Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Frayn�s �Copenhagen�

[David Morris]

>From: 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.
>
>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.

OK, but my point was about the nature of knowledge:  Is it in itself morally 
neutral, or does it somehow transform the knower?  Would it be better to 
stay ignorant, and if so is that due to a flaw in the knower?  ALL knowers?  
In GR Pynchon calls the scientific method (with the stand-in for that 
concept being film/calculus dissection of life's continuous flow) a 
"pornography," a term that is clearly not neutral.  But what are the 
implications of that judgmental term on the nature of man and knowledge?

>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."

"Scientific knowledge" has often been wrong, but that doesn't necessarily 
void the question.  Wrong knowledge is no less neutral than "correct" 
knowledge.

David Morris

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx