There are two different forms of scientific history. The history of science as used for future scientific development lives in academic papers, journals, conferences, and similar; those are preserved as a record of historical development progress. That history is, when functioning correctly, blind to outside issues like this.
On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular culture, which focuses on personalities, personal stories, struggles, and development. In that version of history, it shouldn't be at all surprising that people prefer to hide the crazy people and focus on those that can successfully serve as visible PR figures. That doesn't denigrate their contributions, but it avoids making them visible figureheads when they're not appropriate for a figurehead role.
You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science, such as in interviews and discussions; sweeping people under the rug doesn't just happen because of embarassment about past actions, but for fear of future embarassment. And that future embarassment can then cause problems when trying to get popular support and funding, which makes it entirely rational to focus on the scientists who can safely talk to other people.
>You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science
This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science.
You have a point, but it's very defeatist. You're essentially saying "people can get turned off by opposing views. To remedy this, we'll make sure they don't hear any opposing views". The remedy is to expose people to more opposing views, not shelter them.
By removing vibrant people and bizarre stories from scientific history you are doing science a disservice by deterring the smartest, creative people, many of whole are quirky, from the sterile, close-minded politicized world of science.
The less white-washing the better. We need to know our heros were crazy just like us.
"Day science employs reasoning that meshes like gears… One admires its majestic arrangement like a da Vinci painting or a Bach fugue. One walks about it as in a French formal garden…
Night science, on the other hand, wanders blindly. It hesitates, stumbles, falls back, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything… It is a workshop of the possible… where thought proceeds along sensuous paths, tortuous streets, most often blind alleys."
Francois Jacob[1], The Statue Within.
Science and technology as an activity involves questioning, and finding new ways of doing things. I imagine these activities are bound to attract people on the edge of things a little. Having said that, Aleister Crowley was not the kind of person you'd want to be involved closely with from what I can see.
Night Science sounds a lot like Cave Johnson in the Portal franchise.
"Just a heads up, we're gonna have a super conductor turned up full blast and pointed at you for the duration of this next test. I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do."
There are a fair number of tech people I've encountered (mainly in the device driver and security subcommunities) who are part of OTO, Temple of Set, or other "left hand path" type occult groups or practices; a lot more who are just "pagan". Not too far off from any mainstream religions in concentration, which is way different from the general population.
As one of those OTO tech people I was excited to see this here, but a little disappointed that there wasn't any description of what Thelema is about - basically (elevator speech explanation follows) a religion of discovering who you are and being that person. The references to hedonism and the 'darker side of magic' without the context that these are means of self discovery and acknowledging the darker side of existence comes across as sensationalist, at least to me.
Interesting- I only know a handful of hardware people, and that includes a pagan microchip designer. Is there a reason for those beliefs being more prevalent in those communities?
From the summary it seems that Parsons was more one of the people involved in early rocketry rather than a central and driving figure. It is possible that this is much ado about nothing - the author of the book (as well as the person writing about the book) is using Parson's colorful personal life as titillation and is playing up their connection with the rocketry program to sell the book (Otherwise it's just a story about another eccentric bohemian in Pasadena).
Parsons still has a crater on the moon named after him. Very interesting story though. I think Parsons is more renowned in occult circles than in scientific circles. His legacy remains in both.
The article evokes some doubts - particularly statement "JPL... first government-sponsored rocket lab in history". According to article, that happened in "late 1930-s", but already in 1933 in USSR rocket groups GIRD and GDL were combined into a research institute.
A highly recommended "Ignition!" (http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf) - a history of liquid propellant research by John Clark briefly describes genesis of JPL, mentioning Malina and Theodor von Karman. According to that, GALCIT was "Malina's group" (if I remember correctly).
That's a shame really. Recording history shouldn't be motivated by politics and other peoples' sensibilities being offended. Regarding Aleister Crowley being 'The Wickedest Man on Earth', not even close. If you've ever read M. Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', then you know what I mean.
That was a title Crowley took for himself, as he enjoyed being a notorious figure. His actual behavior, though, amounted to little more than being a sex maniac and saying blasphemous things during a much more socially conservative era. His 'autohagiography' makes for entertaining reading if you can get past the turgid Victorian prose.
As for Parsons, the Wired article is being a bit clickbaity. In the last paragraph: Wired.co.uk contacted JPL and we asked whether Parsons had been written out of the history books. Historian Erik Conway said: "Jack Parsons is included in history books and other venues, and in fact, his role is discussed in the JPL-involved standard history, JPL and the American Space Program by Clayton R. Koppes. Parsons was one of the original founders of JPL. He was the team's chemist and developed the first castable solid propellant used to power aircraft."
