Dov,

I am obviously in error in my understanding of this forum, and as I have no
wish whatsoever to ride a dead horse, I'll happily withdraw my subject from
the three that concern you.  Perhaps you can understand how I made a
mistake if I  briefly explain how I got here in the first place.

I design and maintain a major Science & Technology web site in California,
and while working on the links section I came across EEAST and from there I
found the Science as Culture website.  I enjoyed the material on the site,
especially as it related to Critical Theory and the social sciences, and at
one point in the web site I clicked a button expecting to read some of the
posts in the SaC discussion forum, and instead I ended up subscribed to the
list server.

This was all about 6 weeks ago.  I read with interest many of the posts I
received, while some others were of little interest to me personally.  When
I read the 'Radler on Science' post, I thought it would be interesting to
debate the specific issue of 'science's" claim to 'truth'  under the rubric
"Science as Culture." My post was framed around an experience I had had
first hand which I believed related to the issue of 'truth' in science.

So you see, I am quite new to this forum, and as such I have no way of
knowing the consensus among those of you who have used this form for a
longer period of time.  It seems obvious to me now that I have missed the
mark, at least if I take the responses to my post as representative of the
general consensus of views of the users of this forum.

I am generally surprised at the responses I have received.  In the first
place what I posted under "Radler on Science (the reference) changed to
"Matilla [sic] on Indians and Science" then "Your NSF money and mine" and
now your "Scientists versus Critical Theorists."  In narratology these
'thread' titles would be called 'parametric elements,' -- 'meaning units'
that inform the whole narrative, and they function much like a caption
underneath a photograph.  Maybe the photograph is a good analogy:  A photo
of Albert Einstein, and the caption reads "Albert Einstien, author of the
General Theory of Relativity" and it is changed to "This guy needs a hair
cut."  The total meaning of the photograph changes, rather dramatically.

Secondly, I was surprised to read in the responses several statements of
what one does not want to talk about or what one thinks is unworthy of
talking about.  This seems rather strange to me, as well as contradictory.
If one doesn't want to discuss a subject, why discuss it?  I believe it is
generally understood that the best way to shut-up a crack-pot on a news
forum is a general silence.  That tactic would certainly work with me.

Finally, I assumed that the "culture' in "Science and Culture" referred to
the social sciences. The 'investigations and studies of 'virtual creations'
of humans' is of course the part and parcel of the social sciences, isn't
it?   Why don't you simply state that the social sciences don't belong on
this forum?  I feel like I've stumbled into a claven of "Scientific
People," as in Alfred Bestler's famous scifi classic "The Stars my
Destination."  Consequently, my recommendation is that "Science as Cuture"
be changed to "Science as Religion."

At any rate, I apoligise to this group for starting off the new year in
'the wrong direction.'  (I actually would have preferred 1998 to change to
1997).  Please be sure that I "get the hint."

Erik Mattila