I had a teacher I admire a great deal approach me today. She wanted to discuss a personal issue. As she and I talked it became apparent that she was truly able to cognitively isolate her work-self from her home-self. She wanted some advice on how to parent her child.
Now, this teacher has amazing (with a capital "A") skills in managing her students behavior in the classroom. Her students are always fully engaged, well behaved, and polite. They also, LOVE being at school.
As I pondered my interaction with her, I was stunned that someone who demonstrated mastery of environmental control at work was floundering so at home. I confronted this apparent paradox with her, and she seemed to beam with sudden understanding. As I began to ask her what her approach may be, she simply began to provide possible solutions that I had seen her demonstrate in the classroom, and apply them to her own child.
MY son has begun, with relationships, to develop tendencies toward jealousy. I felt rather awkward this morning trying to discuss this with him. However, I discuss this very issue with High School students all the time. Holy Crap batman! I have been engaging in the very dissonant behavior by which I am so reviled. Turns out... I am a hypocrite. No... just driven from one epiphany to the next. My conversation with my wonderful son will be different tonight. How wonderful that circumstances often bring us in as the objective observer, and in-the-end, provide such wonderful subjective insight.
I have begun reading a book entitled, "A history of doubt." It seems like an interesting read. It is about the process of doubt as it applies to religious belief and dogma. In my opinion the author goes FAR out of her way to give "faith" an opening. It seems that doubt, via reason and logic, is given a wonderful stand, with an eye toward critical analysis of the limits of doubt. However, "faith" is given a free pass as an essential tool that may be used and not discredited/touched by the author. Thoughts in isolation again. If doubt is given a burdon of justification, then how can one honestly give "faith", an epistemologically empty concept, a free pass to supposedly fill the "emotional blanks" left by logic and reason. I am interested in your thoughts on the value of "faith" (defined as a belief wholly unsupported by fact, or evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence).
The weather is beginning to warm up again. Our house builder just put 2 new trees (ASH) in our front yard last night. I went right to huggin'. My neighbors think I am my own best patient. The air has been cold enough here that our trees have not bloomed yet (damned cache valley winters). However, I expect great things over the next few days. May have to post a few pictures later on. I love this time of year...
HH
6 comments:
Well, you already know my views on faith, for the most part. I just attended a seminar called Science, Religion, and Ethics, in which Science was pitted not so much against religion as against philosophy. The question I had for both groups--and for religious groups, as well--is what is the value of the knowledge each group discovers. In other words, while I completely agree that rational (and scientific) thought is a better means of understanding reality than religion, I'm not sure it really matters if neither system of thought leads to knowledge of how to live (science has certainly failed us there)--i.e. if both systems of thought serve a culture based on domination. So.... I've gotta go now, but I want to say more about this. I'll check back in later this week.
Ciao!
So maybe we need to ask some serious questions about scientific knowledge and the means by which we obtain that knowledge. For example, can we justify deliberately driving Rhesus monkeys insane because it tells us that abandoning our children in early childhood might be a bad idea--that it might cause irreversible psychosis (what's the plural for psychosis?)? Don't we place way too much value on abstract knowledge in our culture?
The plural of psycholsis is psychosese.
I am of the opinion that "scientific knowledge" is a misnomer. Science is a method, not a philosophy as I see it. A scientist makes knowledge claims, but science is simply the process by which the scientist supports his/her theorie(s).
Your example of rhesus monkey's seems, to me, a question of moral's rather than science. Science should be blind. Its job is to tell us what is, not what ought to be. For this their is philosophy. That, is the abstract knowledge our culture is so fond of.
I don't see abstract knowledge as the problem here. It is the substance upon which people make knowledge claims that interests me. The "faith-based" person makes a claim which has no rational justification. The rational person makes claims based upon an outlook which regards reality as the ultimate arbiter of truth. The problem, as I see it, is that people who make claims without reason wish their views treated with respect... I take that back... they want them treated with kid-gloves. It goes back to political correctness as I see it.
When rational people argue they agree on a set of rules that allow good arguments to be differentiated from bad ones. When others argue from "faith" then no rules apply. Up is down, black may be white, and solipsism is legitimate. It is cognitively empty... meaningless.
Shane, as you and I interpret actions and choices we look to the results for reasons to judge things "good" or "bad." It is when people pretend that morality can be divorced from result that those lines get blurred... hell not blurred... obliterated. So, is the scientist that experiments on rhesus monkeys immoral for doing so? I don't see it as a science issue. I see it as a personal ethics issue.
I posted earlier some rules by which I wish judge good from bad. IN your example my response, as a human being, would be do NOT engage in the research (harm to others, benefit to self).
MY main point is that science is not a moral enterprise, it ought to be divorced from ethics, as nature in general appears to be. Blind.
