Platt, on Jan 12th, quotes this exerpt from Lila:
" A scientist may argue rationally that the moral question, "Is it all right
to
murder your neighbor?" is not a scientific question. But can he argue that
the moral question, "Is it all right to fake your scientific data?" is not
a scientific question? Can he say, as a scientist, "The faking of
scientific data is no concern of science?" If he gets tricky and tries to
say that that is a moral question about science which is not a part of
science, then he has committed schizophrenia. He is admitting the existence
of a real world that science cannot comprehend. What the Metaphysics of
Quality makes clear is that it is only social values and morals,
particularly church values and morals, that science is unconcerned with."
(Lila, 24)
======
My comments:
At the risk of getting tricky, as Pirsig says, I would answer the question
"Is it all right to fake you scientific data?" by saying that it is a question
about scientific research which is not a part of Science. As much as faking a
Rembrandt is a question about painting which is not a part of Art. In that I am
admitting "the existence of a" part of the world " that Science cannot
comprehend". I modified Pirsig's sentence because Science is a form of enquiry
into 'part of the world' , not all the world in which we live and doesn't even
have much to say about whether it's real or not.
Pirsig is quite right when he says that Science is unconcerned with social
values and morals. What I fail to see is what's so bad about it. I am quite
happy that present day scientists recognize that limitation.Our civilization
paid a dire price when, in the past, Science presumed to have answers for
everything, including even the existence of God and of the soul. Just to recall
a couple: Aryan race supremacy and the morality that sprung from it, had a
(pseudo)scientific basis, so did the notion that men are more intelligent than
women. In my opinion, the farther we keep Science away from morality, or Art or
Religion, the better for all concerned.
I don't think that this is an attitude peculiar to scientists. Are artists
uncomfortable about Art having nothing to say about morality or about the
creation of the universe? Are truly religious people uncomfortable because
their religion is unconcerned about unveiling the secrets of the atom?. This
does not mean in the least that scientists or artists are are unmoral, not even
amoral, they are as concerned about right and wrong as the man next door;
perhaps, more perplexed, but as concerned.
I would say that all that is reflected into Einstein's famous sentence :"I
can not believe that God plays dice with the world". He was referring to some
aspects of Quantum Theory that could be thought of having far wider
implications. As a scientist he didn't phrase his doubts as a positive
statement about this or that being right or wrong from a scientific point of
view; he merely said,--I can not believe-- as a simple human being, concerned
about the purpose of life.
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
