Hi folks The philosopher of science Nicholas Maxwell suggests that one of the problems with science is that it tacitly accepts what he calls the philosophy of knowledge. This philosophy assumes knowledge is worth pursuing for its own sake and that values should be kept out of science to protect its so-called objectivity. Maxwell suggests this philosophy of knowledge is neither possible or desirable. Instead he suggests that we explicit look at what values we are pursuing. He suggest our main value should be to realise what is of value (realise in both the sense of come to understand and to bring about). I recommend his book from Knowledge to Wisdom. Maxwell's focus on values could be enhanced with Pirsig's analysis of how SOM has removed the centrality of values from our culture.
One example of the problem with science and academia is the publishing of endless papers in journals that have no or little use and are trivial. Philosophy of wisdom, Maxwell's alternative to philosophy of science suggests we should have more focus on what problems our research is trying to solve, so that problems of living govern our problems of knowledge. Regards David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Platt Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [MD] S/O and Morality Hi Jorge, > From Platt: > The problem with Western culture is "Nothing is right and nothing is > wrong." You see it most prominently in the philosophy dominating the > academic elite -- relativism and its sister, multiculturism. > > ======= > My comments: > > "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a > completely purposeless, valueless place" I addressed the question of > purposeless in my last; regarding the question of the world as a > valueless > place: > > This is a pretty difficult issue to tackle in just a few sentences; > one runs the risk of being superficial. However, to propose that, > for > Science, the world is a valueless place, without substantiating the > assertion may also be considered somewhat superficial, so, I'll give > it a try. > > In the eyes of Science a description of the world we live-in > should be coherent and consistent or, in short, 'should make > sense'. To think that the world ought to be like that, is to > think > in terms of values. > > Perhaps some examples to illustrate: processes that happen > inside > the atomic nucleus or in a remote star or inside a living cell, > cannot be described by using a different Physics in each case. > You > cannot use a different quantum theory or a different > thermodynamics for clusters of proteins than for clusters of > stars. If a theory in Chemistry contradicts a theory in Biology, > it means that something is amiss in one of them and the > contradiction should be urgently clarified. Considering the > incredible variety of forms and processes in our world, to > presume > that the world ought to behave in such a way is to ask a lot > from > it and, to presume that, we humans, will eventually achieve that > purpose is to ask a lot from ourselves. > > I'd venture to say that those are value-loaded worldviews and hence > to > accuse Science of considering the world as a valueless place seems > to > me a bit unfair. Good point. Science values a lot of its assumptions and activities, but is reluctant to admit it. Here is Pirsig's analysis: " 'Science is not concerned with values. Science is concerned only with facts.' In a subject-object metaphysics this platitude is unassailable, but the Metaphysics of Quality asks: which values is science unconcerned with? Gravitation is an inorganic pattern of values. Is science unconcerned? Truth is an intellectual pattern of values. Is science unconcerned? 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) So I think your point is well taken. > True, Science has little or nothing to offer regarding values such as > Liberty, Equality, Beauty and others that preoccupy us so much as > humans > in societies. However, because of its way of thinking the world, > Science > could be of help in contrasting values with actual practices. > Something > is surely amiss if we happen to believe in Liberty for some and not > for > others and the notion of universality of human rights is in a way in > line with the scientific idea of how the world ought to be. I think you are stretching when you say science has an idea of how we ought to the behave. If anything, science has shown that the human species acts in ways that are anything but orderly. Nor do I think science necessarily values a world in which human beings act in unison with robot- like predictability. Perhaps I've interpreted your point too literally. > "There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally > wrong with lying, with theft,.." Again, I'd be so bold as to rephrase > that. Science does not say that there is nothing morally wrong with > lying > or stealing, neither it says that those actions are morally wrong. > Morality, taken in that sense, it's just out of bounds of its fields of > enquiry. The same to be said for Art and even for History. These are > questions in the domain of Philosophy and Religion. Perhaps one day all > of > it may merge into one, I do hope so; in the meantime let's worry about > how > each one does its self-assigned job and if I may add, as a debatable > proposition, Western culture has been doing much better in Art or > Science > than in Philosophy or Religion. Agree. I think Pirsig does, too. He wrote: " . . . and in this culture there aren't any fundamental meanings of morality. (A failure of philosophy and religion,) There are only old traditional social and traditional meanings and these don't have any intellectual base. They're just traditions." (Lila, 7 -parens added) Pirsig's MOQ is an attempt to merge science, art and philosophy "into one." > As to your last sentence: The problem with Western culture is > "Nothing > is right and nothing is wrong", I tend to disagree with you. The > disagreement may arise though from different meanings of "Western > culture" . If we think of culture in terms of patterns of thinking of > the Western intellectual elites I'd agree with you; postmodernism and > all that stuff. But if we think of culture in terms of the masses of > people, I'd say that the issues of right and wrong preoccupy as much > as > in previous periods in our history. Confrontations like the WWII and > the Cold War, which involved humanity at large, used a rhetoric of > right and wrong in the moral sense. In our very days from hearing > the > most influential leader of the West (GWB) moral issues seem to be > most > preeminent. Since he and others are addressing public opinion, it > could > be inferred that those issues still carry a lot of weight among the > public. Agree. These moral issues are, as Pirsig pointed out in the quote cited above, "just traditions" handed down from generation to generation without a rational basis. If our goal is to bring science, art, history, religion and other categories of human endeavor under one roof, it would seem that that a rational approach holds out the best hope. That means giving morality a rational, scientific basis and not simply relying on tradition to define moral precepts. What do you think? Regards, Platt --------------------------------- > Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good > 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/ 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/ 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/
