wkp@lanl.ARPA (01/26/85)
Ken Arndt is right. ANYBODY who claims that scientific intolerance
is a monopoly of religion should have his head examined.
As a physicist, I think I know something about the history of my
scientific field. It is true that what the RC Church did to Galileo
was reprehensible. But I find no evidence that their actions would
have been any different had they been the Church of Ubizmo or the
Secular State of Rosenland.
Scientists on average are just as much in love with power and money
as religious ministers are. If I go to an astrophysical conference
and show them evidence (and there is plenty!) that galactic jets do
not exist, I would not be getting many research grants or scientific
papers published. Why? The ruling clique has determined that those
"things" up there zillions of light-years away are galactic jets--
and not plasma filaments. In this case, the ruling clique in
Cambridge and Tucson wear plaid pants and bolo ties (instead of
in Rome wearing priestly vestments.)
Another point. I can bring up many examples of scientists who suffer
and continue to suffer under secular governments. One example: A
brilliant mathematician at UC Berkeley named Smailey was dismissed
from all positions of power and influence when he made a speech
denouncing the Vietnam war in Moscow during the '60s. Yes, folks,
all his research funding was terminated. Just like Galileo, he had
repudiated the official policy of those in power. Just like Galileo,
he was stripped of all positions of power in the University because
of it. (This is usually the case in academia when you lose your
government grants).
And we all know what happened to Oppenheimer when he turned against
the making of the H-bomb. They got him for his membership in the
Communist party which they had known about all along.
More to the point. I wonder how long I would last at Los Alamos
(actually, I won't last long anyway, but that's because of other
considerations--like getting back to California) if I started walking
around the Laboratory here with signs saying "Ban the Bomb!" I
hasten to predict that my security clearance would probably be in
some danger. So much for secular tolerance of the sciences
being so much better than the religious variety.
-------
bill peter
{ihnp4,seismo}!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
wkp@lanl.ARPArlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Pesmard Flurrmn) (01/29/85)
> As a physicist, I think I know something about the history of my > scientific field. It is true that what the RC Church did to Galileo > was reprehensible. But I find no evidence that their actions would > have been any different had they been the Church of Ubizmo or the > Secular State of Rosenland. [BILL PETER] This sounds distinctly similar to the "discussion" going on between myself and Paul Dubuc, only more so. The scenario: someone "admits" that the "church" was wrong in admonishing those who prefer reality to assumption, but then the tables are turned and it is said that "non-religion is no better!" Never mind the fact that this person has simply arbitrarily lumped anything that is NOT religion (including fascistic despotism, which is simply religion with a different cast---worship the state and the leader just as you used to worship god, or, if you like, believe that the state/leader is god's chosen on earth) in one trash heap. Just because you feel like it. Never mind that at all... -- "Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bothered to mention it--Oh, God, I'm so depressed." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (02/07/85)
-- >> And we all know what happened to Oppenheimer when he turned against >> the making of the H-bomb. They got him for his membership in the >> Communist party which they had known about all along. For the record, J Robert Oppenheimer was *NEVER* a member of the Communist Party. Neither was his wife Kitty. Kitty's first husband, Joe Dallett, *was* a member of the Communist Party, in fact, he was the first Commissar of the Spanish Republic's Abraham Lincoln Brigade. He died fighting fascism at Jarama. All this information is completely true, and I know it because Kitty was my cousin. Oppenheimer's alleged communism was a vicious lie perpetrated by that scum crypto-Nazi, the real "Dr. Strangelove", Edward Teller, in his lust for power in the post WW II scientific community. Back in the McCarthy days, of course, the politics of spouses' former spouses was sufficient evidence of one's own attitudes to indict and convict. Alas, the only thing Oppie was guilty of was an overwhelming naivete. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 06 Feb 85 [18 Pluviose An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (02/09/85)
In article <279@ihu1m.UUCP> gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >For the record, J Robert Oppenheimer was *NEVER* a member of >the Communist Party. ... > Oppenheimer's alleged communism >was a vicious lie perpetrated by that scum crypto-Nazi, the real >"Dr. Strangelove", Edward Teller, in his lust for power in the >post WW II scientific community. > >ken perlow I am far from being a fan of Teller, but I think this is not correct. I have never heard him call Oppenheimer a Communist. What he did say to the A.E.C. Personnel Security Board was that he though Oppie was a threat to security. ("Robb" is Mr. Robert Robb, one the Board's counsel; "Teller" is Dr. Edward Teller.) Robb: Is it your intention in anything which you are about to testify to, to suggest that Dr. Oppenhiemer is disloyal to the United States? Teller: I do not want to suggest anything of the kind. I know Oppenheimer as an intellectually most alert and a very complicated person, and I think it would be presumptuous and wrong on my part if I would try in any way to analyze his motives. But I have always assumed, and I now assume that he is loyal to the United States. I believe this, and I shall believe it until I see very conclusive proof to the opposite. Robb: Now a question which is the corollary of that. Do you or do you not believe that Dr. Oppenheimer is a security risk. Teller: In a great number of cases I have seen Dr. Oppenheimer act -- I understood that Dr. Oppenheimer acted -- in a way which for me was exceedingly hard to understand. I thorougly disagreed with him in numerous issues and his actions frankly appeared to me confused and complicated. To this extent I feel that I would like to see the vital interests of this country in hands which I understand better, and therefore trust more. [ "In the Matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Transcript of Hearing before Personnel Security Board." U.S. Government Printing Office, 1954 ] This is the line Teller has held to (publicly) ever since. Teller's actions were grievously harmful, since they were primarily a misconstrual of scientific and policy differences as "questionable and hard to understand". They were difficult for him to understand because he could not (and still can't, as far as I can tell) see the world in any light but his own; could not see that honest people can come to different conclusions. This inability of his to see another's point of view led to the scientific and personal destruction of Oppenheimer and his family. It stripped him of not only his security clearance, but his pride, and embittered his final years, which were almost undoubtedly shortened by frustration and anger. This is (I hope obviously) not to defend Teller's actions at the hearing or after, but I don't think it is accurrate to claim he invented or promulgated the idea that Oppenheimer was a Communist. This is simply (as far as I can tell) a common misinterpretation of the accusation (which was made, though not explicitly by Teller) that he was a Communist Sympathizer, which in the McCarthy era, was quite bad enough. -- Ken Arnold ================================================================= Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm. We've got this Turing machine emulator...