Comments on: Interview of Michel Serres (excerpts)

By: kefalonia holidays

kefalonia holidays — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:02:26 +0000

Interesting article. I appreciate the large print.

By: cityislander

cityislander — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:53:42 +0000

> ""Scientific knowledge grows exponentially." But it is not learned and a c c u m u l a t e d indefinitely."

Hence my point, that education must be prioritized, and
>"Nonetheless it is a collapse of knowledge of these fields.",

reflects exactly that. You don't need to speak ancient greek to read Plato and Aristotle, a translation suffices. Greek for greek's sake has a very high opportunity cost in a general education curriculum.

By: cityislander

cityislander — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:53:42 +0000

By: James

James — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:35:54 +0000

“Scientific knowledge grows exponentially.” But it is not learned and a c c u m u l a t e d indefinitely.

“How self serving, elitist, western egotistical and impractical (for the same reason: knowledge grows exponentially, not our capacity to learn).” Nonetheless it is a collapse of knowledge of these fields.

By: cityislander

cityislander — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:04:55 +0000

A recent reference nicely illustrates my previous comment that “The industrial revolution dates back to the 18th century. The agricultural revolution 10,000 years. Same motives at play.”:

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/09/1…

By: cityislander

cityislander — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:18:46 +0000

“He worries, at some points in his writing, that the gap between rich and poor, literate and illiterate, technology rich/technology poor is growing.” How morally comfortable to lament these problems… Yet they are old cliches, Disneyland for philosophers.

“I suppose that our praise or dispute of a particular thinker and set of ideas depends on many factors.” How about a data check as a common factor? http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state…. and googling Emanuel Todd + civilization.

By: Milton Friesen

Milton Friesen — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:58:24 +0000

Good thoughts and helpful clarification. I suppose that our praise or dispute of a particular thinker and set of ideas depends on many factors. For myself, Serres has served as an interesting jousting partner and I value him for that rather than looking to him for a complete intellectual breakfast. He worries, at some points in his writing, that the gap between rich and poor, literate and illiterate, technology rich/technology poor is growing. That is not true everywhere, of course, and we must recognize that our global landscape is highly complex and never static. However, within the space of our rapidly expanding interconnections some things are being lost even as we make gains. I maintain that Serres is trying to point that out, that an uncritical acceptance of scientific progress and knowledge growth has its price. Some things that are lost are a gain – superstitions of all kinds, bizarre viewpoints on life/people/social order, racial, gender, and economic oppressions, these we can do with less of. We need to wisely sort through the wider implications of scientific knowledge and the various technologies these give rise to. The Manhattan Project is a good example of the ethical/social dimensions of discovery – the idea of scientists operating in an objective, detached space across all fronts just isn't tenable anymore. We need to work hard at integrating and connecting the fruit of specialized research. Serres does help us think about that.

By: cityislander

cityislander — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:23:16 +0000

Milton, when a leading figure speaks or writes, there is going to be a group of people whose evolutionary instinct to ingratiate themselves with that figure -sadly, we're an imitative species- turns off their critical thinking ability. In the case of Serres this is rather fortunate, for the reasons given in your praising paragraph, 99% of the time. Serres himself, though, would probably advocate an ounce of self introspection to recognize that cognitive bias in ourselves and try to correct it, for example by not letting him get away with the 1%, particularly given his implicit high esteem of greco-roman philosophy. I can hear the professor saying "don't take my word for granted!". Some of the thoughts of Serres in that article strike me as a bit of a cliche so I'd hope -which should accommodate your sympathy for Serres- that they fall under the 1% cutoff.

When you are talking about the "Proliferation of information", and in other places, you are actually going off on a tangent relative to my position. That's fine with me so long as I'm not being mis-represented/interpreted. I said explicitly scientific knowledge i.e. the 0.1% of information that is not junk is expanding faster than ever. Serres worries about the collapse of knowledge when in his youth 50% of the population were peasants with a bible in lieu of a lifetime book collection, and much of city-dwellers didn't fare much better anyway. Moreover, we are at the dawn of an explosion in alphabetization, higher education etc. worldwide, albeit quite far from France.

By: Milton Friesen

Milton Friesen — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:38:45 +0000

Although Serres's apparently extreme reactions often provoke equally strong reactions, my reading of his work thus far would suggest that he is articulating ideas that transcend linear, mechanistic views of life and progress. As a synthesizer of ideas, a philosopher of patterns, communication and folded time, Serres will invoke the displeasure of those who believe that what is currenlty the case is necessarily the best we can do. As far as the collapse of knowledge, in the quotes above it would seem he is concerned with the loss of history, of memory, of collective misdeeds and successes. Serres is rather far from elitist, as his own history reveals. He has long been an outsider in terms of the academy, choosing instead to take seriously his own working-man experiences from earlier in his life. Proliferation of information is exponential – integration of information into knowledge leading to an improvement of our common lot is not exponential. Thanks, Guillaume, for translating these parts of the interview.

By: cityislander

cityislander — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:45:35 +0000

"Are you aware of the collapse of knowledge." Scientific knowledge grows exponentially.

"We don’t teach latin or greek" How self serving, elitist, western egotistical and impractical (for the same reason: knowledge grows exponentially, not our capacity to learn).

"Our relation to our planet is a one of terrorism." Why use the present tense, except to suggest a reactionary bent (usually comes with age)? The industrial revolution dates back to the 18th century. The agricultural revolution 10,000 years. Same motives at play.

"I remember a discussion with the previous UN Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali" Talk about a helpless world figure.