc.uky.edu,
        HPSST-L%QUCDN.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu, sci-tech-studies@ucsd.edu,
        HASTRO-L@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU, htech-l@sivm.edu, galileo@unimelb.edu.au,
        philosop@yorkvm1.yorku.ca

                             **NEW e-LIST: LEIBNIZ**

The Leibniz Society of America and the University of Missouri, Kansas
City are  pleased to announce a new Internet e-list, LEIBNIZ, dedicated
to discussion and scholarship among those interested in the work of
Leibniz. If you're interested  in joining the list, you'll need to send
a message to our automatic  administrative machine. Here's how. Begin a
new e-mail message. At the "To"  prompt, type

listserv@kasey.umkc.edu.

Then, when your machine gives you the  remaining header lines [for
example, the headings "cc" and/or "Subj"]  simply  hit your carriage
return/enter key, until you get to the place to put the body  of the
message. In that place, simply type the words

subscribe LEIBNIZ  yournamehere

and then send the message. For example, I typed

subscribe LEIBNIZ  George Gale

and sent the message, which made me a member of the list.  Indeed, I was
the  very first member of the list. Our machine  will then notify you
that you are now a member of the  list. It will also  send you a summary
of all the useful information re: the commands and options available to
you in the relationship that you maintain with both our  listserv
administrative machine and the membership of the list.
See you in the discussions!

George Gale
Listowner
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

 ##############################################################################
 #                                                                            #
 #                             George Gale                                    #
 #                         ggale@vax1.umkc.edu                                #
 #                     Philosophy & Physical Science                          #
 #                 Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City 64110                       #
 #                             913-383-3848                                   #
 #                                                                            #
 #      "....Kansas City has the two best restaurants in the world."          #
 #                                                   --Calvin Trillin         #
 #                                                     The New Yorker         #
 #                                                                            #
 ->!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<-

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:39>From gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu  Tue Oct 25 19:30:50 1994

From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G)   ANTHRO" <gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu>
To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: EMERGENCE - short bibliography
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 17:31:00 PDT

Here follow some better-known references on COMPUTATIONAL EMERGENCE.  A
longer list is also available from me.  I have not had the time to chart
the historical trajectory of the referents of "emergence" or their
relations to epistemology, teleology, reductionism, vitalism.  However, it
does seem that COMPUTATIONAL EMERGENCE is establishing its own paradigm with
its own philosophers of science.  Nevertheless, it does seem that we now have
a computational method for dealing with some problems which were intractable
not very long ago, and the results to date have been surprisingly
encouraging to this writer.

==========

CELLULAR AUTOMATA:

Gutowitz, Howard, editor 1991.  CELLULAR AUTOMATA - THEORY AND EXPERIMENT.
Special Issues of Phyusica D.  Cambridge:  MIT Press, A Bradford Book
(Elsevier Science).

Forrest, Stephanie, editor 1991.  EMERGENT COMPUTATION - SELF-ORGANIZING,
COLLECTIVE, AND COOPERATIVE PHENOMENA IN NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL COMPUTING
NETWORKS.  Special Issues of Physica D.  Cambridge:  MIT Press, A Bradford
Book, (Elsevier Science).

AMERICAN ARTIFICIAL LIFE:

Langton, Christopher G., editor 1989.  ARTIFICIAL LIFE (I) - PROCEEDINGS OF
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKSHOP ON THE SYNTHESIS AND SIMULATION OF LIVING
SYSTEMS, HELD SEPTEMBER 1987 IN LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO.  Santa Fe Institute,
Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Volume VI.  Redwood City:
Addison-Wesley.

Langton, Christopher G., Charles Taylor, J. Doyne Farmer, and Steen
Rasmussen, editors 1991.  ARTIFICIAL LIFE II - PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON
ARTIFICIAL LIFE HELD FEBRUARY 1990 IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO.  Santa Fe
Institute, Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings Volume X.
Redwood City:  Addison-Wesley.

Langton, Christopher, G., editor 1994.  ARTIFICIAL LIFE III - PROCEEDINGS OF
THE WORKSHOP ON ARTIFICIAL LIFE HELD JUNE, 1992 IN SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO.
Santa Fe Institute, Stucies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings Volume
XVII.  Reading:  Addison-Wesley.

Brooks, Rodney and Pattie Maes, editors 1994.  ARTIFICIAL LIFE IV -
PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON ARTIFICIAL LIFE HELD JULY, 1994 IN CAMBRIDGE,
MASSACHUSETTS.  Cambridge:  MIT Press, A Bradford Book.

EUROPEAN ARTIFICIAL LIFE:

Varela, Francisco J. and Paul Bourgine, editors 1992.  TOWARD A PRACTICE OF
AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS - PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON
ARTIFICIAL LIFE.  Cambridge:  MIT Press, A Bradford Book.

Meyer, Jean-Arcady and Stewart W. Wilson, editors 1991. FROM ANIMALS TO
ANIMATS - PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SIMULATION OF
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR.  Cambridge:  MIT Press, A Bradford Book.

Meyer, Jean-Arcady Meyer, Herbert L. Roitblat, and Stewart W. Wilson, editors
1993.  FROM ANIMALS TO ANIMATS 2 - PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON SIMULATION OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR.  Cambridge:  MIT Press, A
Bradford Book.

