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

[David Morris]

>From: "Joseph Tracy" <brook7 at earthlink.net>
> > From: <Bandwraith at aol.com>
> > 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?

This last sentence above makes no sense to me.  The attempt by humans to 
understand and thus to exhert some control over it (and thus these humans' 
own fate) is not about morality.  It is about survival first and security 
second.  Morals are something the universe may or may not have and which 
existence is not necesarily evidenced by the way man thinks and acts, but 
for most of the living creatures other than men on this planet a discussion 
of morals only happens in fairy tales.

>
>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.

Elegant or intellegent means a god.  Design implies a designer.

>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,

The term "revelation" means an uncovering of a secret, something that could 
not be known unless it was purposefully revealed.  Revelations are given to 
prophets.

>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?

Bucky's postulate makes a lot of sense to me.

Love,
David Morris

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com