STS3301 Paper Week 12 - Revision history

Shawn at 21:06, 3 December 2009

2009-12-03T21:06:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 3 December 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	;On the engulfing tide of scientific progress		;On the engulfing tide of scientific progress

	Don't try to fight it.		Don't try to fight it.
	The scientific progress		The scientific progress

Shawn at 19:06, 18 November 2009

2009-11-18T19:06:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 18 November 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:

	Another question for class, considering our community read, what do we think of the 1930s machinations of the scientists and politicians after reading Grapes of Wrath?		Another question for class, considering our community read, what do we think of the 1930s machinations of the scientists and politicians after reading Grapes of Wrath?

			In class, I have been pushing a historical method of teasing the strands of influence, measuring their relative influence on an actor. Rhodes cites evidence that top-level scientists were pushed more by technological imperative than by the stop-Hitler imperative or the end-the-war-save-lives imperative. The super's technological imperative drove the implosion work. (Rhodes, pp. 544, 564). But this specific argument must be tempered with the (let's call it) Bohr imperative, that we need to know, then to show, how massively destructive the ultimate bomb would be.

	==References==		==References==

Shawn: /* References */

2009-11-18T18:28:21Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 18 November 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:

	==References==		==References==

	<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>		<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>

	<bib>Rhodes:1986</bib>		<bib>Rhodes:1986</bib>

Shawn: /* References */

2009-11-18T18:23:56Z

References

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 18 November 2009
Line 47:		Line 47:
	==References==		==References==
	<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>		<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>
			<bib>Rhodes:1986</bib>

Shawn at 16:13, 18 November 2009

2009-11-18T16:13:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 18 November 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Sir thwacks you on the knees knees you in the groin elbow in the face		Sir thwacks you on the knees knees you in the groin elbow in the face
	bruises bigger than dinner plates		bruises bigger than dinner plates
	~~I wanna go home I don't want to stay~~
	...		...
	Belligerent ghouls run Manchester schools		Belligerent ghouls run Manchester schools
Line 23:		Line 22:
	Sir leads the troops jealous of youth		Sir leads the troops jealous of youth
	same old jokes since 1902		same old jokes since 1902
	~~he does the military two-step down the nape of my neck~~
	I wanna go home I don't want to stay		I wanna go home I don't want to stay
	give up life as a bad mistake		give up life as a bad mistake
Line 29:		Line 27:
	I've got this terrible cold coming on		I've got this terrible cold coming on
	he grabs and devours kicks me in the showers and he grabs and devours		he grabs and devours kicks me in the showers and he grabs and devours
	~~I wanna go home I don't want to stay~~

	==The American Bomb==		==The American Bomb==

Shawn at 04:44, 18 November 2009

2009-11-18T04:44:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 17 November 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:

	A question for class, is science more naughty when it's socially driven, or when it's neutral? (Kevles, p. 239) Should science be neither neutral nor naughty, but always driven by ethics, always nice?		A question for class, is science more naughty when it's socially driven, or when it's neutral? (Kevles, p. 239) Should science be neither neutral nor naughty, but always driven by ethics, always nice?

			Another question for class, considering our community read, what do we think of the 1930s machinations of the scientists and politicians after reading Grapes of Wrath?

	==References==		==References==
	<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>		<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>

Shawn at 02:00, 18 November 2009

2009-11-18T02:00:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 17 November 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:

	Kevles is so rife with information and ideas, often spending less than a paragraph on significant historical claims before moving on to the next. To get very far in such a book, I need to suspend most of my questioning, or a page could take a week. It's like watching a very long parade, though, with quite a lot of unmemorable floats. The crucial paragraph, supported by the rote information, is on page 219: The post-war enlargement and the fulfillment of Rowland's elitism were the mother and father of the physics we still recognize in departments like Cornell's.		Kevles is so rife with information and ideas, often spending less than a paragraph on significant historical claims before moving on to the next. To get very far in such a book, I need to suspend most of my questioning, or a page could take a week. It's like watching a very long parade, though, with quite a lot of unmemorable floats. The crucial paragraph, supported by the rote information, is on page 219: The post-war enlargement and the fulfillment of Rowland's elitism were the mother and father of the physics we still recognize in departments like Cornell's.