Trav
Okay, Trav, I’m not sure what you’re saying—and I’m guessing you aren’t very clear about my meaning, either—so I’m going to try to clear things up a bit.
First, you can’t say science is merely a method for supporting theory and not a system of knowledge. That’s a contradiction. Theories, especially scientific theories, are fields of knowledge. In other words, they try to explain phenomena. So what you’re saying is that the scientific method is a means for supporting (and, I think you’d agree, producing) scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is not a misnomer. It’s the sole motivation for practicing science in the first place. Right?
The question I’m asking then—and that I think our culture in general should be asking—is this: “what’s the point (of science, I mean—or philosophy)?” We’ve spent gazillions of dollars this century on scientific research yet the knowledge that research has produced is, in my mind, absolutely useless. The only knowledge that matters is the knowledge about how to live. When I say we overvalue abstract knowledge in our culture, I mean that we give a lot of accolades to folks who come up with theories like relativity (a scientific theory) or postmodernism (a philosophical theory), even though those theories don’t tell us squat about how we ought to be living. And the knowledge of how to live—to survive—is the only knowledge that matters right now. Who the fuck cares if we can explain singularities or nuclear fission if our way of life leads to our extinction in the next 500 years?
So maybe we ought to be paying experts in thermodynamics or macro economics a lot less than we pay experts in picking berries or finding edible mushrooms or surviving in the wilderness or building yurts.
Also, to say that science “is not a moral enterprise”, could mean one of two things. Either you mean that questions about morality shouldn’t be addressed when practicing science (so if I want to deliberately drive monkeys (or people, for that matter) insane so I can see how they cope later on in life, that’s okay) or you mean that moral questions should be answered by non-scientists (i.e. politicians). In either case, you’re making a moral argument, which is what I’m doing. Morals are codes of conduct—ideas for what is right and wrong (what people “should” or “shouldn’t” do). You’re saying that it’s right (or not wrong) for a scientist to engage in a practice that has no demonstrable practical value and produces harm to others while I’m saying that it is wrong. Or you’re saying that it’s not the scientist’s responsibility if his practice is used for an immoral purpose (your morality) and I’m saying that it is. If you build the gas chambers used by the Nazis to kill Jews then you have some responsibility—quite a bit, actually—for the Holocaust (my morality). Granted, if you develop a technology you intend to be used for curing disease but it’s used to create germ warfare, then your moral responsibility is less direct.
My point is this: Nothing is a non-moral enterprise—and especially not science. I know that religion has given “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” a bad rap, but just because institutions use morality as a method for manipulating people doesn’t mean that moral questions aren’t real or that you can abnegate your moral responsibility. You can’t apply empirical evidence to everything. You have to make subjective judgments. And my subjective (and moral) judgment is that knowledge which doesn’t teach us how to live sustainably isn’t worth much; actions that don’t lead to sustainability aren’t worth much; and scientific, government, and religious institutions—as they exist—aren’t worth much.
That being said, I will say this: while science has played an instrumental role in getting us in the mess we’re in, it might also have to play an instrumental role in telling us how to get out. Currently, scientists who aren’t engaged in research that helps the system proliferate (i.e. aren’t helping corporations become more profitable/aren’t discovering new ways to exploit resources) aren’t being funded. So the scientific process “as is” is pretty worthless, but the scientific process applied to permaculture design and global warming consequences might have some value.
Put another way, I'm not critiquing the "method", I'm critiquing the results. And maybe if we prized relationship over conquest--if we used rational thought as a means to relate to the world rather than dominate it--we could put scientific thought to better use.
"First, you can’t say science is merely a method for supporting theory and not a system of knowledge. That’s a contradiction. Theories, especially scientific theories, are fields of knowledge". I was differentiating the "process" of science (i.e., manipulate variable, measure other, hold all others constant when possible), from the Scientists purpose (theories, argmument, moral issues, etc.). Finally science does not just support theories, it also falsifies them (the best part). But we are coming to a common agreement on what "knowledge" is.
That may seem semantic, but it is not too me. Science and the "Scientists" are two different issues. Scientists make the theories, science provides data which the scientist may/may not use to advance tor abandon their theories. But the knowledge is the Scientists, science (in and of itself) is blind. For science to bring about valid results, it should be as free from bias as possible. So we do understand one another.
"We’ve spent gazillions of dollars this century on scientific research yet the knowledge that research has produced is, in my mind, absolutely useless." Shane, the smallpox vaccine was useless? Viagra that allows horny people to give each other pleasure after trauma is useless? Pasteurization is useless? Farming technology that brought food and health to many starving in Africa is useless? The computers upon which we banter are useless? I just don't see it. Have some of the outcomes from Science hurt our planet? Yup. But, the issue seems a bit more ambivalent to me.