Pascual Jordan, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics along with Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli and Born had his name essentially written out of the history books because of his association with the Nazi party which really amounted to overlooking what the Nazis were doing and saying some positive comments about the Nazis. I don't like what Jordan did. Heisenberg is a less controversial figure which some people claimed had skeletons in his closet regarding the Nazi party. Nothing really came of it and Heisenberg's reputation has been untouched except a few still hold questions regarding his conduct. I'd like to know if this issue was ever cleared up. Heisenberg is still (rightly) remembered as a chief architect but Pascual Jordan whose contributions equal or exceed Pauli is almost entirely written out.
On the contrary, there's a certain thread of the skeptic movement that attacks anything that isn't "scientific" enough. It's basically a kind of fundamentalism. Fundie positivism?
In today's modern first world prejudices? All of them are offended, since he has dares NOT believed in a unprovable negative.
It should always be okay to have faith in something and believe that other people are wrong. Not to belittle the one you see as wrong BUT sadly this is always lost in us all.
> "A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the space programme was founded by a man who held orgies in his Pasadena mansion."
If we had to kick every eccentric out of science there wouldn't be anyone left to invent anything. Might as well write Newton out of the history books too for 30 years of failed attempts at alchemy and occult research.
I think people here were too quick to buy the OP theory that JP was "written out of NASA's history". Quoting the first comment on the article:
"Parsons was mentioned frequently in a recent JPL-produced documentary on the early days of the space age and the founding of the Lab. And, his name sits on engraved plaque in a central area of JPL that commemorates all the members of the "suicide squad" involved in the first rocket test firing. I suppose your headline makes sense seeing as he died several years before NASA was founded so he may not be in a NASA history book. But wrong to say he's written out of JPL's early history."
Blame someone of our present time for some misbehave must generate more clicks than just pointing out how prejudice harmed someone's carreer on government decades ago, which seems to be the real story here. Good that the HN title was edited for a less sensationalist one.
It's fascinating how scientology was formed out of Hubbard stealing his wife, scamming him out of money... and then his ex wife and hubbard founded scientology - using a bastardized version of Thelema as a means to control and bilk money out of 'thin' personalities that are looking for help and validation. Quite a use of the occult!
>>> "A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the space programme was founded by a man who held orgies in his Pasadena mansion."
Still wondering how the heck that would ever find its way into an academic book about NASA or the JPL considering how people are up in arms about anything that goes into text books these days.
I wonder why Wired magazine has been wading into "deep politics" more and more recently. I mean the German and Occult underpinnings of NASA is a significant can of worms for a publication with a mainstream readership to be opening.
In fairness, Parsons's occult history isn't particularly new, shocking, or politically dangerous ground in 2014.
It's not mainstream knowledge, by any means. And I'm sure a lot of folks are reading about it in Wired for the first time. But Parsons's backstory has been covered pretty extensively -- most recently as a significant side chapter (or two) in "Going Clear," the NYT-bestselling book about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Prior to that, Parsons figured prominently into "Barefaced Messiah," another Scientology history, written in the late 1980s.
For the record, "Going Clear" and "Barefaced Messiah" are fascinating reads. I recommend them. It's unfortunate that Parsons, a man of legitimate and numerous accomplishments, has been so thoroughly overshadowed by the con artist L Ron Hubbard. But Hubbard had a much better knack for publicity.
Titillating 'secret history' isn't really the same thing as "deep politics", it's just cocktail-party conversational fodder. If you didn't know of NASA's roots in the Third Reich's military rocketry programs then you weren't paying attention in history class - especially true for readers of Wired's UK edition, since the vast bulk of German rocketry efforts were targeted on London after the Luftwaffe was defeated in the Battle of Britain. You can't live in the UK for any length of time and not be aware of this.
Reading GR gave me a chance to be ultra geeky one evening in one of my fluids classes by correctly identifying a lump of crumpled metal as an A4 fuel pump.
I went to college in Bedford which is next door to an RAE R&D station where they brought back captured Nazi tech – and half the course worked at twinwoods.
Though I never got to go round the black museum at Cranfield where they had loads of v2 bits - I did see the sad TSR2 they had there though
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|12 years ago|reply
On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular culture, which focuses on personalities, personal stories, struggles, and development. In that version of history, it shouldn't be at all surprising that people prefer to hide the crazy people and focus on those that can successfully serve as visible PR figures. That doesn't denigrate their contributions, but it avoids making them visible figureheads when they're not appropriate for a figurehead role.
You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science, such as in interviews and discussions; sweeping people under the rug doesn't just happen because of embarassment about past actions, but for fear of future embarassment. And that future embarassment can then cause problems when trying to get popular support and funding, which makes it entirely rational to focus on the scientists who can safely talk to other people.
[+] [-] chez17|12 years ago|reply
This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science.
