|
just to chip in on science here; as one who uses scientific
methods (hopefuly) to study human perception, I feel that scientists sometimes
get a rough ride here in the form of struan's favourite-of-the-month: the
strawman argument. Many people inadvertantly put words into others' mouths. I
personally don't know many scientists who assert that science does, or could,
yield some kind of reified "absolute truth(s)". If there is actually
such a thing (at present it is metaphysical in nature), I'm not sure that
science is the ideal tool to arive at it.
See also Popper.
In fact, one could say that (with some possible exceptions), a
characteristic common to many bad scientists is that they assert that
it is possible to "absolutely prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt.."...
whatever.
Whereas, with a similar caveat, the mark of a good
scientist might be the assertion that the absoluteness of absolutely (!)
anything is potentially disprovable, using scientific
method.
The real problem is not so much the sci-method, as with it's
mis-application, it's use for tasks it is not designed for.
In fact, the deep down problem is some folks' longing for
something which could be said to be real, concrete,
absolute.
I think this may be some of what Chris Lofting was getting at
when talking about our neurological propensity for identifying and defining
objects as real in their own right.
And this seems to dovetail with puzzEph's discourse on
Plato!
cheers
ppl
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 04 January 2001 10:18
Subject: Re: MD Nose tweaking is such
fun
Hi Glenn
GLENN:
In your first post you explained why Pirsig was expelled from college:
"It's all the result of [Pirsig's] problems with
the scientific method. That's where it all started.
All of it."
Roger responded by saying that it's
really not the fault of the
method but people's over-extended expectations
about the method's
applicability outside the objective realm. To this you
replied:
"Pirsig's problem has never been science or even the
scientific method."
JON:
Yes, I was aware of the
contradiction when I wrote it, but I thought I
explained why. Pirsig's
problems did in fact start with his questioning of
the fundamental nature
of the scientific method...do we agree on that at
least?
It
was his initial questioning of the sci-method that LED to the rest of his
philosophical inquiries, and the other distressing aspects of our thought
process that caused him to have a mental breakdown. So while it *started*
with his troubles with the sci-method, he eventually realized it was our
*relationship* with the sci-method that really mattered. Because the
sci-method is just a tool, like the wrench on the cover of ZMM. That
simple
image on the cover of ZMM sums up Pirsig's philosophy quite
elegantly.
GLENN:
Either Pirsig has a problem with the scientific
method or he
doesn't. Let me see if I can capture the thread of your
argument:
It is the scientific method to blame for moral
decay
It's not the scientific method to blame.
It's not really scientists to blame.
It's
not even science to blame.
It's the comfort of technology to
blame.
It's a trickle down of objectivism to blame.
Essentially it's our old nemesis, SOM, to blame.
JON:
It's the trickle down of objectivism. There's nothing wrong
with science or
scientists (which I have said many times), it's this
attitude that science
should decide what it's OK to have faith in, much
like the church used to
decide for us way back when. Science says some
nonexistent things--such as
gravity and time--are more scientific (in
other words, more *real*) than
other nonexistent things--such as God.
Gravity, time, and God are all equally nonexistent in objective
reality. Most
people believe in all three, yet only God is considered
unscientific.
And I don't think comfort is a bad thing, I'm just
pointing out that our
current widespread comfort is unprecedented in
history, and the ramifications
of this is worth thinking about. What gave
us this comfort? Science did, so
we appreciate and value it. We value
something that has no values. (LILA page
60: "Science has no values. Not
officially.")
Certainly most people are not scientists and don't go
about consciously
appreciating all the wonderful comfort science has given
us. But whatever we
use on a regular basis, we value. So whoever drives a
car, talks on a
telephone, watches television, or uses a computer--whoever
uses technology of
any kind, values science.
I think that our
perception of morality is influenced by the culture we live
in. Today's
culture is driven by and dependent upon technology, and this
technology
was provided by science. Science basically keeps us alive, and it
does so
without having to acknowledge the existence of morality whatsoever.