JOURNALS:

ARTIFICIAL LIFE, edited by Christopher G. Langton.  Cambridge:  MIT Press
Journals.

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, edited by Jean-Arcady Meyer.  Cambridge:  MIT Press
Journals.

EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTING, edited by Kenneth De Jong.  Cambridge:  MIT Press
Journals.

==========

NOTE:  Rodney Brooks has written a series of entertaining articles on the
appearance of intelligence in robotic systems composed entirely of stupid
components:  "Elephants Don't Play Chess,"  "Intelligence Without Reason,"
and "Intelligence Without Representation."  It has been suggested that
human intelligence and consciousness are similar phenomena.

==========

Nick Gessler
gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu
gessler@alife.santafe.edu

"Artificial Life is 'rich.'"
Ernst Mayr, Stephen Gould, Anatol Rapoport.
(Ostentatious appeal to authority.)

===== end =====

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:40>From JESUS@utkvx.utk.edu  Tue Oct 25 21:07:34 1994

Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 22:07:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jesus Antonio Rivas <JESUS@utkvx.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientists, histoirans, etc.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Hi Mark!!!

	I have thought about this subject for a long time.  Even I realised
that most of the people that get a nobel prize and ever get a second, the
second one is on peace (regardless of the subject where the got the first
one).  Since you want an explantaion  (and you don't care in getting a
cheap one).  I would guess that after a whole lot of scientifical
thinking those people get to understand that sciences is not, after all, so
much a search for the truth (most of the time is rather search for
publications).  And there are more important things to worry and to think
about.  The endless list of first class cientific that have ended up
wondering about more "simple" things could tell us something about where
the thruth is.  This same argument would explain the low number of people
(if any) that have takne the other direction.

Jesus Rivas
Graduate Program in Ethology
University Of Tennessee
Knoeville, TN 37996-0900

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:41>From stef@pipeline.com  Tue Oct 25 23:38:13 1994

From: Steve Miller <stef@pipeline.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 00:37:41 -0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Philosophers taking up science

>can anyone cite a case where an individual trained
>in philosophy or history has taken up science as a
>vocation or an avocation.

Teilard de Chardin.

Vladamir Nabokov.  <grin>

Steve Miller      -     I am a Famous Rock Star!

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:42>From witkowsk@cshl.org  Wed Oct 26 07:39:07 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:40:53 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL)
Subject: Re: Scientists, histoirans, etc.

>Hi Mark!!!
>
>        I have thought about this subject for a long time.  Even I realised
>that most of the people that get a nobel prize and ever get a second, the
>second one is on peace (regardless of the subject where the got the first
>one).

This is not, I think, true. I believe that there have only been 4 double
laureates although I can only think of 3:

Marie Curie - Chemistry and Physics
Sanger - Chemistry and Chemistry
Pauling - Chemistry and Peace
? - ? and ?

Jan A. Witkowski, Ph.D.
Banbury Center
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
PO Box 534
Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724-0534
(516) 549-0507
(516) 549-0672 [fax]
witkowsk@cshl.org

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:43>From witkowsk@cshl.org  Wed Oct 26 07:40:03 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:41:49 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL)
Subject: Re: Philosophers taking up science

>>can anyone cite a case where an individual trained
>>in philosophy or history has taken up science as a
>>vocation or an avocation.
>
>Teilard de Chardin.
>
>Vladamir Nabokov.  <grin>
>
>Steve Miller      -     I am a Famous Rock Star!

It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:44>From jel@christa.unh.edu  Wed Oct 26 07:43:41 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: John E Limber <jel@christa.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: Philosophers taking up science
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

> can  anyone cite a case where an individual trained
>in philosophy  or history has taken up science as a
>vocation or an avocation.

Bertrand Russell claimed to have studied language development in more
children than anyone. Jerry Fodor has published experimental papers in
psycholinguistics over a period of twenty years.  Both were trained as
philosophers though I doubt whether they would see their "science" as a
"vocation or an avocation." They are just trying to find out how human
language works--_inter alia_!

John Limber
Department of Psychology
University of New Hampshire, Durham NH 03824, USA
email: jel@christa.unh.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:45>From gator@mail.utexas.edu  Wed Oct 26 12:08:26 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 12:05:47 +0100
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: gator@mail.utexas.edu (c. brochu)
Subject: Re: Philosophers taking up science

>>>can anyone cite a case where an individual trained
>>>in philosophy or history has taken up science as a
>>>vocation or an avocation.
>>
>>Teilard de Chardin.
>>
>>Vladamir Nabokov.  <grin>
>>
>>Steve Miller      -     I am a Famous Rock Star!
>
>It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist

Based on the descriptive paleontology published by Chardin, I think we can
safely call him a scientist.  However, he may not fit the pattern we are
trying to fill - he began as a priest, became a scientist, and then again
became a philosopher, though of a much different kind than he was upon
leaving the seminary.

