From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 15:09:38 GMT
Hi Nathan,
> I do agree with you that science does not give any hint as to what should be
> valued. Some people value X and others value Y. And they will argue all day
> that their position is right and the other is wrong and never come to a
> conclusion. Science is of no aid.
I'm not sure I've gotten my point across. I'm saying that the scientific
lens that dominates the modern worldview rules out values as inadmissible in
rational discourse because they are not objective. It's not that science
doesn't tell us what to value. The problem is that according to this view,
values aren't even really real.
By contrast, in Pirsig's philosophy scientific truth is viewed as a species
of value. When we judge a statement to be true or false we are making a
value judgment. So science actually is concerned with values. It does tell
us what to value but only within a very limited scope.
Science values objectivity (though the wisest scientists recognize that the
scientist cannot possibly stand outside the universe that he observes. ³What
we learn about is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our methods of
questioning.² Werner Heisenberg). Science values explanations that
describe a wide range of experiences over ones that only describe specific
instances. Science values accuracy and precision in prediction. Science
values simple models over complex ones. Science has a moral taboo about
lying and falsifying data. Beyond these intellectual values science must
even be concerned with social values such as cooperation and giving credit
to others when you use their research or ideas.
We have been misled by SOM into thinking that science rejects all values.
Science only rejects the biological value of emotions and the social value
of prejudice, and it is right to do so for the good of the higher moral
values of intellectual freedom and truth.
Though any morality including the morality of science is without objective
basis, that doesnıt make social moral codes any less legitimate than the
morality of science. Both do have a basis in Pirsig's philosophy, but the
basis is not objective. It is Quality which is neither a subject nor an
object.
It would be absurd to try to use scientific objectivity to sort out social
issues of morality. The morality of science only has to do with science.
Science canıt provide an answer, for example, to the debate of when human
life begins because science has no value of humanity and can give no
definition of humanity. Science canıt tell us whether it is right or wrong
for a government to use capitol punishment. It canıt tell us that a person
is any better than a dog or a rock, or that life is any better than death.
But that doesnıt mean that there arenıt real distinctions to be made, itıs
just that science canıt make them because its own morality includes
remaining neutral on such issues.
To pose these questions in scientific terms is like asking a calculator if
the number 6 any better than the number 23. The SOM scientist is prone to
making the mistake in reasoning that if science canıt find the value in
something, then it has no value, if science canıt determine itıs purpose, it
doesnıt have one, while scienceıs own morality and purpose forbid it from
even considering such questions.
> And so where are we? We can choose to place the pursuit of money as a goal
> or we can pursue thrills or dedicate ourselves to the service of others or
> be hedonists. Science does not have an opinion on these choices.
>
> And so we are left to choose whatever comes into our head. Is there a
> standard by which we can decide what path to go for? Does ZMM give a hint or
> clue on this matter? If it did, I missed it.
I don't think ZAMM does much in directing our values, but it opens the door
and provides a philosophical basis for intellectuals to begin talking about
values. In Lila, Pirsig describes a moral hierarchy.
Regards,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 16:14:34 GMT