-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
STS-Oct-M26-Weiss.rs3
132 lines (129 loc) · 7.42 KB
/
STS-Oct-M26-Weiss.rs3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
<rst>
<header>
<relations>
<rel name="antithesis" type="rst" />
<rel name="background" type="rst" />
<rel name="circumstance" type="rst" />
<rel name="concession" type="rst" />
<rel name="condition" type="rst" />
<rel name="elaboration" type="rst" />
<rel name="enablement" type="rst" />
<rel name="evaluation" type="rst" />
<rel name="evidence" type="rst" />
<rel name="interpretation" type="rst" />
<rel name="justify" type="rst" />
<rel name="means" type="rst" />
<rel name="motivation" type="rst" />
<rel name="nonvolitional-cause" type="rst" />
<rel name="nonvolitional-result" type="rst" />
<rel name="otherwise" type="rst" />
<rel name="preparation" type="rst" />
<rel name="purpose" type="rst" />
<rel name="restatement" type="rst" />
<rel name="solutionhood" type="rst" />
<rel name="summary" type="rst" />
<rel name="unconditional" type="rst" />
<rel name="unless" type="rst" />
<rel name="unstated-relation" type="rst" />
<rel name="volitional-cause" type="rst" />
<rel name="volitional-result" type="rst" />
<rel name="rst" type="rst" />
<rel name="conjunction" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="contrast" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="disjunction" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="joint" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="list" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="restatement-mn" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="sequence" type="multinuc" />
</relations>
</header>
<body>
<segment id="1" parent="41" relname="background">Following Hamlett's post about the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed., I
took a look and have two brief comments. </segment>
<segment id="4" parent="2" relname="preparation"> On the second page the authors
claim that </segment>
<segment id="2" parent="27" relname="span">
"...democracy, to the extent that it now exists, survives because
of science as it now exists. The enormous and growing human population, for
example, places huge burdens on resources, technology, the productive
capacity of the environment, and human ingenuity. Democratic institutions
would collapse quickly and horribly without science as it is now conducted
by professional scientists. Imagine, for example, the consequences of the
next devastating pandemic (always in the wings!) - with population densities
and world travel as they now exist - if we had no organized science and
technologies drawn from pathology, public health, and sanitary engineering."</segment>
<segment id="5" parent="40" relname="span">
There are a number of obvious problems with this assessment. </segment>
<segment id="3" parent="6" relname="condition"> Most obvious
is that if we did not have science and technology as they now exist,</segment>
<segment id="6" parent="28" relname="span"> it is
likely we wouldn't have population densities and world travel, as they now
exist, to spread those devastating pandemics.</segment>
<segment id="7" parent="31" relname="conjunction"> And by "science as it is now
conducted," do the authors mean that high-energy physics, astromomy in its
various incarnations, science for the military, and the like are necessary
to address problems of disease and overpopulation?</segment>
<segment id="8" parent="31" relname="conjunction"> And is a system of
science in which women and minorities are grossly underrepresented (and
their health care issues traditionally understudied) also necessary to
address these problems? </segment>
<segment id="9" parent="29" relname="span"> As for the link between modern science and
democracy, that sounds like just the sort of underinformed, ideology-laden,
muddleheaded hypothesis the authors complain about in others. </segment>
<segment id="10" parent="9" relname="evidence"> The nations
where democracy is strongest (and it is rather weak in those) are the ones
with the least to worry about overpopulation,</segment>
<segment id="11" parent="12" relname="concession"> and while some degree of
science and technology helped them get there,</segment>
<segment id="12" parent="30" relname="span"> that is a far cry from showing
that by no other means than that which led to the current practice of
technoscience could such progress (!) have been made.</segment>
<segment id="13" parent="14" relname="background">
My second observation concerns the last paragraph,</segment>
<segment id="14" parent="39" relname="span"> where we are given the
choice between "a grudging and vigilant contract with elitism" and the
imposition "by fiat" of "a regime of political rectitude" that would
"corrupt" science, leaving it "nothing but a process of negotiations,
servile to power." </segment>
<segment id="15" parent="35" relname="antithesis"> Are these our only choices?</segment>
<segment id="16" parent="35" relname="conjunction"> And what makes the authors
think science isn't servile to power now? </segment>
<segment id="17" parent="16" relname="background"> I doubt it has been non-servile
since the natural philosophers of independent means went the way of all
things.</segment>
<segment id="18" parent="32" relname="span"> Now, I would be among the first to look with hesitation about doing
something like putting the speed of light to a national plebiscite</segment>
<segment id="19" parent="18" relname="concession"> (although
the results might be interesting),</segment>
<segment id="20" parent="34" relname="span"> but why must we take the scientists' word
when it comes to deciding _what_ to study (as opposed to how)? </segment>
<segment id="21" parent="22" relname="condition"> If it's our
money and our future (possibly) at stake,</segment>
<segment id="22" parent="33" relname="span"> do we not have the right to some
sort of input? </segment>
<segment id="23" parent="34" relname="interpretation"> Are scientists afraid of the people?</segment>
<segment id="24" parent="25" relname="circumstance"> Or perhaps after
almost two and a quarter centuries (in the U.S., anyway) of somehow muddling
along and retaining at least a shred of decency and democracy (frequent
imperialistic tendencies notwithstanding - now there's another topic, modern
technoscience and imperialism) without destroying ourselves,</segment>
<segment id="25" parent="37" relname="span"> we're just too
stupid to know what is and isn't good for us.</segment>
<group id="27" type="span" parent="5" relname="antithesis" />
<group id="28" type="span" parent="31" relname="conjunction" />
<group id="29" type="span" parent="31" relname="conjunction" />
<group id="30" type="span" parent="9" relname="evidence" />
<group id="31" type="multinuc" parent="5" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="32" type="span" parent="20" relname="concession" />
<group id="33" type="span" parent="20" relname="evaluation" />
<group id="34" type="span" parent="36" relname="span" />
<group id="35" type="multinuc" parent="38" relname="span" />
<group id="36" type="span" parent="35" relname="conjunction" />
<group id="37" type="span" parent="35" relname="conjunction" />
<group id="38" type="span" parent="14" relname="evaluation" />
<group id="39" type="span" parent="41" relname="joint" />
<group id="40" type="span" parent="41" relname="joint" />
<group id="41" type="multinuc" parent="42" relname="span" />
<group id="42" type="span" />
</body>
</rst>