Hi Rick,
I'm glad you don't think science is the root of the problem and I certainly
agree with you that technology has exacerbated existing problems. A nuclear
war *could* make the world uninhabitable. I'm also happy that you
point out that the history of humankind has always been subjected to death
and misery by invading armies, long before science came of age.
I also agree with your balanced statement that science seems to have
"endless potential for colossal goods and Earth-shattering evils".
For Pirsig though, SOM is the root of the problem, and science drives SOM.
In so many disparate facets of life Pirsig sees science or its near
relatives technology, rationality, and objectivity as the root problem.
It's the reason the DeWeese's are depressed; it's why we don't experience the
Dharmakaya light; it's why we are paralyzed by the charge of racism leveled
by blacks. I could go on and on. My point is that seemingly anything wrong
with modern life, real or imagined, is or could be pinned on some scientific
intellectual culprit, even when more obvious causes, or any number of causes,
are responsible. People throw chairs at one another on the Jerry Springer
show, and the young people of today cop an attitude of "whateverism",
ultimately because of amoral scientific attitudes (examples given by
Jon and Platt in a thread about two years ago). This is all very debatable.
RICK:
"The problems were always there. But I think the resentment of science
comes not because it is seen as the root, but because it is seen as
apathetic. Social notions of morals and values imply limits. But science
doesn't recognize social values (or as Pirsig might say, science has no
provision for morals) and so it can't and won't respect those limits."
This is the MOQ party line, but it's wrong. Science absolutely
recognizes social values. Science caused the ozone problem (presumably)
but it also discovered the problem and suggested rememdies (stopping CFC
discharge). Who but science tries to ensure drugs invented
by science are safe? Geneticists have joined the debate over genetic
research. Engineers design mechanisms in nuclear power plants to make
them safer. The late great Carl Sagan wrote his opinion on the nuclear
power debate. Why would he or any other scientist bother to do these
things if science doesn't recognize social values?
(His stance by the way was that fossil power harms the earth much more
than nuclear power because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.)
Science is a human endeavor and of course its implications for
society aren't value-free. This is actually a point Pirsig makes in Lila
and it's perfectly valid. But then he goes and mixes up the relationship
science has with society with the objective methods used to understand
nature, and then he's back to calling science amoral again.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:19 BST