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

[Joseph Tracy]

> [Original Message]
> From: <Bandwraith at aol.com>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>; <fqmorris at hotmail.com>
 > Date: 10/2/2002 6:52:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Fraynâs âCopenhagenâ
>

> 
> 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

My problem with this traditional view of the efficacy of 
the scientific method in confirming larger philosophical issues
has to do with the immeasurableness of certain critical aspects of
the universe, specifically consciousness, and elegant  or intelligent
 design. As far as consciousness, what are the boundaries between life
 and non-life? Because if the universe is inherently and universally 
conscious, no matter how logical the workings of things, ultimate 
knowledge of the essential philosophic, and moral issues we cope with 
may be unapproachable by scientific means alone, and if the universe 
is inherently and essentially dead things falling apart, where did all 
these flowers come from? As far as design, and 
intelligence I think Bucky Fuller may have come up with one of the most 
important postulates of the last century when he suggested that intelligence
 or consciousness is anti-entropic. Unprovable? If so how can science tell 
us in any sure way, lead to a true description of reality?    


--- Joseph Tracy
--- brook7 at earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.