X-Message-Number: 19168
References: <>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:41:46 +0200
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Why no fundamental advances in physics?

At 9:00 AM +0000 2002-05-28, CryoNet wrote:
>>Another unfortunate development is in the field of science studies, where
>>social constructionism has become a dominate force. (Some in this field
>>recently were bragging that they had stopped the funding for the big new
>>accelerator to be built in the USA.) Social constructionism, in its most
>>extreme form, argues that there are no ultimate authorities, that is, the
>>Bible is just as valid as a physiology text book, etc.
>Perhaps cryonicists could take advantage of this cognitive bug by arguing
>that we are operating upon a social construction of the definition of death
>different from mainstream medicine's -- and it's just as good as anyone
>else's, so leave us alone to do our thing.

Social constructionism at its foundation is extremely conservative, fascist
according to some published work. Given that it is a methodologically
flawed, its easy for its proponents to come to any conclusion whatsoever.
These conclusions tend to support the current power holders and dominant
social views.

How could such nonsense become important within science? My theory is that
science has undermined the traditional shields against death anxiety, the
dominant religious views, to such an extent that they don't do the job for
most people. Therefore, an attack on science is a welcome relief to
traditionalists. Now they can go back to believing in the judgement day,
reincarnation, etc., since science is "just another story."

>Though you have to wonder why the intellectuals who promote such a  view of
>science tend to oppose nuclear technology.  After all, it's just a matter of

They don't, opposition to nuclear technology tends to come from


David S. Stodolsky, PhD    PGP: 0x35490763    

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19168