Christopher Brochu
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
512-458-4396

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:46>From bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu  Wed Oct 26 14:12:56 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 14:19:33 CDT
From: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Nobel prizes

To the list of double Nobel prizes posted recently,
add the name of John Bardeen (Physics, once for
transistors with Brattain and Shockley, and once
for the BCS theory of superconductivity with
Cooper and Schreiffer).

Bill

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:47>From ggale@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Wed Oct 26 15:18:33 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 15:05:56 +0600
From: ggale@VAX1.UMKC.EDU (George Gale)
Subject: Witkowski's comment
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

J. Witkowski says:
>It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist

Ummm, I think that's a little mean, if I read you correctly. [I read you to be
saying that Teilhard ought not be called a scientist.]
After all, he was certainly a competent paleontologist.

Of course, what you MIGHT be implying that competent paleontologists aren't
scientists. ;-(

If that's what you intend, I'll leave you to THEIR sharp claws.
George
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:48>From witkowsk@cshl.org  Wed Oct 26 15:41:52 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 16:43:29 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL)
Subject: Re: Nobel prizes

>To the list of double Nobel prizes posted recently,
>add the name of John Bardeen (Physics, once for
>transistors with Brattain and Shockley, and once
>for the BCS theory of superconductivity with
>Cooper and Schreiffer).
>
>Bill

Thank you!

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:49>From witkowsk@cshl.org  Wed Oct 26 15:55:16 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 16:57:03 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL)
Subject: Re: Witkowski's comment

>J. Witkowski says:
>>It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist
>
>Ummm, I think that's a little mean, if I read you correctly. [I read you to be
>saying that Teilhard ought not be called a scientist.]
>After all, he was certainly a competent paleontologist.
>
>Of course, what you MIGHT be implying that competent paleontologists aren't
>scientists. ;-(
>
>If that's what you intend, I'll leave you to THEIR sharp claws.
>George
>ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

Thank you, George. No, I didn't mean to be mean to paleontologists and I
hope that this clarification will stop them before they have sharpened
their claws too much. As to whether de Chardin was a competent
paleontologist, is there yet a last word on his role in the Piltdown Man
Affair?

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:50>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Wed Oct 26 18:36:46 1994

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Jacobs Kenneth)
Subject: Re: Witkowski's reply to Gale
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:34:43 -0400 (EDT)

J. Witkowski said:

>>> It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist

To which G. Gale replied:

>> Ummm, I think that's a little mean,...
>> After all, he was certainly a competent paleontologist.

To which J. Witkowski said:

> Thank you, George. No, I didn't mean to be mean to paleontologists and I
> .......... As to whether de Chardin was a competent
> paleontologist, is there yet a last word on his role in the Piltdown Man
> Affair?

	I find this last point to be hovering between a non sequitur and a
self-refutation.  On one level, whether he was ethical or not doesn't address
the question of his paleontological competence (philosophical relevance perhaps,
but that's a different story).  But on another level, if he did pull off the
fraud, only someone of a certain paleontological competence could have done it,
so he was competent in his own way.

	Ken Jacobs
	anthropologie
	U de Montreal
	jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:51>From florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca  Wed Oct 26 18:48:45 1994

From: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca (F. Neumann)
Subject: Re: Witkowski's comment
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:50:32 -0400 (EDT)

> >J. Witkowski says:
> >>It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist

[...]

> Thank you, George. No, I didn't mean to be mean to paleontologists and I
> hope that this clarification will stop them before they have sharpened
> their claws too much. As to whether de Chardin was a competent
> paleontologist, is there yet a last word on his role in the Piltdown Man
> Affair?

  Teilhard de Chardin's possible (but improbable and, anyway, unproved)
involvement in the Piltdown Hoax does not negate his ulterior career as
a distinguished palaeontologist (remember the burden of proof?...)

  As to his philosophical/religious ideas, one may disagree with them,
but still accept his palaeontological work. In order to state that
Teilhard was not a scientist, one first has to show that his scientific
work was invalid.

Cheers,
Florin Neumann
Dept. of Geology, University of Toronto
22 Russell St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3B1
Phone: (416) 978-0658 / Fax: (416) 978-3938
Internet: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:52>From kganders@carina.unm.edu  Wed Oct 26 20:09:33 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:09:27 -0600 (MDT)
From: kermyt grant anderson <kganders@unm.edu>
Subject: Re: Nobel prizes
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

We all know there's no Nobel Prize for evolutionary biology (nor, indeed,
any historical science). But the latest (21 October) issue of Science
reports that great evolutionary biologists do not go unnoticed--Ernst
Mayr has been awarded the Japan Prize by the Committee on the
International Prize for Biology. In addition to a medal and getting to
meet the Japanese Emperor, Mayr also wins $100,000 in prize money.

--
KG Anderson
kganders@unm.edu
Human Evolutionary Ecology
Dept. of Anthropology
University of New Mexico

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:53>From maisel@SDSC.EDU  Thu Oct 27 00:16:25 1994

Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 20:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Merry Maisel <maisel@sdsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Nobel prizes
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Gee, $100,000 would probably let Mayr take the Japanese
emperor out to lunch, if they didn't drink too much...

M. Maisel
maisel@sdsc.edu

apologies for the frivolity.  promise to laff out of other
side of my mouf when I win the Publisher's Clearing House
Sweepstakes...

