Re: Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Fraynâs âCopenhagenâ

[Bandwraith at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/2/02 9:38:04 AM, fqmorris at hotmail.com writes:

>>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?<<

I think that the knowledge generated by the scientific
method (ideally) is an attempt by humans to avoid the
pitfalls of "self-involvement," i.e., belief systems which
pre-define what is permitted, e.g., the earth is the
center of the universe, because Aristotle said so, there-
fore, observations must be made to conform to that.

Your question seems more concerned with being than
knowing, per se. That is, is it better, morally, to be 
ignorant than to possess knowledge, be it accurate
or not. But I don't think there is a clear divide between
being and knowing. That is, I think, even for the simplest
life-forms, being implies knowledge of something, even
if only how to reproduce. So some knowledge is essential.
 
>>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?<<

Do you recall where that passage was? I would like to
review it's context.

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

But scientific knowledge invites falsifiability, by anyone
who can show that it is inconsistent. That is how it 
attempts to achieve "neutrality," the source of its
great explanatory power. Ideally, it is only theoretical-
good only until a more consistent theory comes along.

Is such an attempt to objectively describe the universe
and all it contains morally neutral? If so, and if the
knowledge so generated leads inexorably to a true
description of reality, doesn't that imply that the 
universe as a whole is morally neutral, not to mention,
uncaring?

regards