You have a point, but it's very defeatist. You're essentially saying "people can get turned off by opposing views. To remedy this, we'll make sure they don't hear any opposing views". The remedy is to expose people to more opposing views, not shelter them.
[+] [-] crystaln|12 years ago|reply
The less white-washing the better. We need to know our heros were crazy just like us.
[+] [-] keithpeter|12 years ago|reply
Night science, on the other hand, wanders blindly. It hesitates, stumbles, falls back, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything… It is a workshop of the possible… where thought proceeds along sensuous paths, tortuous streets, most often blind alleys."
Francois Jacob[1], The Statue Within.
Science and technology as an activity involves questioning, and finding new ways of doing things. I imagine these activities are bound to attract people on the edge of things a little. Having said that, Aleister Crowley was not the kind of person you'd want to be involved closely with from what I can see.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Jacob
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|12 years ago|reply
"Just a heads up, we're gonna have a super conductor turned up full blast and pointed at you for the duration of this next test. I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do."
http://www.cavejohnsonhere.com/ "
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] violiner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebiester|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuiA|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nnq|12 years ago|reply
If you skip some bits of mystical mumbo-jumbo, there is a serious and very original take on liberal philosophy and politics in there!
[+] [-] kghose|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blauwbilgorgel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avmich|12 years ago|reply
A highly recommended "Ignition!" (http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf) - a history of liquid propellant research by John Clark briefly describes genesis of JPL, mentioning Malina and Theodor von Karman. According to that, GALCIT was "Malina's group" (if I remember correctly).
[+] [-] walshemj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MisterMashable|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
As for Parsons, the Wired article is being a bit clickbaity. In the last paragraph: Wired.co.uk contacted JPL and we asked whether Parsons had been written out of the history books. Historian Erik Conway said: "Jack Parsons is included in history books and other venues, and in fact, his role is discussed in the JPL-involved standard history, JPL and the American Space Program by Clayton R. Koppes. Parsons was one of the original founders of JPL. He was the team's chemist and developed the first castable solid propellant used to power aircraft."
[+] [-] debt|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zurn|12 years ago|reply
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Rockets-Occult-World-Parsons/dp/09...
[+] [-] MisterMashable|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsxwolf|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldfat|12 years ago|reply
It should always be okay to have faith in something and believe that other people are wrong. Not to belittle the one you see as wrong BUT sadly this is always lost in us all.
[+] [-] Varcht|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterwwillis|12 years ago|reply
If we had to kick every eccentric out of science there wouldn't be anyone left to invent anything. Might as well write Newton out of the history books too for 30 years of failed attempts at alchemy and occult research.
[+] [-] gaius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soneca|12 years ago|reply
"Parsons was mentioned frequently in a recent JPL-produced documentary on the early days of the space age and the founding of the Lab. And, his name sits on engraved plaque in a central area of JPL that commemorates all the members of the "suicide squad" involved in the first rocket test firing. I suppose your headline makes sense seeing as he died several years before NASA was founded so he may not be in a NASA history book. But wrong to say he's written out of JPL's early history."
Blame someone of our present time for some misbehave must generate more clicks than just pointing out how prejudice harmed someone's carreer on government decades ago, which seems to be the real story here. Good that the HN title was edited for a less sensationalist one.
[+] [-] carlob|12 years ago|reply
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1000%20usd%201940
[+] [-] kedean|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moron4hire|12 years ago|reply
Jeez, speak for yourself.
[+] [-] Varcht|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ttflee|12 years ago|reply
http://io9.com/5978746/the-strangely-true-connection-between...
[+] [-] randomflavor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|12 years ago|reply
Still wondering how the heck that would ever find its way into an academic book about NASA or the JPL considering how people are up in arms about anything that goes into text books these days.
[+] [-] h1karu|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnathanson|12 years ago|reply
It's not mainstream knowledge, by any means. And I'm sure a lot of folks are reading about it in Wired for the first time. But Parsons's backstory has been covered pretty extensively -- most recently as a significant side chapter (or two) in "Going Clear," the NYT-bestselling book about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Prior to that, Parsons figured prominently into "Barefaced Messiah," another Scientology history, written in the late 1980s.
For the record, "Going Clear" and "Barefaced Messiah" are fascinating reads. I recommend them. It's unfortunate that Parsons, a man of legitimate and numerous accomplishments, has been so thoroughly overshadowed by the con artist L Ron Hubbard. But Hubbard had a much better knack for publicity.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] damoncali|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uptownJimmy|12 years ago|reply
Love and rockets, indeed.
[+] [-] walshemj|12 years ago|reply
I went to college in Bedford which is next door to an RAE R&D station where they brought back captured Nazi tech – and half the course worked at twinwoods.
Though I never got to go round the black museum at Cranfield where they had loads of v2 bits - I did see the sad TSR2 they had there though