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:54>From wright@clark.net  Thu Oct 27 06:53:58 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 07:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bob Wright <wright@clark.net>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Lysenko

I have a question about the Soviet Union's official embrace of
Lamarckism during Lysenko's reign as chief geneticist (or whatever his
title was). I've once or twice read that his ideas were embraced
not just because he promised miraculous agricultural yields, but also
because his ideas implied the infinite malleability of human
nature--specifically, they implied that selfishness, the great crippler
of communal utopias, could be rooted out. But I've never seen this claim
made by a truly authoritative source (not that I've delved much further
than Encyclopedia Britannica). Does anybody know the story on this?
Thanks. You can reply to the List if this seems to be of general interest
or, alternatively, you can reply to me at wright@clark.net.

--Bob Wright
Washington, DC

_______________________________________________________________________________


<14:55>From jsl@rockvax.ROCKEFELLER.EDU  Thu Oct 27 07:20:50 1994

To: Bob Wright <wright@clark.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
To: vnsoyfer@mason1.gmu.edu
Subject: Re: Lysenko
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 08:24:03 -0400
From: Joshua Lederberg <jsl@rockvax.ROCKEFELLER.EDU>

<<<<<<  Bob Wright wrote:

I have a question about the Soviet Union's official embrace of
Lamarckism during Lysenko's reign as chief geneticist (or whatever his
title was). I've once or twice read that his ideas were embraced
not just because he promised miraculous agricultural yields, but also
because his ideas implied the infinite malleability of human
nature--specifically, they implied that selfishness, the great crippler
of communal utopias, could be rooted out. But I've never seen this claim
made by a truly authoritative source (not that I've delved much further
than Encyclopedia Britannica). Does anybody know the story on this?
Thanks. You can reply to the List if this seems to be of general interest
or, alternatively, you can reply to me at wright@clark.net.

--Bob Wright
Washington, DC
>>>>>>

The authoritative book is Valerie Soyfer's -- see email in header.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:56>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Thu Oct 27 08:10:01 1994

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Ken JACOBS)
Subject: Re: Lysenko
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:07:53 -0400 (EDT)

For a start, try these references.  Your take on the broader reasons for
Lysenko's popularity with Stalin is not inaccurate, although it's a very
complicated affair.  Of all the authors below, Graham is probably the most
dispassionate.  Levins & Lewontin's is an interesting apologia for the --in
their eyes-- unjustly maligned Lysenko.  Lecourt writes from one of the
many standpoints within the internecine wars of the French Left.  Ladous
seems to mistrust anything and everything smacking of evolution (wrongheaded
or otherwise), Joravsky put the finger on Stalin back before it was cool, and
Medvedev speaks as one who lived the story (with all the biases &c that that
implies, but therein lies a thesis for someone [although it's probably already
been done])
	Hope this helps.
		Ken Jacobs
		Anthropologie
		U de Montreal
				jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca

Graham, Loren R.  1987  Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in
	the Soviet Union.  Columbia U Press.

Graham, Loren R.  1978  Science and values: the eugenics movement
	in Germany and Russia in the 1920's.  Amer. Historic.Rev. 83:
	1133-1164

Joravsky, D.  1970  The Lysenko Afair  HarvUPr

Lecourt, D.  1977  Proletarian Science?  The case of Lysenko.  New
	Left Books: London

Levins, R & R Lewontin  1985  The Problem of Lysenkoism. In: The
	Dialectical Biologist.  (L & L, eds.) Harv U Pr

Ladous, Regis  1984  Darwin, Marx, Engels, Lyssenko et les Autres.
	Paris: J. Vrin

Medvedev, Z.A.  1971  The rise and fall of T.D. Lysenko.  Garden City
	NY:  Anchor Press

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:57>From witkowsk@cshl.org  Thu Oct 27 08:10:24 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:12:11 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL)
Subject: Re: Witkowski's reply to Gale

>J. WitKowski said:
>>>>It's a moot point whether Chardin can be called a scientist
>
>To which G. Gale replied:
>>> >Ummm, I think that's a little mean,...
>> >After all, he was certainly a competent paleontologist.
>> >
>To which J. Witkowski said:
>> paleontologist, is there yet a last word on his role in the Piltdown Man
>> Affair?
>>
>        I find this last point to be hovering between a non sequitur and a
>self-refutation.  On one level, whether he was ethical or not doesn't address
>the question of his paleontological competence (philosophical relevance perhaps,
>but that's a different story).  But on another level, if he did pull off the
>fraud, only someone of a certain paleontological competence could have done it,
>so he was competent in his own way.

I find this to be a quite extraordinary paragraph. Do you mean that as far
as paleontology goes (and perhaps anthropology as well), honesty in the
performance of one's work has no relevance in assessing whether you are a
good scientist, provided your dishonesty is carried out competently?

I rather feel that integrity is a fundamental attribute of being a scientist.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:58>From djoy@moose.uvm.edu  Thu Oct 27 08:30:08 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:30:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Joy <djoy@moose.uvm.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: de Chardin

> Thank you, George. No, I didn't mean to be mean to paleontologists and I
> hope that this clarification will stop them before they have sharpened
> their claws too much. As to whether de Chardin was a competent
> paleontologist, is there yet a last word on his role in the Piltdown Man
> Affair?

