Son of Moses suggests a new thread following on from the one about evolution, which is as he says getting long. He writes:
Science, its validity, its limitations: a real subject for discussion, and at the root of so many of the concerns expressed in this blog ... Perhaps I could kick off the subject by being deliberately provocative and saying that the only way that Advaita manages to include all views is by a system of relative validity. On that scale, science is only one up from the evidence of the senses. It is a very culture-bound view of things and is given far too much credence by our contemporary world. It only manages to be ‘a public and shared endeavour’, as you put it, by inhabiting the lowest common denominator of understanding. A truer science would accept other modes of knowing, and yes we are debating the wonderful subject of epistemology, the science concerning the valid ways of knowing, a subject the Tradition takes very seriously but which is seldom debated within the School, surely a sign of the latter's limitations.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Science - the lowest common denominator?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Kevin said (from previous post): "In the past an alchemist might try to discover the philosopher's stone, ...the secret of how to go about it would be jealously guarded.
The reasons for the 'jealously guarded' may be different to how one may envisage. One of the interpretations of the serpent in the garden of Eden story is of one with 'higher' knowledge making it available to those not yet ready to use it responsibly. Science seeks only what is possible and gives no thought to how the resulting technology will be used. Result: atomic bombs, ecological disaster, corporate greed feeding off of keeping as many people distracted with materialistic forms of entertainment as possible, spiritual poverty etc etc.
I read Peter Marshall's book "The Philosophers Stone" a while back which was a study of the alchemical tradition. In this he speaks to several modern "alchemists" or "natural philosophers". One suggested that "discoveries" such as atomic energy and the internal combustion engine should have been protected as the consequences of mis-measured use would be disasterous to all. Similarly on reading the Tibetan Book of Living & Dying recently, there is an account of a Tibetan Leonardo who invented a clock and a cannon then destroyed them, deducing that they would lead to nothing but further distraction and not help man in any way. I don't think science, as it stands, is capable of making that kind of decision at all.
And the irony of that is, even if you cared not at all for morality it's actually bad science. There is a "black box" view of things where we believe we can look at eg, an internal combustion engine in isolation. It's input - petrol vapour and it's output - torque, power are all that was originally considered. But there is no such things as "black box". Everything has universal consequences. The "input" also includes the economic, social, political, environmental impacts of oil extraction, processing, transportation etc. The "outputs" are similarly pollution, respiratory disease, congestion, road rage etc etc. Again spiritual poverty as people try to attain the mirage they see on TV of the man driving a convertable down an empty road complete with glacier and concubine. One could argue science isn't to blame for the misuse of its discoveries but then who is? Shouldn't the discoverer consider the consequences of his discovery? Though, no doubt, the intent is for money or fame that can result from the discovery rather than any genuine consideration of what is actually of service to the whole.
Well, this is getting interesting. So, Kapila, do I understand you right that:
- alchemists were like a kind of 'spiritual scientist' who COULD have invented electricity, dynamite, etc, but DIDN'T only because such inventions would have harmed the world?
- science is partly to blame for all or most of the ills of the present day?
What about Isaac Newton? He was an alchemist and a scientist. When he discovered the universal law of gravity, was he being a 'bad' scientist? And when he boiled horse urine with sulphur in a pentagram, that was his true calling?
There's no doubt that there have been adverse consequences of science, and that the philosophy of science is limited at best. And I am not attacking alchemy, although I think it was somewhat disreputable and decadent, even among 'alternative' approaches ... I believe the alchemists would have abused their powers, if they had any. But my response to technology-generated issues is to address them. Philosophically and scientifically. We go forward and not back.
Luddism doesn't help - not least because it attempts to go against the great stream of human desire. Impossible; and also unlawful, because it denies creativity and invention, the first fruits of the intellect.
I'm slightly surprised by this view of science. I came to the School as an ex-scientist (if there is such a thing) and one thing that attracted me was the emphasis on what I saw as a 'scientific approach' to the evening's material : don't accept or reject what's said, test it for yourself, then come back with your observations next week (if you remember, hur hur..)
