Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!amdahl!nsc!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: It could have been worse.
Message-ID: <585@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Mar-86 21:51:42 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.585
Posted: Fri Mar  7 21:51:42 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Mar-86 08:35:07 EST
References: <860222195435.678780@HI-MULTICS.ARPA> <563@kontron.UUCP> <702@rti-sel.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 40

> In article <563@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> 
> >...to claim it's the most poisonous substance is more
> >nonsense from the anti-nuclear groups.  (Perhaps some of them can study
> >chemistry and physics one of these days, instead of taking classes in
> >poetics and English literature.)
> 
> I have little respect for many of the neo-Luddites who belong to
> anti-nuclear groups. However, to claim that EVERYONE who has mixed
> feelings about nuclear energy or is flat out against nuclear energy
> knows nothing about chemistry and physics is bilge. There are nuclear
> physicists who are against nuclear energy, for Ghod's sake. Get YOUR
> facts straight, mister.
> 

I'm not sure what you are responding to.  I, too, have mixed feelings
about nuclear power -- it's certainly not the panacea that a lot of
people tried to persuade us it was twenty years ago.  Read the text
at the top -- it is the "anti-nuclear" groups that my comments were
directed at -- not everyone, or even every group that is opposed to
nuclear power.  There are rational and valid arguments against nuclear
power -- but you don't see them from the groups that scream "No Nukes!"

> But the thing I find most offensive about this posting is the slam
> against people with liberal arts backgrounds. Perhaps some of the
> semi-literate chemists and physicists I've known can study their
> culture, instead of taking classes on overspecialized topics that tell
> them nothing about why they're narrow-minded, asocial, and incapable 
> of communication. Liberal arts bigotry is as ridiculous and offensive 
> as hard science bigotry, n'est-ce pas? Sheesh.
> 
>                         -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly

The slam is against people who purport to be knowledgable enough about
a subject to be telling other people what the "truth" is, when in fact
they haven't studied any of the relevant issues in an objective
manner.  Incidentally, my argument isn't with subjects outside of the
hard sciences -- my argument is with narrowness and specialization.
(Of course, that's what we have universities for -- to promote narrowness
and specialization.)