Quoting Jorge Goldfarb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 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 Hi Jorge,
> 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 may be wrong but aren't you assuming in the above comments that morality is about human behavior in a social setting? Pirsig's whole point is that morality extends far beyond just it's familiar social context into all aspects of experience. So an artist is being moral in choosing what note to place next is his composition, and a scientist is being being moral in choosing to study the atom rather than the sex life of queen bees. In other words, the whole world consists of a jillion decisions of this being better than that, from the crowing of a rooster to getting out of bed in the morning -- all moral decisions. These have led to the creation of thousands of static moral patterns that stay the same year after year, especially at the inorganic and biological levels. Or so says the MOQ as I understand it. Platt ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
