> Jorge: I very much agree with Krimel when he says
> that the scientific view is not so much "value free"
as
> "regardless of value". This is not merely playing
> with words but an important distinction; if we could
all
> agree on it quite a number of pointless discussions
> would be avoided.
> This being "regardless of value" or "unconcerned
> with value" pertains of course to scientists
in-Science
> and not as individuals immersed in their societies.
SA: Jorge, do you find value to solely mean
subjectivism of the SOM? I understand the distinction
being made between 'value-free' and regardless of
value'; and this is a good distinction. The latter
implies value is still present, whereas the former
implies no-value is involved at all. Yet, why would
science be a field where scientists do something
'regardless of value'? Isn't their work involving
value still? In the scientific process, the evidence
leans a certain direction and the value of the
evidence leads a good scientist into a certain
activity that if done properly will be called good
science. Correct?
Jorge:
> This is exemplified by the large body of writings of
> scientists writing 'ex-catedra' on value- loaded
> subjects like Religion, Ethics, the Purpose of Life,
> etc. etc. a concern that continued uninterrupted
> from Newton to Einstein down to illustrious
contemporary
> scientists.
SA: Jorge, why isn't science value-loaded? I think
your definition of value and my definition of value is
different.
Jorge:
> Said literature clearly indicates that being
> "thoroughly exposed" to Science does not negatively
> influence scientists making them unconcerned with
> values. Why then Science exert a negative influence
> in this respect to Society at large?
SA: Again, it is the definition of what value is?
Your saying value=subjectivity-of-SOM, I think. Value
according to the moq is subjectivity, objectivity,
perhaps, nothing, both, and a number of different ways
of slicing or not-slicing reality. Thus, why I think
your definition of value is different from my
definition of value. This is why it is not science,
but the way science is understood. SOM society thinks
science is the truth of reality, and their definition
of how science arrives at the truth of reality is for
people with an SOM mindset to look 'out there' and to
find truth in what can be observed in a telescope or
microscope only. Meanwhile, we understand reality
involves imagination and opinions that are not readily
observed. If one thinks reality is only about what's
'out-there', then these people are missing out on what
is not readily observed, for instance, how one feels
or what one might be thinking. These types of
experiences persist, and a data in the telescope type
reality is here, but not everything. Sure, science
may understand everything I mentioned, but the
population at large is focused upon 'what is seen is
truth'. Do you see how your definition of value seems
to be different from how I define value? Value to me
is science - physics science, and value is art. Value
involves all of these, though, the definition of the
value partaking in these differing events (physics,
art, etc...) will be a value involving different
definitions. The definition of what happens in
physics will be a value process defined much
differently than the value process in art, for
instance.
Jorge:
> The thing is then, not that scientists, as
> persons, are unconcerned with values but that
Science, as a
> method of enquiry into the world, has nothing to
> offer to this question. Nothing to offer because
Science
> is limited; it does not enquire into the whole world
> but only on a part of the world accessible to the
> scientific method. Which leads me to a question to
> those that keep bringing up the subject of "Science
> as valueless": would you like Science to have a say
> (to approve or refute) regarding your personal set
> of values?
SA: I see what your saying. To say science is
valueless is to skew what is meant by value. What
might be a better way to discuss this, is not that
science refutes value, but how certain people define
what science does and what place certain people give
to science. When people give science the role as the
all-truth giver and the only path to defining what
reality is, then these certain people have placed
limits not on science, but on what THEY-THINK science
is, which one could consequently state they have thus
placed limits on what science is.
Is this more helpful?
Questions, comments?
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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/
