00100	To the editor:
00200	
00300	I propose to show that Lettvin's recent  article  "The  comprehensive
00400	involvement  of  man  in science is now fatal..." is mostly gibberish
00500	and that this is harmful to understanding of the place of science and
00600	technology  in society.  By gibberish I mean that the sentences taken
00700	as premises are meaningless, that the modes of reasoning employed are
00800	invalid  since  they  allow  any  conclusions  to  be  drawn from any
00900	premises, and that the conclusions are also meaningless,  their  only
01000	content  being  to express dislike of certain people, tendencies, and
01100	institutions.  Those readers who liked t:he paper will find on closer
01200	examination  that  it appealed to their prejudices by making jokes at
01300	the expense of Lettvin's and their common scapegoats.
01400	
01500	I shall start with some quotations beginning with the first  sentence
01600	of  the  article, "The comprehensive involvement of man in science is
01700	now fatal".   The meaning of the sentence is unclear.  Does  it  mean
01800	that  man  will  die  out,  that science will die out, is some exotic
01900	meaning of fatal such as inevitable intended, or does it merely  mean
02000	that something bad is about to happen?  Perhaps it is merely intended
02100	to set a mood without actually saying anything, and it is doltish  of
02200	me  to demand an actual meaning.  Even though such writing is common,
02300	I hold that it is bad, because many people without my  brashness  and
02400	self-confidence  are intimidated into thinking it must mean something
02500	because an eminent scientist said it, and if they don't understand it
02600	is  their  own  fault.   Well,  I  don't  understand,  and I say it's
02700	Lettvin's fault.
02800	
02900	"Science now says that Vietnamese peasants do  not  have  the  proper
03000	infrastructure to maintain a progressive and democratic economy, that
03100	blacks cannot reason as well as whites and that to be selfish  is  to
03200	be sane".  Who says?  None of the above propositions is maintained by
03300	even a substantial minority of scientists, and nothing short  of  the
03400	assertion  being  a  logical  consequence  of  a universally accepted
03500	theory would  justify  "Science  says".    The  examples  chosen  are
03600	designed  to  appeal  to your prejudices, dear reader, presuming that
03700	you are a liberal politically and an opponent of  the  Viet-Nam  war.
03800	You now know that Lettvin is an ok guy, and it is ok to hate whatever
03900	Lettvin hates.
04000	
04100	"Little Billy may become a scientist as earlier he might have  turned
04200	priest, and know the sacred texts, making of his experiments prayers.
04300	
04400	The  chromed  apparatus  is  blessed  by distant authority, the water
04500	thrice-filtered for purity, and he wears the white antiseptic gown we
04600	all  know  from  TV  commercials."  Does Lettvin mean little Billy to
04700	represent typical M.I.T.  students?   Probably  not.   Does  he  mean
04800	anyone in particullar?  Probably not.
04900	
05000	"Much  more  disheartening  is to find now in the clear eyes of these
05100	students as in the bloodshot eyes of our administrators how the world
05200	has  changed  from  a  great  chain of being to a jig-saw puzzle, the
05300	connexions between the parts arbitrary or conventional, the nature of
05400	the  parts accidental or contrived.  Puzzles are, in the end, boring.
05500	So it is that many young  physicists  and  chemists  are  turning  to
05600	biology  and biologists are turning to medicine and social science in
05700	one general compulsion to work with man himself.  But the  nature  of
05800	man  has  also  been  compromised  by the spirit of the age, the same
05900	Antaeism that governs whatever science has no central theory."
06000	
06100	If this, oh clear-eyed students, doesn't put a glaze over your  eyes,
06200	I  don't  know  what  will.    What  is  a  chain  of being, and what
06300	distinguishes the great ones from the lesser ones?  Does Lettvin mean
06400	that  the  physical world has changed or that someone's conception of
06500	it has changed?  Why does working with man himself make matters  less
06600	of  a puzzle if, that is the trouble, especially since Lettvin thinks
06700	that the physical sciences have central  theories  (good)  while  the
06800	others  don't?   What  does  it  mean that the nature of man has been
06900	compromised
07000	
07100	That's enough quotations.  Here is what Letttvin seems to say in  the
07200	article;  while  the  assertions  are  not  clear,  Lettvin  makes it
07300	reasonably clear what he dislikes:
07400	
07500	1. The world is getting worse; we are entering a new dark age.
07600	
07700	2. Science is getting worse; it is becoming like the Catholic  Church
07800	of the middle ages.
07900	
08000	3.   Computers are mainly used badly; they are mainly used to produce
08100	ugly correlations instead of elegant theories.
08200