Forced to pick on Stefan • j********o@***.com 01/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC Hello Everybody, I was going to let the Dyson quote slide, but the Cyclorama/Burns crap set me off, so I am forced to take exception to Stefan's observations (in brief). On Dyson: I pity Freeman Dyson for holding on to his childhood grudges. Setting up the Chess Club as a beacon of freedom against tyranny and ignorance is narcissistic and foolish. Scientists are a clique like any other, and have especially closed minds and insular opinions when it comes to politics and social issues. They're also, as a rule, quite naive and gullable. It seems to me that many scientists spent the first half of this century supporting tyrants and the second half defending them from criticism. It is stupid, lazy, and arrogant to dismiss a differing opinion as ignorance, and dangerous to society and the scientist to do so. The outlook of science is in itself dangerous as a model of social organization: the scientist wants order and rationality. But people and their happiness are neither! The old scientific response was the appeal to totalitarianism; the new, to libertarianism, which, in disgust, abandons the attempt to order society outright. Both are a rejection of self-government, a cowardly and disasterous response to the oft-observed messiness of democracy. Scientist beware! Support your beliefs as such, do not fall into the trap of believing them proven facts, merely because no one in your social class can imagine that they might be untrue. The science-minded is the first one to whine that "I can't imagine how anyone could..." That's the problem: you (not you, Stefan, but you, Archetypical (Liberal) Scientist) can't imagine anyone with an opinion significantly different than your own. Or, as my brother Dave would say, "Liberal? Everyone at the lab thinks I'm a rabid right-winger!" The Civil War/Ken Burns: Doc has conveniently clipped the following: > The Electric Map showed the casualties suffered on > July 3rd, 1863 as the winking off of little lights. The > Cyclorama showed casualties as bloodless ciphers, sprawled > on the ground or sagging in the arms of their fellows. > Ken Burn's documentary showed the genuine article; > photographs of real dead Union and Confederate soldiers, > lying on the actual battlefield, spotted with mud and > looking heroic as roadkill. To rub it in he showed us > Before pictures, of men posed in their new uniforms, and > had actors read from their letters and diaries. Watching > it made me feel like I'd been punched in the stomach. What a cheap shot! This Cyclorama seems to be intended to give the viewer a strategic, chronological understanding of the events of the day. It certainly would do so for me, in a way that pretentious Burns documentary couldn't possibly do. I think its significant and very telling that emotion is what Burns leaves behind, while the Cyclorama conveys knowledge: one could walk out onto the battle field after viewing the latter and trace the course of the battle. Once again, we have the triumph of neuveau bells and whistles, multimedia gimmicks, the tug of the heart-strings, over simple fact. Where's Steven Spielberg when we need him! It takes a lot of nerve to criticize the generation that experienced the Civil War for not putting enough gore in their rememberances. After you see a high-school buddy get his head blown off, I would imagine that you no longer need, nor desire, to be reminded of the horrors of war. Romanticized scenes of dying men in their comrade's arms seem more moving and tragic to me than black-and-white photos of day-old corpses in quant costumes. Corpses speak only to the horror of war; romance to the tragedy of young lives snuffed out at their beginning. The Cyclorama was painted twenty years after the fact: there were lots of veterans and widows around, so in my estimation, they have every right to remember their war as romantically, and bloodlessly, as they might choose. And we would stand in judgement of how they honor their dead and recount their history... The insulting implication of the paragraph is that somehow, our predecessors didn't face up to the horror of war, and that Ken Burns has finally created a proper monument 130 years after the fact. The same romanticization of war that you criticize made that war possible: what would we, wised-up, intellectual citizens of the future be willing to fight for anything at all? Perhaps they were the wise ones: they knew life was finite, and that some things are more valuable. We've seen lots of (fresh) corpses, in color, from Africa on TV recently: I'm sure they'll rest easier to know that you feel their pain, even if you'll do nothing about it! War is horrible, that's why we turn from it: there is something sick in wanting to vicariously experience it, taking pride in our courageous participation as if we are the heroes and victims of a conflict long past, then sneering at the fools who were gulled into actually fighting. They didn't fight that war so that we, their children, could relive it: they wanted us safe and sheilded by a layer of civility and discretion that we can barely imagine. They wanted it dead and buried, not trotted out as a voyeuristic entertainment, with pictures of _real corpses_, oh boy! The Cyclorama wasn't meant for us. The bloodless corpses are probably based on those photos: in any case, when the intended viewers saw them, they weren't