"Either you mean..." Hold on there Bucko. I meant that science (process) is blind (results are results regardless of the impact [positive or negative]), the Scientists (persons capable of judgment) have to address any/all moral issues. Any time government gets involved morality is bastardized. So I can't advocate that. But the choice you provided is a false one. There are moral choices made by consumers, and other non-scientists in the uses of scientific outcomes as well. There are Human judgments that occur all along the way.
"Nothing is a non-moral enterprise". To throw a little modus ponens in here then, you are saying that Everything is a moral enterprise. As long as mankind is engaged in it, man may make judgments about it indeed! However, unless you are a moral absolutist, then you must agree that morality is a purely human pursuit with varying degrees of "right and wrong." However, when mankind is not involved (e.g., the destruction of a planet due to a collision with an asteroid which kills all inhabitants) then morality is a non-issue. Some things just "are." Axioms.
"Scientific knowledge is not a misnomer. It’s the sole motivation for practicing science in the first place. Right"? I hope not, but for the most part, you are correct. I hope there are those who engage in science purely for sciences sake. I won't hold my breath.
In the end I think the harm that has come from Scientists is really the result of "who" benefits from it. The "who" tends to "fund." Follow the money my good man. Capitalism certainly has its downsides. On this I know we agree.
Now, take off your Birkenstock's, pull the bandanna from your butt, and relax my anarchistic friend. Rest assured in the knowledge that I have neither your brilliance, or your passion. Thanks for being patient with me.
HH =)
Hey Trav,
You wrote:
That may seem semantic, but it is not too me. Science and the "Scientists" are two different issues. Scientists make the theories, science provides data which the scientist may/may not use to advance or abandon their theories. But the knowledge is the Scientists, science (in and of itself) is blind. For science to bring about valid results, it should be as free from bias as possible. So we do understand one another.
I’m not sure we do. First, I do think you’re making a trivial and semantic distinction here.
Scientists, by definition, are people who practice science. So I don’t think you can differentiate between the two. You can’t have a practice without a practitioner. And I’m not concerned with what science should be or could be or aspires to be. I’m concerned with what it is. And what it is is most definitely not an unbiased enterprise, but a methodology that supports a way of seeing the world consistent with the motives and aspirations of civilization. As generally practiced, it aims to “objectify” the world. In other words, it tries to understand the natural environment by separating it from the individual self—by seeing it as an emotionally and physically distant other. Furthermore, it preferences knowledge that is reproducible and predictable over all other forms of knowledge. That’s because, in my view, things that are predictable and reproducible are easier to control. And control (along with its sisters objectification, quantification, and homogenization) is the primary aim of civilization.
You wrote:
Shane, the smallpox vaccine was useless? Viagra that allows horny people to give each other pleasure after trauma is useless? Pasteurization is useless? Farming technology that brought food and health to many starving in Africa is useless? The computers upon which we banter are useless? I just don't see it. Have some of the outcomes from Science hurt our planet? Yup. But, the issue seems a bit more ambivalent to me.
I could point to individual benefits of religion, too (more stable families, humanitarian services, community building), but I wouldn’t say that makes it useful (Besides that, many of your examples—all but one, actually—I would emphatically deny being of any value whatsoever—especially farming technology which is causing starvation in Africa, not to mention soil erosion, rather than ending it). Would you? My point is that the overall impact of science—for as long as it’s been practiced—has been to better enable civilization to exploit animals, plants, and brown people. As an institution, it hasn’t given us knowledge about how to live; it’s only perpetuated the destructive pattern we’ve embarked on.
You wrote:
"Nothing is a non-moral enterprise". To throw a little modus ponens in here then, you are saying that Everything is a moral enterprise. As long as mankind is engaged in it, man may make judgments about it indeed! However, unless you are a moral absolutist, then you must agree that morality is a purely human pursuit with varying degrees of "right and wrong."
I hate to put my English teacher hat on, but I think you probably meant to say “amoral enterprise”, in which case I would agree that saying “everything is a moral enterprise” isn’t very accurate (as an English teacher I should know better). I assumed you were saying that science was immoral and that was okay—so I over-reacted. I now see your point. I do, however, disagree that science is an amoral enterprise, as I think my former comments indicate.
You wrote:
"Scientific knowledge is not a misnomer. It’s the sole motivation for practicing science in the first place. Right"? I hope not, but for the most part, you are correct. I hope there are those who engage in science purely for science’s sake. I won't hold my breath.
In the end I think the harm that has come from Scientists is really the result of "who" benefits from it. The "who" tends to "fund." Follow the money my good man. Capitalism certainly has its downsides. On this I know we agree.
Yes. We do.
You wrote:
Now, take off your Birkenstock's, pull the bandanna from your butt, and relax my anarchistic friend.
Just finished my first glass of wine and starting on another. That should do the trick.
Later Amigo,
Shane
Post a Comment