I did respond to Louis - but privately - my response is below. Louie - I
know you asked me another question since then and I'm still thinking about
my answer! Since that time, I have had the chance to read an interesting
book by Sheri Tepper called 6 Moon Dance. In the book, humanity has been
redefined as not necessarily species, but rather based on actions -
intelligence, ethics, etc. So, some species were elevated to human level
and certain groups of people were removed from the definition of human.
Just another bit to the definition of human being.
This is my original answer to Louie.
Actually, I don't think that you necessarily going outside of science with
some of these questions. One of the things I discussed with my students
just the other day was the factors that could contribute to violent
behavior. One hypothesis is that violent tv can cause violent behavior.
People doing research in this field cannot even agree on what is violent
and what is not violent behavior, both on tv and in people (is sibling
fighting violence?). This is a good example of belief influencing science.
For example, I was raised in a family that believed verbal violence was as
bad as physical violence. I react to yelling at me as violence - that's my
belief, I act that way. However, there are numerous families that think
nothing of screaming at each other, but wouldn't dream of hitting one
another. They don't see the first as violence, but do the second. They
don't react to yelling the same way as I do. My beliefs influence my
emotions, their beliefs influence theirs. My beliefs would also influence
how I defined violence in my study.
Actually, I've always like William James' pragmatism (ok, it wasn't exactly
his idea) - that truth varies as a function of the situation, the value of
the idea within a context. Science isn't meant to work by the belief/faith
system, just as other areas of life aren't meant to work based on
scientific methods (I could get nailed for that comment, I know!). When a
student comes into a science class, they need to work using the science
method, because science has decreed that that is the method of Truth.
At 02:13 PM 8/27/99 -0700, Jeff Ricker wrote:
>Inresponse to Deborah Briihl, who was reponding to something I wrote,
>Louis Schmeir asked the following questions:
>
>> ...let me [play] the devil's advocate and get into
>> dangerous waters. Is a zygote a human being? Doesn't the answer
>depend
>> on a definition of human being? Do you think the answers are outside
>the
>> realm of science and evidentiary method?
>
>If Deborah doesn't mind, I would like to try my hand at these questions.
>They are the sorts of question a student might ask, so it gives me an
>opportunity to work out a response. Louis, the more general question you
>seem to be asking is this: "where do we get the meanings for our words?"
>And, I think you are being even more specific than this. I think that
>you really are asking: "where do we get the meanings for certain words
>that have particularly important implications for us in our everyday
>lives--words that have implications impacting our survival,
>reproduction, or just plain self-respect as well as our respect for
>others." The short answer is that we get these meanings from our
>culture. Culture includes science, religion, politics, advertisements,
>and other such cultural institutions and their artifacts. But this short
>answer is not very satisfying to me, so let me expand upon it.
>
>We humans are meaning-seeking creatures, and the words we use are the
>most obvious expressions of the meaning we give to a situation. But
>there is a great deal of complexity in doing this--a complexity that
>makes it difficult to answer your questions simply. One problem is that
>different words with different meanings can refer to the same object in
>different contexts. Let me give an example. Just this morning, my
>daughter asked us, "where is the waffle-maker?" She was referring to the
>toaster--an object that also can be used to heat frozen waffles. In
>another context, one in which she wanted to make toast, she would have
>used the word, "toaster." These two words referred to the same object,
>but they had different meanings and, therefore implications. This
>example points to an idea essential for answering your questions: THE
>WORDS WE USE AND THE MEANINGS WE INTEND DEPEND UPON THE CONTEXT (that
>is, the meaning we assign to the situation). The context is associated
>with the purposes (goals) that we have in mind for a particular
>situation.
>
>There is another problem--one even more important with regard to your
>questions: the same word has different meanings (and, therefore,
>implications) in different contexts. With regard to your particular
>question, the term "human being" has different meanings and implications
>depending upon the purpose we have for using the word. For example, If
>we are trying to determine if a zygote is a human being or a chimpanzee,
>we will mean something different by the term than if we are trying to
>determine if it is acceptable to abort the zygote developing within a
>human mother because of medical problems that threaten the mother's
>life. In the former case, a human being might be defined as an organism
>with 46 chromosomes of certain sizes and banding patterns whereas a
>chimpanzee might be defined as an organism with 48 chromosomes of
>certain sizes and banding patterns. In the latter case, a human being
>might be defined as an organism that has all the basic bodily parts
>distinguishing humans from other creatures and that is able to survive
>on its own outside of the mother's body.
>
>The point I am trying to make is that there is no "essence" we can point
>to when trying to define the term "human being." We use the term in
>different ways depending upon what we are trying to do. The same is true
>with a term such as "life." The word will mean different things
>depending upon what purpose you are trying to accomplish. The best
>discussion of this I have seen was by Medawar and Medawar, 1983; quoted
>in Stanovich, 1998, p. 39):
>
>"A hunger for definitions is very often a manifestation of a deep-seated
>belief...that all words have an inner meaning.... Indeed, amateurs will
>sometimes put a question about definition in a form which reveals their
>enslavement to this illusion: 'What is the true meaning of the word
>"life"?' they ask. There is no true meaning. There is a usage that
>serves the purposes of working biologists well enough, and it is not the
>subject of altercation or dispute."
>
>Change the purposes and the meaning will have to change. We are
>meaning-seeking creatures, but the meanings we give to words are
>designed to help us adjust ourselves better to the present situation.
>The context--the way that we see the situation and the purposes we then
>try to address in that situation--are determined by our cultural
>backgrounds. For many people, science is a part of this cultural
>background, just as much as is religion, politics, or any other cultural
>institution or artifact.
>
>So to answer your question: a zygote is a human being; but what we mean
>by the term "human being" will differ in different contexts.
>Furthermore, for certain (especially medical) purposes, we might decide
>that a zygote is NOT a human being. A natural-science approach might
>inform some of these meanings and their implications for action, whereas
>a religious approach, a political approach, a consumer approach, etc.
>might lead to different meanings and implications. The meaning we assign
>ultimately is the result of which aspects of a culture is dominant for
>an individual.
>
>But, so that you are not confused by my words, when our purpose is to
>achieve an understanding of the workings of the universe so that we can
>predict future events and control them, nothing comes close to a
>natural-science approach. Thus, for those purposes, the meanings used by
>scientists are preferred to any other.
>
>Jeff
>
>References:
>
>Medawar, P. B. & Medawar, J. S. (1983) _Aristotle to zoos: A
>philosophical dictionary of biology_. Canbridge: Harvard University
>Press.
>
>Stanovich, K. E. (1998). _How to think straight about psychology_ (5th
>ed). New York: Longman.
>
>--
>Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
>9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
>Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Scottsdale Community College
>Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
>
>"The truth is rare and never simple."
> Oscar Wilde
>
>"No one can accept the fundamental hypotheses of scientific psychology
>and be in the least mystical."
> Knight Dunlap
>
>
>
>
Deb
Deborah S. Briihl There are as many
Dept. of Psychology and Counseling ways to live as
Valdosta State University there are people in
Valdosta, GA 31698-0100 this world and each
[EMAIL PROTECTED] deserve a closer
Now in new Assoc. size! look..
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dbriihl
You got so many dreams you don't know where to put them, so you better turn
a few of them loose... Fire