ciphers, they were Uncle Freddy, and Father, and yes, Honest Abe, caringly included as a martyr to the same cause, not as a "cameo." Heroic as roadkill?: sounds heroic to me! Or maybe you mean the Luke Skywalker kind of heroic? All corpses are ugly, but some accomplished something getting that way. There's a big difference between truth and fact, Stefan: in fact they were just scared, filthy, horny men, whose corpses bloated in the sun and were picked at by magpies; in truth, they were heroes nonetheless, because of what they did, because of what happened to them, and because it matters still what they helped do. It reminds me of how people criticize John Wayne as a fake hero: to veterans, with rare exceptions (I can hear people chiming in with examples already), he is a hero, and that's what makes him one. > What brought on this mood wasn't thoughts of what I'd > seen that day. It was memories of a television show, Ken > Burn's _The Civil War_ that I watched over four years ago. The idea of being saddened by a documentary, rather than the ocean of graves in front of you, sounds like something a valley girl would say! What a vacuous tribute to the boob tube you so often disparage. Oh, but this is _good_ TV. I imagine that some of this is a matter of miscommunication, but it seems irredemably arrogant: written with the lax surety of preaching to the converted, which is never laudable, even when true. OK, enough already... GORNO "I do not know the purpose of our lives, but I have decided to preserve as many of them as possible." (Thraxx, EXOSquad) What a great show! "I have given you great power, Livia. I have made you supreme commander of my Earth forces. But even I cannot make you a good general." (Pheaton) • s******j@**.com 01/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC In article <4op0re$***@n*******.****.***l.com>, JohnGorno wrote: >On Dyson: > I pity Freeman Dyson for holding on to his childhood grudges. It would be if he did. I quoted out of context. Let me fix that: The paragraph I posted was from an essay on education . . . specifically of how to teach science. His was one of the last generations to be taught via traditional private school methods: Basically, Latin and Football. No science of any sort. He thought it produced a few elitist prick scientists who were incredibly good, but did nothing to teach the masses about science . . . something Dyson thought was highly undesireable. He constrasts this method (and the wishy-washy, inconsistent, impractical American and British method which followed) with the Italian model. The italians teach a "little bit" of each field of science (chemistry, physics, biology, etc.) and the various mathematical techniques (trig, algebra, calculus) throughout junior and senior high school. Result: Somewhat better scientific literacy, more women in science . . . but fewer brilliant pricks. >Scientists are a clique like any >other, and have especially closed minds and insular opinions when it comes >to politics and social issues. Which scientists are these? >They're also, as a rule, quite naive and >gullable. Ditto. Which ones? What sample are you drawing from? >It seems to me that many scientists spent the first half of >this century supporting tyrants and the second half defending them from >criticism. Some did. Some ended up in Gulags for not supporting tyrants. Some got grilled by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Some are rotting in Chinese prisons right now, for speaking out against tyranny. For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and a good part of this century, science was viewed as revolutionary, and scientists as somewhat dangerous to the status quo. Check out Turgenev's _Father's and Sons_ for an example of a young turk scientist opposed to the aristocracy and suffocating customs. Heck; check out _1984_ and _Brave New World_. In the former, the folks who control Oceania hint to the public that their scientists are working on super weapons . . . but they're damn sure that nothing actually gets invented. The World Controller for Eastern Europe in the latter reveals to the protagonists that he was once a physicist; one whose work was Troubling to the people in charge. Given the choice between silent exile with his work and a career in politics, he chose the latter, and spends his time supressing technology and sending other scientists into exile. The rise of the security state during the Cold War seems to have led to the end of this image of science and scientists. The view of scientists as drones in white coats was used and perpetuated by corporations in the '50s, and a more sinister version is perpetuated today in films and TV. >It is stupid, lazy, and arrogant to dismiss a differing >opinion as ignorance, and dangerous to society and the scientist to do so. > The outlook of science is in itself dangerous as a model of social >organization: the scientist wants order and rationality. But people and >their happiness are neither! What scientists do you know of, outside of fiction and dramatized history, want to make society orderly and rational? This is a cliche. >The old scientific response was the appeal >to totalitarianism; the new, to libertarianism, which, in disgust, >abandons the attempt to order society outright. Both are a rejection of >self-government, a cowardly and disasterous response to the oft-observed >messiness of democracy. Scientist beware! Support your beliefs as such, >do