Advertisement

Conclusion

Promethean and Postscientific Narratives
  • Anthony J. Funari
Chapter
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

This book is about stories, specifically the two narratives that emerged around the seventeenth-century epistemological shift from the premodern to the scientific. The first is the narrative of promised recovery, which becomes the undercurrent in Bacon’s advocating of the new science: an empirical, inductive, experiential methodology would reveal the secret workings of Nature that were at one time immediately available to the prelapsarian mind. Nature’s rebellious state could be overcome and made accommodating to humanity’s wellbeing. The knowledge and mastery over the natural world Adam had once enjoyed had not been forfeited by his Fall. Baconian science, at its core, is salvific.

Keywords

Natural World Human World Ecological Disaster Chemical Dispersant Anthropocentric View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Carolyn Merchant, Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture (New York: Routledge, 2004), 3.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Albert Borgmann, “The Nature of Reality and the Reality of Nature,” in Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction, ed. Michael E. Soule and Gary Lease (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1995), 36.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Martin W Lewis, Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992), 7.Google Scholar
  4. 13.
    Eric Katz, “The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature,” in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), 391.Google Scholar
  5. 14.
    Val Plumwood, Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason (New York: Routledge, 2002), 26.Google Scholar
  6. 26.
    Naomi Klein, “After the Spill,” The Nation, January 31, 2011, 11.Google Scholar
  7. 27.
    Leslie Kaufman and Shalia Dewan, “Oiled Gulf May Defy Direst Predictions,” New York Times, September 14, 2010, accessed January 26, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/l4/scienceearth/l4spill.html?n=Top%2fNews%2fScience%2fTopics%2fAnimals.Google Scholar
  8. 28.
    Rebecca Mowbray, “Microbes Make Oil Vanish, Scientist Says,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, August 25, 2010, accessed January 26, 2011, http://iw.newsbank.com; emphasis added.Google Scholar
  9. 29.
    Brian Skoloff and Harry R. Weber, “6 Months After Oil Spill, Much Remains Unknown,” Huffington Post, accessed January 26, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/6-months-after-gulf-oil-s_n_769358.html.Google Scholar
  10. 31.
    For further discussion of the unknown long-term effects of the DWH oil spill, see David Biello, “Lasting Menace: The Deepwater Spill’s Unwelcome Legacy,” Scientific American, June 1, 2010, accessed February 3, 2011, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lasting-menace.Google Scholar
  11. 37.
    In addition to the long-term concerns over the entrained crude oil in the water column, concerns emerged over the toxicity of the dispersants used. Charles W. Schmidt offers a concise overview of this issue. See “Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico,” Environmental Health Perspectives 118, no. 8 (August 2010), A341–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anthony J. Funari 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony J. Funari

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations