Platt,
GLENN:
Every moral conflict he (Pirsig) cites between the intellectual and
the social has the intellectual side winning.
PH:
He does? Reread Chapter 24 of �Lila� for Pirsig�s attack on static
intellectualism, perhaps best summed up in the following
paragraph:
PIRSIG:
It's this intellectual pattern of amoral "objectivity" that is to blame
for the social deterioration of America, because it has undermined
the static social values necessary to prevent deterioration. In its
condemnation of social repression as the enemy of liberty, it has
never come forth with a single moral principle that distinguishes a
Galileo fighting social repression from a common criminal fighting
social repression. It has, as a result, been the champion of both.
That's the root of the problem.
Well, it's not a specific moral conflict so much as a general condemnation.
But you are correct that this *is* a case where Pirsig sides against the
intellectual for the social.
This is the kind of attack on objectivity, rationality, and science that
got me started in the first place. In the quote above, he loses me when he
says "In its [objectivity's] condemnation of social repression as the enemy
of liberty...", because you can't condemn anything and remain amoral. If
he means people who admire objectivity are doing the condemning, it would
make more sense to me if he'd said "truth" instead of "liberty".
Beyond this blooper the argument is just lame. He doesn't blame
politicians, clergy, parents, the media or Hollywood for the country's
moral decay. No, instead of these suspects, he says science and
objectivity are the guilty ones. I've argued this case already with Jon,
but notice, if he isn't saying that science declares morals "illegal", he
will puff up his argument some other way. Here he makes the outrageous
claim that amoral objectivity is the "champion" of the common criminal.
How can he say this when the clearest criteria for sealing a criminal's
fate are objective evidence like finger prints and DNA? In fact, jurors
will be dismissed from sitting on a case if they don't think they can
be objective. By definition, no moral principle can spring forth from
amoral objectivity, but the moral principle of fairness requires it, and
fairness plays a huge role in mediating moral conflicts.
Pirsig has a personal vendetta against science. It's a bonus for him if
his personal beliefs can be justified by appealing to the tenets of the moral
hierarchy. This is all too easy to do. He just shows, by a colourful
rhetorical argument, that an intellectual pattern has undermined an
important social one. I, on the other hand, admire science so I can use
the direct tenets of the moral hierarchy to justify my point of view. We
both feel secure knowing we each have the full backing of the moral
hierarchy on our respective sides, and we feel comforted knowing we
arrived at our decision based on a "rational" framework and not some
morally relativistic criteria. The irony, of course, is we have arrived at
opposite conclusions.
PH:
The difference is that most people today operate ONLY from a
vague sense of political correctness rather than any rational
examination of what�s good and bad. Pirsig�s sense of Quality
comes into play as a last resort, like physicist Stephen Hawkings
who said when asked how he solves a knotty problem: �I work very
much on intuition, thinking that, well, a certain idea ought to be
right.� In fact, I would venture to suggest that when scientists of the
stature of Hawkings come to an impasse, it�s their sense of
quality or beauty that points them towards a solution.
I agree with your last sentence. Scientists don't really use intuition as
a last resort but as a starting place for a hypothesis. A scientist should
never say a problem is solved based on an idea gained intuitively without
verification. And of course their intuititively gained hypothesis is built
on a large edifice of previous knowledge and is not a wild stab in the
dark. It's doubtful, for example, that Hawking would propose using dowsing
rods to search for black holes.
I find it interesting that you guys keep bringing up examples showing how
scientists and mathematicians use intuition, creativity, and morals in
their work. I keep agreeing and yet you find more examples and I still
keep agreeing. What gives? Do you think scientists would deny using these
things? Do you think scientists (and I) are out to prove creativity and
morals don't exist? Do you think the proof is a secret goal of scientists
and the only reason they are keeping mum about it is because they don't
have enough evidence yet? Do you think their long range goal is to explain
everything rationally and do you think this would be horrible because it
would take away the very thing that makes us human?
PH:
Speaking of beauty, I�d like to get in another pitch for my favorite
subject�esthetic values. In many ways I join Glenn in his support
of science and its methods, for without science and technology,
especially medicine, I wouldn�t be here writing this. And one of the
most fascinating aspects of science for me is its reliance, not only
on objective, verifiable data, but also on beauty. Here is how
J.W.N. Sullivan, a mathematician, describes the �beauty� test:
�Since the primary object of a scientific theory is to express the
harmonies which are found in nature, we see at once that these
theories must have an esthetic value. The measure of the
success of a scientific theory is a measure of its esthetic value,
since it is a measure of the extent to which it has introduced
harmony in what was before chaos.�
Scientists from Kepler to Einstein have judged their theories not
just by their success in accounting for data but also by their
beauty, not just by their order but also by the kind of order they
produced. From all I�ve read about the beliefs of the pioneers in
math and science, beautiful design, as much as data,
determines scientific reality.
For me, that�s where the MOQ fits best into the scientific paradigm.
(Not that science doesn�t adhere to many other values.)
Scientists' main criteria for a beautiful theory is a simple theory that
fits the data. It's a good thing to wish for because the theory will then
be easier to understand and apply. But nature may have other
plans. No one's proved that nature is describable by simple laws; it's
just an assumption. Most theories are not simple, although the famous ones
are. I agree however that most scientists *do* make this assumption,
and it's the main reason physicists, for example, have been searching for
ways to unify gravity with the other nuclear forces.
Glenn
----------
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://home.netscape.com/webmail/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