not fall into the trap of believing them proven facts, merely because >no one in your social class can imagine that they might be untrue. The >science-minded is the first one to whine that "I can't imagine how anyone >could..." That's the problem: you (not you, Stefan, but you, Archetypical >(Liberal) Scientist) can't imagine anyone with an opinion significantly >different than your own. Or, as my brother Dave would say, "Liberal? >Everyone at the lab thinks I'm a rabid right-winger!" What archetypical (liberal) scientist? Where the hell is all this coming from? I could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are stereotyping a large and diverse group of people to support some sort of odd worldview. There are plenty of scientists who are critical of the culture of academia, who have political opinions other than tyranny and libertarianism, who care about the emotional and spiritual needs of humanity, and know the value and cost of democracy. Dyson happens to be one of these. There are more; I've been reading some of their stuff lately. Read the following and report back later: _From Eros to Gaia_ by Freeman Dyson _The Phenomena of Man_ by Teilhard deChardin _The Mismeasure of Man_ by Stephen Jay Gould -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ***@***.com ~ s*****s@a*****.***u.edu ~ s******j@**.com http://www.ini.cmu.edu/~sjones/ • s******j@**.com 01/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC In article <4op0re$***@n*******.****.***l.com>, JohnGorno wrote: >The Civil War/Ken Burns: [description snipped] >What a cheap shot! This Cyclorama seems to be intended to give the >viewer a strategic, chronological understanding of the events of the day. I specifically said that the Electric Map did what it was intended to do; which is just what you said. Read the original post. The Cyclorama was supposed to do that and show the tragic aftermath, which it did to the extent of the medium and the feelings of the audiance, which you allude to. > It certainly would do so for me, in a way that pretentious Burns >documentary couldn't possibly do. I think its significant and very The documentary did a good job of showing the maneuvers of the day, too. It did so through the usual moving arrows and blocks (the "Electric Map" view) and through vivid dramatizations. > The insulting implication of the paragraph is that somehow, our >predecessors didn't face up to the horror of war, and that Ken Burns has >finally created a proper monument 130 years after the fact. The same Ken Burns created a proper monument 130 years after the fact for people who lived 130 years after the fact. You're absolutely right; the cyclorama didn't have to show blood and tragedy because the people of the time remembered it all too vividly; and for the youngsters who did not, they had veterans present to narrate their experiences, just as Burns did. We don't have the luxury of having experienced the war a decade back. Burns fills in the gaps. He does an excellent job. >fact, Stefan: in fact they were just scared, filthy, horny men, whose >corpses bloated in the sun and were picked at by magpies; in truth, they >were heroes nonetheless, because of what they did, because of what >happened to them, and because it matters still what they helped do. Photographs of vividly, tragically, dead soldiers, as shown in the film, makes the fact of their death on the battlefield "real" to our generation. If that was all Burns showed, he would in fact be the schmuck you seem to think he is. But he didn't; he showed the military aspects of the battle, what it meant to the war, and capped it with the sight of the dead and the story of how Lincoln came to give the Gettysburg Address. It makes what they did and what it meant quite clear.   >> What brought on this mood wasn't thoughts of what I'd   >> seen that day. It was memories of a television show, Ken   >> Burn's _The Civil War_ that I watched over four years ago. >The idea of being saddened by a documentary, rather than the ocean of >graves in front of you, sounds like something a valley girl would say! >What a vacuous tribute to the boob tube you so often disparage. Oh, but >this is _good_ TV. Ah. But I didn't see the ocean of graves. If I did, I suspect I would not be in shape to drive home. Because I know damn well what They did and what it meant, and I did not feel worthy to be in Their presence. That sounds corny, but it is absolutely true. >I imagine that some of this is a matter of miscommunication, but it seems >irredemably arrogant: written with the lax surety of preaching to the >converted, which is never laudable, even when true. Yes, it is a matter of miscommunication. Since you don't know about the Dead Media project, for which I wrote the essay, I forgive you. I was comparing the effect of various *media* in communicating the meaning and power of what went on that day. To *my generation*, and I suspect a lot of the last few generations, the Civil War is something learned from tepid history books. The Gettysburg Address, which TV stations used to quote from in their morning sign-on messages were words and little more. To me and my generation, the Cyclorama is of the same stuff as those old history textbooks, which without the benefit of recent memory were quaint and puzzling. The documentary made it all vivid, real, explicit. It didn't help that Sterling compressed the last few paragraphs into one. This is about what I originally wrote. "The Cyclorama showed the dead as bloodless cyphers; it made me feel moved. The Electric Map showed casualties as the winking out of lights, it made me feel thoughtful." The rest was as above. Conclusion: As a medium, the moving image -- television and movies -- is more powerful and more lasting than the Cyclorama. If they weren't, the hundreds of Cycloramas that once dotted the landscape would still be around. As it was, as photographs and movies became more popular, they were warehoused, chopped up, or forgotten. Even the ones about the Civil War, which strikes me as sacriligious. --SEJ -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ***@***.com ~ s*****s@a*****.