Hi Ron --
> Davis Bohm was a nuclear physicist involved in the Manhattan project > His book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" in which he arrives > At a scientific theory much like Essentialism only it refers to > Physical particles. I thought it might interest you. > > In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as > physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be > abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and > character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the > whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and > independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore, > that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous." > > But he then alludes to the notion that what makes distinctions is human > perception of this undivided whole. > > Value sensibility ? David Bohm was also a communist of pacifist persuasion whose loyalty to the U.S. is questionable. Judging by the Wikipedia article, I would say that his philosophy is more pantheist than essentialist, his emphasis on a 'holistic' reality system, of course, ruling out a supra-human source. Unfortunately, my 'Finder' located neither "value" nor "sensibility anywhere in this article, and the word "sense" was used only once, in the sentence: "Society is a system in some sense." I found Bohm's complaint about scientific technology interesting in that it parallels Nicolas Maxwell's in many ways. (I believe it was you who recommended Maxwell's book to me some time ago, and I am now wading through it.) "What is the source of all this trouble? I'm saying that the source is basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our problems. That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use to solve our problems with is the source of our problems. It's like going to the doctor and having him make you ill. In fact, in 20% of medical cases we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far over 20%." Compare this with Maxwell's statement in "From Knowledge to Wisdom": "The fierce resistance of the scientific community to consider the need to improve standard empiricism has spilled over into the philosophy of science. An outsider might well suppose that philosophers of science spend their working hours cooking up new philosophies of science, new views about what the aims and methods of science ought to be. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the heyday of logical positivism in the 1930's, philosophers of science, like scientists, have taken for granted without question one or other versions of standard empiricism and the philosophy of knowledge; the task for philosophy of science is to solve the problems that immediately arise once these presuppositions are made." My personal reaction to these complaints about the methodology and tradition of science is to ask, why didn't these complainers become philosophers instead of scientists in the first place? Science is a useful tool employing a logical, unbiased approach to the acquisition of objective knowledge and has proved itself to be the most reliable source of information for solving practical problems. In view of its successful achievements over the past several centuries, why should anyone want to change it? Maxwell, for example, argues for a "philosophy of wisdom" and a revolution to "aim-oriented rationalism". But this is not the province of scientific investigation or technology. If we bias objective research with moral precepts and demand that scientists "justify" intellectual values, we shall lose the objectivity that gives science credibility as a problem-solver. We're already watering down education in our schools by mandating multicultural instruction and a liberal revision of history. Must we now take the same approach in science in the name of political correctness? I am as much of a proponent as anyone for a radical metaphysics with universal appeal, but I'm opposed to tinkering with what works. Understand that my criticisms are not aimed at you, Ron, but at the revolutionists who would equate philosophy with science in order to influence man's value perspective. Thanks for the link to this source. Best regards, Ham 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/