There is a recently published work out about the Piltdown hoax. If I
recall the review correctly de Chardin was cleared of any involvement and
that two others were implicated as the hoaxers. Sorry about the lack of
detail but the reference is not before me.

David Joy

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:59>From jsl@rockvax.ROCKEFELLER.EDU  Thu Oct 27 09:07:56 1994

To: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Ken JACOBS)
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Valerie Soyfer book -- reference
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 10:11:07 -0400
From: Joshua Lederberg <jsl@rockvax.ROCKEFELLER.EDU>

<<<<<<<<<
	I would be much obliged if you were to send me (or post to Darwin-L)
the reference to Valerie Soyfer's book you so tantalizingly mentioned.
>>>>>>>>

Soyfer, Valery N.  Lysenko and the tragedy of Soviet Science.
Rutgers Univ Press  1994

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:60>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Thu Oct 27 09:12:11 1994

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Ken JACOBS)
Subject: Re: competent vs `good' (was Chardin)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:09:37 -0400 (EDT)

J. Witkowski wondered whether Teilhard de Chardin was a competent paleontologist
	because:
> >> is there yet a last word on his role in the Piltdown Man
> >> Affair?

To which I replied:

> >        I find this last point to be hovering between a non sequitur and a
> >self-refutation.  On one level, whether he was ethical or not doesn't address
> >the question of his paleontological competence (philosophical relevance
> >perhaps,
> >but that's a different story).  But on another level, if he did pull off the
> >fraud, only someone of a certain paleontological competence could have done it
> >so he was competent in his own way.

Which led J. Witkowski to write:

> I find this to be a quite extraordinary paragraph. Do you mean that as far
> as paleontology goes (and perhaps anthropology as well), honesty in the
> performance of one's work has no relevance in assessing whether you are a
> good scientist, provided your dishonesty is carried out competently?
>
> I rather feel that integrity is a fundamental attribute of being a scientist.

	I think that a point is being missed here, which is that we were
talking about *competence.*   `Good' is a wholly different word, laden with
implicit values (cf, `integrity').  A carpenter can be one he** of a good
carpenter.  If s/he overcharges on the costs of materials, the work is
nonetheless competent, although the good carpenter is not a very good person.
And, no, a scientist who makes up the data (although we agree that fudging is
part of the enterprise, no?  At least so most honest historical accounts and
recent "lab ethnographies" seem to suggest so) is not a `good' person either.
But I stick to my point that only someone of a "certain paleontological
competence" could have perpetrated the fraud.  A dishonest shmuck undoubtedly,
but a paleontologically competent shmuck.

Ken Jacobs
anthropologie
U de Montreal 		jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:61>From florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca  Thu Oct 27 09:13:27 1994

From: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca (F. Neumann)
Subject: Re: Witkowski's reply to Gale
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 10:15:59 -0400 (EDT)

> >        I find this last point to be hovering between a non sequitur and a
> >self-refutation.  On one level, whether he was ethical or not doesn't address
> >the question of his paleontological competence (philosophical relevance
> >perhaps,
> >but that's a different story).  But on another level, if he did pull off the
> >fraud, only someone of a certain paleontological competence could have done it,
> >so he was competent in his own way.
> >
> I find this to be a quite extraordinary paragraph. Do you mean that as far
> as paleontology goes (and perhaps anthropology as well), honesty in the
> performance of one's work has no relevance in assessing whether you are a
> good scientist, provided your dishonesty is carried out competently?
>
> I rather feel that integrity is a fundamental attribute of being a scientist.

Interesting. Apparently now the discussion has been shifted from whether
de Chardin was or wasn't a scientist to integrity as a fundamental
attribute of a scientist. Evasionary tactics? How about dealing with the
initial statement about Teilhard?

Does J. Witkowski claim that Teilhard de Chardin wasn't a scientist because
of his (presumed) involvement in the Piltdown Hoax?

If yes, how about some proof? Not necessarily something that would stand
up in a court of law, but something like, for instance, the stuff
related to the V.J.Gupta scandal.

If not, what did J. Witkowski actually mean?

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:62>From witkowsk@cshl.org  Thu Oct 27 11:05:53 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 12:07:39 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: witkowsk@cshl.org (J. A. Witkowski - Banbury Center, CSHL)
Subject: Re: competent vs `good' (was Chardin)

>But I stick to my point that only someone of a "certain paleontological
>competence" could have perpetrated the fraud.  A dishonest shmuck undoubtedly,
>but a paleontologically competent shmuck.

OK as long as we agree on the schmuck.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:63>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu  Thu Oct 27 11:12:09 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 12:14:35 -0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy Creighton Ahouse)
Subject: Re: Critical Realism and biology

Darwin listers,

        I have started reading some Roy Bhaskar (with the assistance of
Andrew Collier's _Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's
Philosophy_).  This approach to phil of science intrigues me because it
grapples with some of the same issues that are being dealt with by those
who want to cut between the positivists and social constructivists (see
Callebaut).

