Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Fra ynâs âCopenhagenâ

[owen j mcgrann]

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?<<

perhaps a more accurate formulation would be: the "knower", the subject, 
transforms the world or transforms knowledge.  we can theoretically posit 
some objective world out there, but the issue i think you are getting at is 
that we can never experience that objective world as anything other than 
*my* world.  as soon as i experience this theoretical objective world i 
interpret it - i can have no uninterpreted understanding of the 
world.  heidegger calls this the hermeneutical loop.  i always already have 
some type of fore-knowledge of the world and interpret accordingly.  so i 
think we find that the problem is not whether there is objectivity, but 
whether it is possible for a human being to have any morally-neutral or 
objective knowledge is, i find, highly doubtful.

would it be better to stay ignorant?  perhaps, but that's the joke.  if you 
know enough to ask that question you no longer have that 
possibility.  *you* will never know; and the ignorant will never really 
*know* either, will they?

Bandwraith at aol.com writes:
>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?

true, this may be the intention of science - a progressive and open system 
which invites constant revision, etc. - but there have been many 
philosophers who have challenged this, most notably thomas kuhn in _The 
Structure of Scientific Revolutions_.  what he asserts (and exquisitely so) 
is that science is by no means any objective pursuit, that is intrinsically 
subjective, and the claim for the amorality of the scientific method is 
nothing but a harmful myth.

just a few thoughts...


- owen