🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <R0RkVB1w165w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca>, al@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (haus der luge) writes:


|> Oh, and by the way, I'm an ARTS student - of the 'worst' kind to many 
|> physicists - a political philosophy major !!!
|>  
|> I won't come right out and say that I was offended by some of the rather 
|> rude and prejudiced comments mentioned by some members of this newsgroup, 
|> but I was.  I don't see why I can't enjoy (and understand) both Hannah 
|> Arendt and Oppenheimer or Feynman.  Please recall that Mr. Feynman 
|> specialized in physics but also painted and played the bongos, among many 
|> other endeavours not normally associated with 'scientists'.

Rudeness is pretty much endemic on usenet, so rude comments are not too 
surprising.  You don't seem to be getting their point, however, given your 
response.  I don't think scientists are upset that someone would enjoy 
both political philosophy and science -- they're upset that so few non-
scientists try (which I suppose means you should feel implicitly complimented). 
To be sure, the claim that students of the arts don't appreciate science 
is a gross oversimplification.  Based on the limited sample available to me, 
philosophers and social scientists tend to be quite interested in 
science (at least economists are -- my wife is an economist and her 
colleagues always quiz me about physics at social functions).  It's the 
lit-crit types that I've generally (still generalizing, of course) 
found to be uninterested in science.  Off-hand I can't think of any 
reason that observation should be taken as rude: wrong maybe, but not 
rude.

|> Besides, the latest discoveries in the sciences are beginning to blur any 
|> distinction between our two main fields in many respects.

In what way?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.