        Since Bhaskar's critique/understanding is Marxist and dialectic it
is manifestly materialist/realist but also because implementation of a
vision is part of the agenda it tries to deal with the social aspects of
science as well.

       Do any of you on Darwin List know references that apply this
perspective to Evolutionary Biology, Cell Biology, Genetics, Development,
or Molecular Biology.

        Thank you,

        - Jeremy

Collier, Andrew (1994) _Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's
Philosophy_ Verso.

Bhaskar, R. (1994) _Plato etc..._ Verso.

Quick review:
Sprinker, M. (1992) "The Royal Road: Marxism and the Philosophy of Science"
New Left Review 191:122-144

Compare:
Callebaut Werner (1993) _Taking the Naturalistic Turn: How Real Philosophy
of Science is Done_

_________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Creighton Ahouse (ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu)
Biology Dept.
Brandeis University
Waltham, MA 02254-9110
(617) 736-4954
(617) 736-2405 FAX
__________________________________________________________________

        The punishment reserved for Theseus by the king of the underworld
is a subtle one, answering mockery with mockery.  Hades listens to the two
friends politely.  He asks how he can help them, he invites them to make
themselves comfortable on two golden chairs set into the rock.  But an
invisible bond glues the friends to those chairs.  They can't get up.
Peirithous, "he who wanders in circles," and Theseus, the abductor, must
forget their very selves, sitting still in the kingdom of the dead.  When
Heracles saves Theseus, dragging him from the chair by force, he leaves
strips of flesh behind.  Which is why, the say, Athenian boys have such
small, lean buttocks.
        from _The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony_ by Roberto Calasso

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:64>From sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu  Thu Oct 27 12:48:08 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:45:23 -0400
From: sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Nobel prizes

Didn't Tinbergen and Lorenz share a Nobel?

spencer turkel
sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu
life sciences
nyit

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:65>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Thu Oct 27 16:46:23 1994

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Ken JACOBS)
Subject: Re: so *was* he the s(c)hmuck? (was re: Chardin)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 16:55:26 -0400 (EDT)

I wrote:

> >But I stick to my point that only someone of a "certain paleontological
> >competence" could have perpetrated the fraud.  A dishonest shmuck undoubtedly,
> >but a paleontologically competent shmuck.

and J. Witkowski replied:

> OK as long as we agree on the schmuck.

All of which raises two very pressing issues (not necessarily listed here in
order of importance, but both, in their own way, pertinent to this List):

	1-  Ignoring for the moment the Piltdown fraud, was Teilhard simply
playing at palaeontology? Or was he indeed possessed of a set of methodological
skills and conceptual frames of reference usually associated with `competent'
paleontologists?

	2-  Etymologically speaking, the Yiddish `s(c)hmuck' in fact derives
from the German, but isn't the reverse transliteration (from Hebrew to Roman
characters) more properly rendered as `shumck?' (cf., Leo Rosten's numerous
scholarly tomes ;-)  Warped minds want to know!

Ken Jacobs
anthropologie
U de Montreal		jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:66>From idavidso@metz.une.edu.au  Thu Oct 27 18:29:38 1994

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 09:29:12 +0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: idavidso@metz.une.edu.au (Iain Davidson)
Subject: Chardin the philosopher

I thought the question was whether any one had moved from philosophy to
science.  We may agree that Chardin ended up as a philosopher (whether or
not we think he was good or competent) and might even agree that as a
palaeontologist he was a scientist.  But the case is still irrelevant if we
cannot establish that he was a philosopher before he was a scientist.  If
religious training counts as philosopher, then many others could be found,
Abbe Breuil most obviously, but Altuna and Aguirre are still alive and
might satisfy more people that they are scientists.  But some might feel
that this trivialises the question since there may be lots of excellent
reasons for giving up the priesthood and going into anything else,
including science.

Iain Davidson
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
Tel (067) 732 441
Fax      (International) +61 67 73 25 26
                (Domestic)       067 73 25 26

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:67>From GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU  Thu Oct 27 21:59:06 1994

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 21:53:34 CST
From: "Margaret E. Winters <GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>" <GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I can't get into the question of de Chardin as paleontologist,
but I can help with Yiddish - the sch- spelling is German influenced,
while the sh- is a more direct English transliteration of the
Hebrew alphabet.  the question is more political than anything
else - do we want to recognize the German roots of Yiddish in
modern transliterations or not.  Remember, of course, that if
a French person were transliterating, her first reaction
would be ch- in the Roman alphabet.

Cheers,
Margaret Winters
<ga3704@siucvmb.siu.edu>

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:68>From idavidso@metz.une.edu.au  Fri Oct 28 01:34:21 1994

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 16:33:59 +0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: idavidson@metz.une.edu.au (Iain Davidson)
Subject: Re: spontaneous language generation

Mark D. Johnson writes

>Over coffee this morning, a friend related hearing a talk on the idea that
>the similarity of words in different languages (particularly mama and papa)
>arose genetically. That is, because of the physical make-up of the mouth
>and vocal chords, and the infant's dependence on the mother, words like
>'mama' would arise naturally from any human language.  This, I assume,
>opens a Pandora's box in comparative linguistics if it is possible that
>similarities are not inherited, but are generated out of our anatomical
>condition.
>        I am looking for an introduction to this idea. Is this anathema to
>linguists? Is it something dealt with and discarded? or is it a recurrent
>theme?

