Re: Morally Nuetral Knowledge (was: Fraynâs âCopenhagenâ

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/1/02 5:02:29 PM, fqmorris at hotmail.com writes:

<< It could be that such knowledge is a dirty secret and that such knowledge 
is 
inherently corrupting.  This is the essence of the Garden of Eden story.  
Ignorance is bliss.  In such a world "scientific knowledge (e.g., quantum 
mechanics)" is not morally neutral, since it was supposed to be kept secret.

Was there another way you meant this question to be understood?
 >>

Well, yes. I guess. But the question, of course, imples
the rather quaint construct of a "knower," and by default,
in this case, a human. That category, it would seem, is
never morally neutral, inspite of the best efforts of
particular scientists to be so. So, the second implication
of the question is whether what is meant by scientific
knowledge is as close to a neutral description of reality
as humans can get, by applying the much touted "scientific
method," which goes to great lengths to be "objective."

It's an ideal, I suppose- an attempt to gather, as much as
possible, a morally neutral description of the universe 
and everything in it. It has led to great power, no doubt,
at least in the short run. It has been expensive but
useful, and therefore, has elbowed all  attempts to 
describe the universe, which are apriori "tainted" with
a moral slant, to the margins.

But it has failed, finally, to prove that what "is" actually
out there, is morally neutral. The best of scientific
thinking attempts to remain neutral with respect to
that final question.

regards