Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Replies: 1   Last Post: Mar 30, 2014 7:20 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
kirby urner

Posts: 1,677
Registered: 11/29/05
Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Posted: Mar 30, 2014 7:20 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (3.6 K)

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, GS Chandy <gs_chandy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> According to Joe N., such was the argument put up by David Bohm, in
> "Thought As A System" - "Thought as a system",
> http://www.amazon.com/Thought-as-System-David-Bohm/dp/0415110300.
> [I've not yet managed to read this particular Bohm book, though I had
> studied much else by Bohm. Doubtless I shall read that book in due course,
> but I'm not about to spend US $ 30 or so to get hold of it rightaway].
> I note that IF Bohm had actually thus argued, he was wrong, and he was
> arguing from a lack of understanding of the concepts behind 'systems'. I
> know for sure - from some correspondence with Bohm dated around 1991 or
> 1992 (I think) and from all that I have read about him - that David Bohm
> was NOT afflicted with a closed mind, and that he would probably have
> corrected any such mistaken ideas or notions that he might have held. [As
> observed in a recent post of mine, Bohm died in 1992 (October, I believe)].

Just wanted to add something on this, that probably not everyone knows,
worth sharing: Bohm in later life became interested in "dialog" as a
phenomenon, in quotes partly because he was exploring groups of around 20
or more.

My friend Nick Consoletti did a PhD thesis on Bohmian dialog, which
included creating and audio-taping such a dialog group in Eugene, Oregon,
over a period of several months.

Bohm was of the view that a kind of corporate flowing occurs, that cannot
be controlled by any one ego or even faction i.e. some "phase transition"
occurs as people get added to a thread.

Perhaps the corporate board room has been taking advantage of this
phenomenon a long time. I know Quakers take advantage. Or call it the
Ouija Board effect: it feels like more than the sum.

By his criteria (Bohm's), we on math-teach might be below some critical
number in our participation, but hey, maybe not, as the discussion list
format invites a kind of asynchronous communication that real time does not

Which is only to say we could use some more anthropology of list-group

edu-sig, a Python community group-list on which I've been active over the
years, has had one PhD thesis done on it so far (that I'm aware of), but
that was a long time ago (relatively).

The story didn't die once that thesis got published.

And so on, for many other lists that provide vibrant subcultures with
shared discourse. A lot happens through Internet channels, but it's hard
to graph it all. Hindsight gives a better picture.

> I further note that many people are unable to acknowledge errors in
> judgment that they may have made.

I have not yet read the Amazon-stocked title you mention above, but do
consider myself an admirer of David Bohm and his work, but from a
distance. I never met him nor corresponded in any way. Nick was much
closer to his circle.


Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.