I encountered this notion, or something similar to it in a paper by
Pulleyblank in an edited volume called Glossogenetics edited by de Grolier.
Noble and I have commented on this sort of idea in *Man: Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute* 1991.  I guess the simple answer is that
it all depends what you believe about how humans get to be language users.
Kinship terms, of course, vary between societies and a person called mama
may or may not have a genetic relationship to the caller.  It may be of
some interest to note that there is a literature on the use of kinship
terms in English, with some restrictions (I think I recall) on which
grandparents are called nana and which are grandma.  So, as ever, the issue
is not straightforward.  Words are arbitrary and conventional. This does
not mean that those that seem not to be arbitrary are not words.  It means
that we need to understandthe social processes before we dismiss
arbitrariness.  So most onomatopoeic words turn out to be convention bound
(look at how different English languages represent the sound of a dog), and
here the interesting question is how convention restricts usages of a set
of similar words.  How many familiar words for mama do you know?  And how
many do you use.

Iain Davidson
Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology
University of New England
Armidale NSW 2351
AUSTRALIA
Tel (067) 732 441
Fax      (International) +61 67 73 25 26
                (Domestic)       067 73 25 26

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:69>From rhames@unlinfo.unl.edu  Fri Oct 28 08:01:21 1994

From: rhames@unlinfo.unl.edu (raymond hames)
Subject: Re: Nobel prizes
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 08:00:47 -0500 (CDT)

> Didn't Tinbergen and Lorenz share a Nobel?
>
> spencer turkel
> sturkel@cosy.nyit.edu
> life sciences
> nyit

Yes, along with Von Frisch, as I recall.  But I forget what
particular Nobel prize they were awarded.

Ray Hames
Anthropology
rhames@unlinfo.unl.edu
Univ. Nebraska

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:70>From ggale@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Fri Oct 28 15:24:16 1994

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 15:26:42 +0600
From: ggale@VAX1.UMKC.EDU (George Gale)
Subject: Linnean Society/Darwin-Wallace paper texts/info
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

This is a forwarded message. Its topic seemed in line with some interests
on this list, hence I forwarded it. The original author is NOT a subscriber
to darwin. If you have any response, send it NOT to ggale@vax1.umkc.edu,
but rather to brhenze@MAILBOX.SYR.EDU. Thanks!

>Hi all--
>
>I'm just beginning a project on the rhetoric of reception of the
>Darwin-Wallace paper (1858).  I was wondering...can anyone refer me to
>information about the following:
>1) how the Linnean Society fit into the larger culture ca. late 1850s.
>2) the reception of the Darwin-Wallace paper (July 1 1858) *as read*.
>3) similarly, its reception in published form.
>
>I'm interested, more generally, in Darwin's involvement with the Society
>and the response of the Society to Darwin and his work.
>
>Additionally, does anyone know where to locate electronic texts of the
>Linnean Society transactions, or relevant memoirs, or any other documents
>related to the reception of Darwin's theory?
>
>Thanks......
>
>--brent (brhenze@syr.edu)

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:71>From dsjudge@ucdavis.edu  Fri Oct 28 17:07:33 1994

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 15:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Debra S. Judge" <dsjudge@ucdavis.edu>
To: Darwin-L <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: nobels

Tinbergen, Lorenz and von Frisch shared a Nobel prize in Medicine.

Debra Judge

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:72>From CBLINDERMAN@vax.clarku.edu  Sun Oct 30 05:27:39 1994

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 07:26 EST
From: CBLINDERMAN@vax.clarku.edu
Subject: de Chardin
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

This is neither to affirm nor deny status of de Chardin as paleontologist or
schmuck.  It is to refute idea that Piltdown hoaxer had to be an expert
anatomist.  The expose of thehoax revealed that the molars had been grossly
filed, that the canine had been manufactured into a tooth that was both
young and old (with a smidgin of metal alloy on it), that the cranial pieces
were fossils but the jawbone was still bone, and that a piece of frontal
found elsewhere belonged to the Piltdown noggin.  It may be that the hoaxer
was nobody so far identified, but a couple of mischievous Kenward boys.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:73>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Sun Oct 30 14:02:49 1994

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 14:02:25 -0600 (CST)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Announcing: WorldWide Guide to Science Studies Programs
To: CADUCEUS@BEACH.UTMB.EDU, darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu,
        HOPOS-l@ukcc.uky.edu

                                    ********

                    **ATTN: SCIENCE STUDIES PROGRAM FACULTY **

                                    ********

                            Announcing startup of the

              INTERNET WORLDWIDE GUIDE TO SCIENCE STUDIES PROGRAMS

The University of Missouri-Kansas City is pleased to announce a new project
for its gopher archive "Science Studies", mounted on kasey.umkc.edu. Over
the last two years, our Science Studies archive has provided a wide variety
of services to the worldwide science studies community. It has come time to
provide a new service, one which has been requested by a large number of
colleagues: a comprehensive guide to what's available in science studies
around the globe. Since there is no such guide currently available in any
form, we propose to create one, and post it on our kasey gopher. Presenting
the guide's information in easy-to-use, downloadable gopher format on the
Internet will make this important resource available just about anywhere,
anytime. Here's how to participate.

