From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 01:01:41 MDT
Damien quotes from
> www.swarthmore.edu/Humanities/hlacey1/value-free.doc
>
> The ground has now been cleared to permit us to keep at the center of
> attention the question: How should systematic empirical inquiry (science)
> be conducted and institutionalized today so as to be of greatest service to
> furthering the well-being, in all of its dimensions, of as many people as
> possible?
I consider this a political question. There will be those
who wish for science to serve the state, because to them
the state is the proper protector of mankind. Others will
endorse the free market to the exclusion what they see as
mandated or forced solutions; in such a case, science might
readily by some be perceived as more helpful to the rich.
My prejudices I will now make clear, flattering myself that
what I have just written is fairly objective, and value free.
We can either lean towards Lysenkoism, or we can lean
towards freedom and free enquiry. That's it.
> … the most important topic in the philosophy of science, the
> relation of science to human values. What contributions can
> or should science make to human well-being?
I think that we should avoid reifying science in terms
such as these. Some of the behavior that various persons
emit, such as detectives, theologians, brain surgeons,
defense planners, arms merchants, geologists might or
might not be arguably claimed to be for everyone's good.
Each is a political question. As for me, let everyone
do as he pleases, up to (but not including) punching
someone else in the nose.
> And with Kitcher:
> Reflective people … want to know whether research in
> various areas is skewed by the values of particular
> groups and, at the broadest level, how science bears
> on human flourishing.
Yes, this is certainly an interesting area, and people ought
to feel free to explore it if they wish.
> …… It has been obvious for about half a century that research
> yielding epistemic benefits may have damaging consequences for
> the individual or even the whole species.
Oh sure. Guess what the political orientation of the
speaker is? Guess what axe he has to grind. It's
annoying to read "it has been obvious" in such sentences.
Now if he had said, "to those of us on our side
of the political fence, it is obvious..." then he
would have made a value-free objectively true
sentence. But that would be out of character for
certain people like that author. These people are
the same ones, IMO, who insist that objectivity
is impossible.
And Damien himself writes
> I would say more strongly: Science (and history, etc) must be appraised,
> not only for the cognitive value of its theoretical products but for the
> biases, metaphysical/ideological presuppositions, and interests inevitably
> implicit in its production, marketing and reception.
I worry that there is more baleful reification of *science*
here than is probably prudent. But yes, inquiry into the
presuppositions and interests has to be quite valuable.
I disagree with "inevitably implicit" however. Was science
(if I dast reify it) the same under the Nazis as under the
Soviets? Was it the same then as in the West today, or
in China today?
I'll say that I won't think of it quite so abstractly, and
point out that the activities of Chinese scientists can
be expected to increase the longevity of neural tissue
of people in some regards, while other activity of other
Chinese scientists probably is harmful to humans. These
questions are inseparable from politics and philosophy,
but the "science itself"? It seems to me that the search
for scientific truths can be as honest and noble as the
search for historical truths, and that those truths
*themselves* are value free.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:27 MST