Motes in God's Eye: The Deformities of American Science: ...

Shadows & Shades, of Brilliance & Blunder.:
"MOTES IN GOD'S EYE" was easy to assimilate; it didn't depend on technical concepts like "GODS & SCIENCE" did (G & S was the first in this "series on science in modern culture," see my review). MOTES discussed the downside of political economics and degradation of character in the scientific community, focusing on prizes and pitfalls of American science. The lead-in title was, "YES, WE'RE WONDERFUL, BUT ..." Furthermore, Hegel appears to have been right in what he said in his PREFACE TO THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND (see my parenthetical paragraph concluding my review of "GODS & SCIENCE"). At least Hegel (the philosopher after whom I named a beloved Irish Setter) might have been right as far as pushing the point in his PREFACE that introductory statements make very little (basically no) sense until the whole of a work is read, and THEREFORE writing or reading a preface may be a moot point. In MOTES, several excellent summary statements were offered, and segment titles were perfectly composed. However, in accordance with Hegel's point in his Preface, most of those statements and headings went over my head. When I reread them after having read the whole article, I wondered from whence they had come; they (then) did the "ka-ching" so nicely! The introductory statements had not "entered my mind" with conscious comprehension until I had finished running my eyes (somewhat open and focused) over the whole. Be SURE to note (and REREAD after finishing the article) the paragraph immediately above the second title in MOTES: "LET THERE BE LIGHT; AND GOD LET NEWTON BE." Getting closer to the points in this essay, I should confess that prior to reading MOTES I hadn't been aware that my Rose Tints had colored my assumptions about personality and purity among scientists. Ugh. Scientists are HUMAN? I "tot" that the "Good Guys" with whom I agreed (as opposed to the pseudos which whom I disagreed) were akin to the "Gods" they disallowed!!?? According to MOTES, a few plum picks of scientific integrity have existed and do still, but they may be in the minority. As I began reading this Short I was reminded of another, "NARCISSUS REDUX IN O.R. # 8," by Robin Cook. Parallel exposures convince that brilliant minds backed up by mountains of education are not immune to human foibles and pitiful egos. Learned a LOT I didn't know in this Short, and much of it was heartbreaking. I'm thankful, however, for the extraction of my delusions of the long-white-beard-and-red-fuzzy-hat guy. This particular loss of idealistic innocence was welcome, essential, and interesting. One of the most surprising cancellations of illusion by MOTES was that several major scientific documents expostulating breakthroughs were written by scientists in their 20's. That youthful timing included Einstein and Darwin. I had always equated E=MC2 with photos of the wise and ancient Einstein with wild white hair crowning a Mona Lisa smirk. I thought the white hair had done it! You know, like the Samson deal? Darwin started his science career as a Creationist? Where did he go Wrong, you might ask. Or, where did he go Right others might wonder. Enjoyed the organizational style in this Short, with the applied pithy humor similar to "GODS AND SCIENCE." In this case the reader was led (by a nose ring) through a prostitute's pimp, likening that relationship to the means of funding (and sometimes debilitating) scientific research. This piece was as frightening as it was fascinating, as it unapologetically offered information which should have been made public (and was made so here). I was impressed with the candid exposure of the pair of scientists authoring this piece, as they noted how they fit into the drama described. Highlighting the general focus of this piece: >> We all learned that science could be profound, powerful, persuasive, and yet fundamentally wrong.... Scientists are as selfish as anyone else, and not the least bit shy about wh..ing after corporate funding or Department of Defense contract work. This is a simple reflection of the fact that scientists are also human beings, subject to pressures, incentives, and - surprisingly often - ludicrous political or religious delusions. << In spite of those confessions of "guilt"; in spite of the disdainful disclosures in this Short, I believe that there's more glory to come; that continued discovery and healthy growth will endure, at times surging forth in the clean pride of true brilliance, from "We-the-people-of-the-human-race." For proof, look at our Frontal Lobe function, that awesome advantage described in GODS AND SCIENCE, about which I'm getting hints of an as yet un-described connection to something Hegel may have written... Woof!! Are the Frontal Lobes the largely unconscious processing, sequencing governor for the successfully coming-to-full-consciousness of the human mind? I repeat, "Woof!!" (Hegel, can you hear me now? Woof?) I'll be exposing the brilliant minds of dogs and horses next, focusing on who leads whom to water and bowls. Can't keep a good pair of Rose Tints down. It's good to know where the shadows are. It's winter is now, but shade is good in summer. Hegel's Dialectical Materialism is not connected to The Communist Manifesto in the ways some thought it was ("dialectic" should not, cannot be automatically translated into economic endeavors). For more on Hegel's "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis," later, dude. After a while the crocodile sings. "AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa." Opera? Oprah? MOTES called her name. So Mote it Be? Linda Shelnutt