We have always construed "science studies" as broadly as possible. This
means that any program in {history, philosophy, psychology, sociology} of
{science, engineering, medicine, technology, or any special subdisciplines
within them} counts as a member of the science studies cluster.
Additionally, we include freestanding or specialist science education
programs, for example, Elementary Science Specialist courses. If you would
like your program to be listed and described in the INTERNET WORLDWIDE
GUIDE, send a program description to me, George Gale, via
ggale@kasey.umkc.edu.

Information on your program should include anything you think relevant to
prospective students or colleagues, researchers, or just about anyone who
needs straight information about you. Please limit yourself to 5 screens (=
90 lines) of ascii-text. One easy solution would be to simply reproduce your
program advertisement's copy [assuming, of course, that you have an
advertisement in the first place!]

We hope to organize the guide in two ways: 1) geographically, starting from
continent, and narrrowing down from there; 2) subject-wise. It will be a bit
tricky to do this second display, so we need your help. Here's what we need:
pick from the following list of abbreviations that one (or, if you're
blessed with a surfeit of riches, those ones) which BEST describe your
program. Please, please exercise some patience and flexibility when doing
this part of the exercise. [But of course, if I've forgotten some
significant category, feel free to add it in, and mention it to me in a
wounded tone!]

HS (= history of science)
HSbio,*phys, *etc (= history of biology, history of physics, etc.)
HE (= history of engineering)
HM (= history of medicine)
HPS (= history and philosophy of science)
HT (= history of technology)
PM (= philosophy of medicine)
PS (= philosophy of science)
PSphys, *bio, *etc (= philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, etc.)
PT (= philosophy of technology)
PsychS (= psychology of science)
SciEd (= science education)
SS (= sociology of science)
SSK (= sociology of scientific knowledge)
ST (= sociology of technology)
STS (= science, technology & society)
STStu (= science & technology studies)

and so on through the various combinations and permutations.

We'll be looking forward to posting your material in the GUIDE.

George Gale,
Prop.
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

   *PLEASE FORWARD THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TO OTHER RELEVANT LISTS WORLDWIDE*

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:74>From vallen@iastate.edu  Sun Oct 30 17:44:01 1994

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 94 17:45:40 -600
From: vallen@iastate.edu (Virginia Allen)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Piltdown Hoax

Regarding the "skill" of the hoaxsters, as I recall, one of the issues
was that plaster casts of the carefully guarded "real" bones were made
available, but that the originals were kept tightly locked up.

Virginia Allen
vallen@iastate.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:75>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Mon Oct 31 10:02:05 1994

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 22:46:09 -0600 (CST)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Addendum to "Announcing: WorldWide Guide to Science Studies Programs"
To: CADUCEUS@BEACH.UTMB.EDU, darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu,
        HOPOS-l@ukcc.uky.edu

Margaret L. FalerSweany points out that I neglected to include rhetoric
of science/technology in my list of science studies programs.

My error completely. And completely unintended.

In general, take "science studies" pretty widely indeed.
George Gale
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:76>From HRFRANKEL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Mon Oct 31 15:05:40 1994

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:53:08 -0600 (CST)
From: HRFRANKEL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Re: Witkowski's comment
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

In order to state that
Teilhard was not a scientist, one first has to show that his scientific
work was invalid.

With a comment like the above I think that florin has a few problems unless one
can be a scientist without doing scientific work.  Thanks for the note.  Hank

_______________________________________________________________________________

<14:77>From florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca  Mon Oct 31 20:38:48 1994

From: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca (F. Neumann)
Subject: Re: Witkowski's comment
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 21:41:21 -0500 (EST)

Hank wrote:

>> In order to state that
>> Teilhard was not a scientist, one first has to show that his scientific
>> work was invalid.

> With a comment like the above I think that florin has a few problems
> unless one
> can be a scientist without doing scientific work.  Thanks for the note.
> Hank

I'm not quite sure I understand what the point is. Perhaps I did not
express myself very well; what I meant was that, only if one shows that
Teilhard de Chardin's scientific--as opposed to philosophical--work is
invalid, can one state that de Chardin was not a scientist.

(It seemed to me that J. Witkowski suggested that Teilhard was not a
scientist either because of his philosophy or because of his religious
affiliations; both being, IMHO, irrelevant in that respect.)

I'm not quite sure how that would imply or require that one can be
scientist without doing scientific work, but I should be grateful if Hank
pointed out the problems I have.

I suppose that most subscribers to Darwin-L are by now heartily bored with
this thread, but Hank did not insert his e-mail address in his message,
so the list was the only way to reply. May I suggest to Darwin-L
contributors to have their e-mail addresses inserted somewhere in their
postings--perhaps in the .sig file?

Florin Neumann
Dept. of Geology, University of Toronto
22 Russell St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3B1
Phone: (416) 978-0658 / Fax: (416) 978-3938
Internet: florin@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 14: 36-77 -- October 1994                              End

© RJO 1995–2016