***u.edu ~ s******j@**.com http://www.ini.cmu.edu/~sjones/ • b******c@u*******r.ca 02/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC In article <4op0re$***@n*******.****.***l.com>, JohnGorno wrote: (making sweeping generalizations) >On Dyson: > I pity Freeman Dyson for holding on to his childhood grudges. >Setting up the Chess Club as a beacon of freedom against tyranny and >ignorance is narcissistic and foolish. I can't comment on your assessment of Dyson as I know little about the man but I have a problem when you generalize his characteristics to a larger community. >Scientists are a clique like any >other, and have especially closed minds and insular opinions when it comes >to politics and social issues. They're also, as a rule, quite naive and >gullable. It seems to me that many scientists spent the first half of >this century supporting tyrants and the second half defending them from >criticism. It is stupid, lazy, and arrogant to dismiss a differing >opinion as ignorance, and dangerous to society and the scientist to do so. How can you take such a broad brush approach to such a large group of individuals? Do you know how many branches and subbranches of science there are? Is a biologist who works across the street from me in the same clique as a physicist in Russia? Are scientists not just like other individuals who can be on the wrong side of tyranny as easily as the right side? Have you forgotten the dissident scientists in those tyrannies or the scientists who have fought for the cause of freedom in the democracies? Is what you posted above, what you really meant? > The >outlook of science is in itself dangerous as a model of social >organization: the scientist wants order and rationality. But people and >their happiness are neither! What do you mean by "the outlook of science"? Scientists have been very individualistic in their research pursuits but on larger projects have worked in teams. This would seem to be a reflection of society as a whole. Scientists want to learn and understand and sometimes this leads to disorder and irrationality like quantum mechanics but they still want the knowledge. When you refer to people and their happiness, I am not sure what you are saying here. The happiest, most fulfilled people I know are those who set goals for themselves and go out and achieve them. The unhappiest people are those who wait around for something to happen. > The old scientific response was the appeal >to totalitarianism; the new, to libertarianism, which, in disgust, >abandons the attempt to order society outright. Again you have made a broad brush attack on the scientific community and generalized the persuasions of a small and select group within that community. It is unclear to me whether you have a problem with the scientific method or just scientists. If the method, then explain what the problem is; if scientists, then which ones are the problem and why. I work with a large number of scientists in a variety of disciplines. If there is one generalization that can be made, it is that they are very keen on their own research interests. Otherwise they are indistinguishable from the rest of the community. Have you hugged a scientists today? • k******d@d*****i.com 02/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC > I was going to let the Dyson quote slide, but the Cyclorama/Burns > crap set me off, so I am forced to take exception to Stefan's > observations He-he. He's been on the Net five minutes and he's already flaming someone! Bad Gorno! Down! ;-) >Scientists are a clique like any other, and have especially closed minds >and insular opinions when it comes to politics and social issues. >They're also, as a rule, quite naive and gullable. Naive, maybe. But gullible?! Scientists are often criticized as being far too skeptical. --Doc • j*******i@i*.******m.com 02/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC In <4op0re$***@n*******.****.***l.com> j********o@***.com (JohnGorno) writes: >On Dyson: > I pity Freeman Dyson for holding on to his childhood grudges. >Setting up the Chess Club as a beacon of freedom against tyranny and >ignorance is narcissistic and foolish. Scientists are a clique like >any other, and have especially closed minds and insular opinions when >it comes to politics and social issues. They're also, as a rule, >quite naive and gullable. It seems to me that many scientists spent >the first half of this century supporting tyrants and the second half >defending them from criticism. Please remember that scientists with asinine opinions are usually attempting to simulate common sense. This can be most clearly seen in the case of the Unabomber but it also applied to the peace activists who opposed to SDI as human beings but not as scientists and many environmentalists.