Thus
morality is getting easier to pay less attention to, since morality
isn't
what gives us our comfort. Science gives us our comfort.
GLENN:
Well I said it then and I'll say it again: it always comes back to
science. And here we are again. You end up admitting that none of these
things about science are to blame, but let a few months go by and we're
at square one again
JON:
Science and the sci-method are just
tools, and by themselves are not to blame
(which I've said many times). If
you shattered a vase with a hammer, the
blame would be on you and not the
hammer.
Take guns. A man shoots another man dead. He goes to jail for
murder. We
don't convict the gun, who convict the individual who pulls the
trigger. But
the murder raises the issue of guns and what guns are capable
of, and we see
the indelible impact of guns throughout the history of
civilization.
The scientific method is just a tool for the mind, but
this tool has had more
of an impact on civilization than any other thing.
Yes, by itself the
sci-method *is* blameless. Like a loaded gun by itself
is blameless. But as
with guns, we need to know what it is capable of, and
we need to keep safety
in mind, and we should at least consider the
collective psychological effect
of its inescapable use in the world has
caused in us. (The psychological
effect of the widespread use of guns is
fear IMO and the effect of the
sci-method is attitudes of increasingly
cold objectivity.)
GLENN:
What you started out with was a very
pointed argument denouncing the sci
method but what you end up with is
something very vague, a trickle as you
say. It sounds like you are trying
to prove something like Reagonomics.
It's all a telltale sign of a weak
premise.
JON:
Well, I'm only human. If it's weak it's weak.
GLENN:
Deep down perhaps your argument really translates into
this:
Something I don't like must be responsible for moral
decay.
I don't like science.
Therefore
science is responsible for moral decay.
Is it fair to say that science
isn't your favorite thing?
JON:
No, I actually enjoy science and
find it fascinating. It's neat hearing about
all the latest developments
in the world of science. I like technology. It's
cold objectivism that I
openly dislike. I'm not the Unibomber for pete's sake
LOL.
GLENN:
My own scepticisms of science (and there are many) pale next to yours:
"I still want someone to explain to me how science can be the
most
respected
authority when it comes to the "search for
truth" despite one of the tenets
of science being there IS no
absolute truth. According to science there is
not one 100% proven
airtight fact in existence. Not a single one. That's a
bit
disconcerting considering we're supposed to look for science to find
truth."
JON:
The above quote probably makes me sound
like I hate science, but that would
be an exaggerated assumption. I
notice, however, that you did not say that
what I wrote above wasn't
correct. And this is the thing that really annoys
me most...the
unwillingness of the scientific community to acknowledge this
inherent
hypocrisy. Science is the search for something that it says doesn't
exist.
GLENN:
Logic, math, and at least the hard sciences actually get
you somewhere.
For example, the Earth, as well as all the planets and our
sun, are round
(not
flat and not supported by the shells of an
infinite stack of turtles). The
heart pumps blood through your body (it is
not the seat of emotions).
JON:
I agree of course. There is no
flat earth held up by turtles. What annoys me
is that science has become
the accepted authority in matters of faith. Not
matters of fact, mind you,
but faith.
Gravity. Time. God. None of these can we see, touch, hear,
taste, or smell.
Science tells us it's "acceptable" to have faith in
gravity and time, but not
faith in God. I think that is unfair.
GLENN:
Even Platt, who feels much the way you do, is compelled to
read math and
science because only these disciplines have the power to
prove their own
limitations (which he is so fond to point out), and no
doubt he is on the
alert for scientific results that might throw his
metaphysical beliefs into
question or even boost them. Science offers us
the only solid footing we have.
As Roger said in a post a month or so ago,
MOQ must be at least consistent
with accepted branches of science.
JON:
My biggest gripe is with Any Rand School Objectivists, not
scientists. It
bothers me when a person with an Objectivist mindset smugly
claims he
"doesn't need faith" because he has "the truth" to back him up.
These people
rely on science to provide them with their truth, and science
itself says
there IS no absolute truth, not a single 100% airtight proven
fact in
existence.
Jon
|