			A question for class, is science more naughty when it's socially driven, or when it's neutral? (Kevles, p. 239) Should science be neither neutral nor naughty, but always driven by ethics, always nice?

	==References==		==References==
	<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>		<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>

Shawn at 00:19, 18 November 2009

2009-11-18T00:19:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 17 November 2009
Line 42:		Line 42:
	Again and again, Kevles tracks the top scientists, the top endowments. How representative of the scientific community is its leaders? How much are they in control of the whole field? How much are we allowing the journalists and philanthropists of the times write our history? When is the size of an endowment or of a reputation not proportional to one's contribution to an important story? Do the little stories of the little people, unheralded, ever add up to more than those of their overlords? How radical a departure from existing theories can our theories be if the available observations are set up by the existing theories? I laud Kevles for finding the conservatives, those who do rail against the engulfing tide. Maybe the humanist critics do speak for the race, but maybe they misinterpret a field outside their own. Does the blame lie with the engulfing tide of pro-science propaganda?		Again and again, Kevles tracks the top scientists, the top endowments. How representative of the scientific community is its leaders? How much are they in control of the whole field? How much are we allowing the journalists and philanthropists of the times write our history? When is the size of an endowment or of a reputation not proportional to one's contribution to an important story? Do the little stories of the little people, unheralded, ever add up to more than those of their overlords? How radical a departure from existing theories can our theories be if the available observations are set up by the existing theories? I laud Kevles for finding the conservatives, those who do rail against the engulfing tide. Maybe the humanist critics do speak for the race, but maybe they misinterpret a field outside their own. Does the blame lie with the engulfing tide of pro-science propaganda?

	Kevles is so rife with information and ideas, often spending less than a paragraph on significant historical claims before moving on to the next. To get very far in such a book, I need to suspend most of my questioning, or a page could take a week.		Kevles is so rife with information and ideas, often spending less than a paragraph on significant historical claims before moving on to the next. To get very far in such a book, I need to suspend most of my questioning, or a page could take a week. It's like watching a very long parade, though, with quite a lot of unmemorable floats. The crucial paragraph, supported by the rote information, is on page 219: The post-war enlargement and the fulfillment of Rowland's elitism were the mother and father of the physics we still recognize in departments like Cornell's.

	==References==		==References==
	<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>		<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>

Shawn at 23:02, 17 November 2009

2009-11-17T23:02:31Z

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
   The scientific progress
   will engulf us all.
 ==The American Bomb==

Shawn at 19:42, 17 November 2009

2009-11-17T19:42:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:42, 17 November 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Again and again, Kevles tracks the top scientists, the top endowments. How representative of the scientific community is its leaders? How much are they in control of the whole field? How much are we allowing the journalists and philanthropists of the times write our history? When is the size of an endowment or of a reputation not proportional to one's contribution to an important story? Do the little stories of the little people, unheralded, ever add up to more than those of their overlords? How radical a departure from existing theories can our theories be if the available observations are set up by the existing theories? I laud Kevles for finding the conservatives, those who do rail against the engulfing tide. Maybe the humanist critics do speak for the race, but maybe they misinterpret a field outside their own. Does the blame lie with the engulfing tide of pro-science propaganda?		Again and again, Kevles tracks the top scientists, the top endowments. How representative of the scientific community is its leaders? How much are they in control of the whole field? How much are we allowing the journalists and philanthropists of the times write our history? When is the size of an endowment or of a reputation not proportional to one's contribution to an important story? Do the little stories of the little people, unheralded, ever add up to more than those of their overlords? How radical a departure from existing theories can our theories be if the available observations are set up by the existing theories? I laud Kevles for finding the conservatives, those who do rail against the engulfing tide. Maybe the humanist critics do speak for the race, but maybe they misinterpret a field outside their own. Does the blame lie with the engulfing tide of pro-science propaganda?

			Kevles is so rife with information and ideas, often spending less than a paragraph on significant historical claims before moving on to the next. To get very far in such a book, I need to suspend most of my questioning, or a page could take a week.

	==References==		==References==
	<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>		<bib>Kevles:1995</bib>