Article

2005-06-12 Home Front: Culture Wars

Introduction to Bio-power and it's the Little Eichmenn Engineers

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-06-12 01:28|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 F = ma

Okay, next subject!

Posted by gromky">gromky 2005-06-12 02:44|| http://communistposters.com/]">[http://communistposters.com/] 2005-06-12 02:44|| Front Page Top

#2 What this means is those in the WTC on 9/11 willed the airliners to crash into the towers. The hijackers were just an incidental mechanism to actualize that will.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-12 03:51|| 2005-06-12 03:51|| Front Page Top

#3 A whole lotta words that mean nothing.(At least near as I can interprate them)

Posted by raptor 2005-06-12 09:24|| 2005-06-12 09:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Amateurs. You forgot to play the gender card:

"... as interpreted from the lens of the dominant patriarchical power structure."

Bonus - it fits anywhere!

Posted by Raj 2005-06-12 10:37|| 2005-06-12 10:37|| Front Page Top

#5 Here is Ward Churchill's latest art project.

Posted by badanov 2005-06-12 10:40|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-06-12 10:40|| Front Page Top

#6 Oooh, golly! Ritualistic mumbo jumbo! The uttering of magic words and incantations! Words like "ontological" and "teleology" and "monistic" have great ju-ju. The rubes are major impressed and bow down toward the nearest university, uttering sounds of admiration, while the universities themselves award tenure to the utterers...

Posted by Fred 2005-06-12 10:42|| 2005-06-12 10:42|| Front Page Top

#7 I think I've already heard somewhere what the word "ontological" means, but I'm not sure... sounds pretty impressive and academic... will try to google it, this method has shown good results with others unknown words... the search for "bukkake" was certainly memorable, ahem,...

Posted by anonymous5089 2005-06-12 10:48|| 2005-06-12 10:48|| Front Page Top

#8 I read that paragraph three times, and I still can't figure out what the hell it says.

Raj: you're correct :-)

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-06-12 11:35|| 2005-06-12 11:35|| Front Page Top

Consequently, science should be understood less as a form of an objective rendering of reality than a manifestation of Nietzscheâs Will to Powerâthe drive or impetus to come to control and manipulate oneâs surroundings that in actuality are probably too complex of which to ever come a complete, âobjectiveâ knowledge...

So? I mean, what's the problem with that? What's wrong with bending reality to your Will To Power?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-12 11:39|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-12 11:39|| Front Page Top

#10 "I reject your realty and substitue my owm":Myth Busters.

Posted by raptor 2005-06-12 11:59|| 2005-06-12 11:59|| Front Page Top

#11 Bio-power to the people! (with appropriate fist pump)

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-06-12 12:46|| 2005-06-12 12:46|| Front Page Top

#12 The problem is that this essentially denies there is any such thing as objective truth in science.

Once you accept that, then you can justify all sorts of things, including suppressing the results of studies (or even the intent to study phenomena) whose political implications you don't like.

Posted by rkb 2005-06-12 13:28|| 2005-06-12 13:28|| Front Page Top

#13 The second assertion here will be familiar to people who study systems dynamics modeling ... the idea that there are feedback loops that make the behavior of complex systems counterintuitive and difficult to predict.

The subtext is that we should muck around with nature, therefore, because we may trigger things we can't control.

Posted by rkb 2005-06-12 13:34|| 2005-06-12 13:34|| Front Page Top

#14

The subtext is that we should muck around with nature, therefore, because we may trigger things we can't control.

You know, I do not think that phrase means what you think it means... I think you forgot a negative there.

Seriously, have you ever seen how much money, energy, and face is invested in the belief that there will never be any significant drop in the price of carrying a kg of payload into LEO?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-12 14:53|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-12 14:53|| Front Page Top

#15 rkb, I happen to agree with the statement 'There is no such thing as objective truth in science.' However, and this is the motherofall howevers, to act as if there is, has huge utility. I.e. science may not reveal truth, but it sure as hell works.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-12 18:11|| 2005-06-12 18:11|| Front Page Top

#16 Yup, should read "shouldn't muck ..."

Posted by too true 2005-06-12 18:14|| 2005-06-12 18:14|| Front Page Top

#17 IMNSHO the author shows a profound misunderstanding of the tenets of basic science, how basic science is done, and how scientists think about the world around them.

I work at a major national science laboratory. I encounter scientists every day and often have the chance to speak with them and ask them questions about their research. Many read philosophy, but few would describe themselves as philosophers.

This nutbar, aside from trying to sound as high-falutin' as possible to, as someone said above, convince the rubes, simply doesn;t understand that good science has a sound foundation in a fundamental reality that we call natural physical laws - like that of gravity, that most of these natural physical laws can be understood through a solid grounding in mathematics, and that science is constantly striving to push the borders back, to understand more, and to improve its understanding of what science already thinks it understands. Few, if any scientists would ever presume they know everything (or even anything) about their own field of specialty let alone the universe.

If it were up to this guy the laws of thermodynamics would not apply and he'd be the one getting the free lunch

Posted by LC FOTSGreg">LC FOTSGreg 2005-06-12 19:20|| 2005-06-12 19:20|| Front Page Top

00:06 Desert Blondie
23:53 Steve White
23:52 Pappy
23:52 trailing wife
23:43 trailing wife
23:34 Rafael
23:32 Rafael
23:31 trailing wife
23:24 mojo
23:22 trailing wife
23:14 11A5S
23:01 Mike Kozlowski
22:50 War on Islam
22:48 Bomb-a-rama
22:47 trailing wife
22:41 Phil Fraering
22:37 mojo
22:35 War on Islam
22:35 Bomb-a-rama
22:33 Bomb-a-rama
22:27 Bomb-a-rama
22:27 Bobby
22:27 bigjim-ky
22:20 Captain America