Posted on 10/28/2006 3:22:14 PM PDT by betty boop
I'm going to like this article, thanks for posting it.
I suppose you could see it that way. I myself am put off with this altar status of amorality and content neutrality bit floating around nowadays. They push it in the courts, you know. I don't trust it, no, not at all.
To put it straight, there is no science without thought. We do science. We think it. No thought, no science. Remember your old Latin, scientia. It means knowledge. In a real way, science is the scientia of the human person. And isn't the human person a moral being? When knowledge is thought to be amoral, I think there is a serious misunderstanding. It begins to bifurcate or life, to split it. And then we become alienated from the world we know we loved.
This problem is related to the fact-value distinction that is raised in the article (not to mention the fact-value-truth distinction).
So what do you mean then, by saying it is amoral? It sounds as if science is a Mr. or Mrs. who is exempt.
The three great nineteenth century exponents of what was to become the Hermeneutics of Suspicion were Darwin, Marx, and Freud.
All of them had some interesting things to say, even Marx. But they all thought that everything could be explained by their "scientific" systems, and they were wrong about that.
Marx has been discredited among sensible people, but he is still immensely influential in academia. Freud also has been generally discredited. Darwin is still holding on by his fingernails, largely with the strategic help of activist judges, who remember the famous Scopes trial and think they are manning the barriers against ignorance and superstition.
Not very democratic. Darwinists have a natural tendency to believe that they belong to a superior race of beings, higher up the evolutionary scale than the rest of us. Freudians, too. Anyone who questioned their theories was "hostile." Therefore, like good Marxists or Freudians, Darwinists think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to think, and more especially how to brainwash our children.
Yes, you are right. "Science" means knowledge, and only took on a more particular meaning, previously denoted by the term "natural philosophy," in the late Renaissance.
Pope Benedict has been pointing out the dangers of splitting rational thought from religion. Ultimately, it is theology and philosophy that lay the groundwork for science, and when scientists casually dismiss this ancient, hard-won knowledge, they are cutting away the very foundations of their work.
"Amoral" in this sense refers to value-free situations, making it a synonym of "nonmoral" (neither moral nor immoral).
For example, physics would be an amoral discipline, neither moral nor immoral in itself. However, isn't there an ethical code attached to the practice of each discipline? And when this ethical code is breached, isn't the science therein in danger of becoming "perverted" science?
Nevertheless, philosophy should encompass science and religion, both at the same time. This can be done, or a move can be made in that direction if we realize that philosophy itself has been a process in evolution. There is a Cartesian dualism of some kind, at least that of subjective and objective, or private and public. Science deals with public matters and religion with private to some degree. A cause is something that if present will have the same result every time--the basis of science. Morality is the power to choose, and ethics has come to mean making legal choices where the law itself is bifurcating partially from logic as the ethics of the community mature. These distinctions were not always present but are being evolved morally--by us.
Yes, Cicero is right. Absolutely right. And for the exact reasons you cite.
May God ever help his struggling children.
Thank you ever so much for your reply, dear cornelis!
I agree. It is a way of thinking that dictates what science is.
This means that even though a particular science restricts itself to particular objects (as betty boop says, "science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical"), scientific thinking is not neutral with respect to the very position it takes to dictate its method and object.
So my dearest friend hosepipe, when did you decide to be given over to the proposition of "moral equivalency" in arguments that purport to deal with essential Truth?
Honestly, dear friend, you have perplexed me greatly in recent times.... I just don't know where you're coming from. Please clear up this mystery?
Nice to see you on 'my' side of this issue Betty..
Our Constitution is based on an unscientific philosophy of human ideas & principles, -- principles that most of us can agree are 'natural laws'.
At one point Nancy noted:
" --- The expansion of the "fact" realm into theology can be traced in the work of scientists such as Harvard's E.O. Wilson, who seeks to explain religion itself as a product of evolution.
Religion is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when the nervous system has evolved to a certain level of complexity.
In Consilience, Wilson says religion evolved because belief in God gave early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. --"
I have no doubt that Wilson is right about the fact that about our beliefs in a 'Golden Rule' gave us an "edge in survival" ..
-- But to claim that these beliefs are "merely an idea" is belied by his own reasoning. -- Political freedom is a necessary precursor to scientific freedom - to my way of thinking.
Without the golden rules of religions, our freedom to pursue science could never have grown past those of pagan Greek & Rome.
And so your point, gcruse, would be...????
Some of us are wisening up here. The facts are a liars best defense. Not to get up in a snit, but why point out the amorality of science? Is it an excuse? To me it sounds like license.
Another great read, Cicero. Right on the money. Please keep up your good work.
Thank you so very much for the cites, megatherium! You have my undying gratitude.
It would be better, thinking of contemporary usage, to say non-moral rather than amoral in this case. Amoral has other baggage, while non-moral is baggage-free.
Amen to that, dear tpaine! Though Greece and Rome did provide important initial foundation for the quest that was to follow....
It's so good to see you again!!! It's been a long time, too long....
Maybe TasmanianRed was merely showing us how easy it is for scientists to put their individual philosophy into their work.
The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth is not merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence isn't "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg).
On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for scientific discovery.
It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..
We'll see if it's safe here. -- Thanks for the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.