> [Krimel] > The problem with this is that it is simply not true that morals and values > can not be studied scientifically. All of the social sciences invent and > adopt methodologies for doing just that. Pirsig's rants against early 20th > century anthropology are not aimed at the concept of studying culture. He > complains about a particular methodological orientation toward the study of > culture. Much of what flaws Pirsig's views is that he seems to be rehashing > the arguments that drove him insane in the early 60's without updating them. > His finger often points at moons that have moved on.
I don't see how you study morals scientifically. As Pirsig wrote: "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that science, the intellectual pattern that bas been appointed to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no provision for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned with facts. Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a microscope or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will never find a single moral. There aren't any there. They are all in your head. They exist only in your imagination." (Lila, 22) As I understand it, science depends on accurate and repeatable measurements. How does one measure morals under infinitely variable situational and personal circumstances? Besides, you make the case for the scientific study of morals in a social context only. Pirsig has gone beyond that, extending the study of morality in physical, biological and intellectual contexts. > [Platt] > Anyway I think that's what Pirsig was trying to accomplish with the MOQ. > That he came up short in convincing readers that reality is based on a > moral order is obvious from the discussions on this site. Still, he can > take some comfort from being provocative which is no small feat in the > field of philosophy after the demise of Derrida-style postmodernism and the > consequent elevation of other 20th century philosophers -- James, > Heidegger, Dewey, etc. --- who, to me at least, are old news (not to > mention boring). > > [Krimel] > I think the best that philosophy can hope for is to add perspective to what > we learn from the sciences. Philosophy is at its root the love of wisdom. > Science at its best strives to tell us what is, philosophy can help us > decide what we ought to do about it. When science ignores philosophy you get > atomic weapons and global warming. When philosophy ignores science it > becomes irrelevant. If science can study morals as you claim, why can't it also tell us what we ought to do? After all, when it studies physics it can tell us how to land on Mars, or when it studies biology it can tell us how to fight disease. Seems to me the "soft" sciences leave much to be desired in terms of usefulness, compared to "real" science. Platt 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/
