Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Fra yn�s �Copenhagen�

[Joseph Tracy]

> [Original Message]
> From: owen j mcgrann <owen at sardonic201.net>
> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>; <fqmorris at hotmail.com>; <Bandwraith at aol.com>
 > Date: 10/2/2002 11:30:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Fra ynâs  âCopenhagenâ
>
> 
> 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

         JT  this is my 2nd try at posting here
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?  (This is at least as difficult as trying to define the
boundary between 
"my world' and the real world.) 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 lead 
us, in any sure way,  to a true description of reality?

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