Morally Neutral Knowledge

[Joseph Tracy]

> [Original Message]
> From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at earthlink.net>
> To: owen j mcgrann <owen at sardonic201.net>; <pynchon-l at waste.org>;
<fqmorris at hotmail.com>; <Bandwraith at aol.com>
 > Date: 10/3/2002 1:13:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Morally Neutral Knowledge (was: Fra ynâs  âCopenhagenâ
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > [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.



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