The science of science is based on observation, hypothesis, testing by observation, formulation of a theory of law, testing this by observation and further research...
I grant that scientists (though not all those at the top of the profession) tend to think they've achieved something deep, when they've simply found a new application for an established law with this wonderful human mind -- but when I hear or read a headline 'Scientists are near to discovering the origin of the universe' I don't fall on my knees in gratitude...
I'd support more 'scientific thinking', inside and outside (excuse the phrase) the School. All power to the wonderful human mind and its ingenuity.. (Now where did that mind come from ? Scientists, can you help here ?)
In honour of my least favourite scientist, I am thinking of entering for the Word of Mouth Radio 4 competition to invent a new word. Here it is:
Dawk verb, to present an emotional argument as if it were based on logic. EG "I dawked at him until he threw his Bible at me"; "He appeared to be making sense, but in reality it was just dawking".
Kevin, perhaps the unlearned Professor was born to dawk the issue ?
In reply to Kevin's earlier note. I'm not making a case for alchemy, just drawing the distinction about discovery of knowledge and how it is applied. The "sorcerer's apprentice" analogy just seems to fit the scientific situation as well. Forces are set in motion by the under-qualified magician and he doesn't have the power or knowledge to stop them.
I'm personally not anti-technology. (I'd hardly be contributing to a blog on the net would I?) but it all seems so back to front to me. If we start by asking "what is the real need?" then let the solution arise, I'm sure it would be fine. But it doesn't seem to be primarily driven by this?
There is a charity that used to be called ITDG (now Practical Action). They come up with brilliant low-tech solutions to Third World problems. Technology that is cheap, easily maintained at point of use etc. What do we usually see? Highly paid consultants recommend high-tech solutions that keep Western business in lucrative maintenance contracts? Is that progress?
All of this is down to intent. Science/technology is not moral or immoral it's amoral. But if you start creating means to greater power whilst people are still driven by greed, desire, hatred, egotism etc then you are just giving them more efficient means of expressing those things. I'm not saying that's the whole picture, clearly the opposite is also possible. I just think the belief that science in itself is making things better is erroneous.
Kevin said: "Luddism doesn't help - not least because it attempts to go against the great stream of human desire. Impossible; and also unlawful, because it denies creativity and invention, the first fruits of the intellect."
This sounds rather like the fatalistic, "things run down" argument from earlier? Evolve technologically perhaps, but run down spiritually as we move from inner content and simplicity to seeking "things" to satisfy us. So one could argue that creativity and invention are largely born out of inner discontent? Then we remain increasingly locked outwards? But this comes down to intent again, a creative solution to a need is one thing. Endless manifestation of desire driven distractions is another.
Your statement also hits upon a continuing question for me, namely: use and definition of the word "intellect". Topic for another post I think.
"From (Descartes) time onwards, matter was regarded as mass and extension. The result of this was that men sought to percieve all spatial, and finally all sensibly perceived qualities in a purely quantitative way. In a certain respect this is possible, namely, in so far as it may be of advantage in a science exclusively devoted to the outward manipulation of things."
~ Titus Burckhardt
Kapila,
I suppose that I would draw a distinction between science and technology. I don't think the word 'amoral' is right, exactly, because it suggests something negative. Mathematics is 'amoral' but really you could say it's neutral, in the same way that the sky or the sea are neutral. Morality is not the point.
Titus Burckhardt's statement is correct with regard to Descartes and his preoccupation with the manipulation of the natural world, but not necessarily fair of science as a whole. I remember when I was at school and was first introduced to calculus (the 'peaches and cream' of maths according to Turing) and it was like a light going on. It expressed for me something about the nature of understanding and learning, how what is at first impossibly complex and subtle becomes clear and straightforward ... but there is at the same time an unknowable remainder, representing the cost of conceptualizing things.
I'm afraid that most people won't get what I'm saying - mathematicians or not! But there is a beauty in pure science that anti-scientists must never have known, or they couldn't be so sweeping.
Also, Descartes and Bacon saw themselves as proponents of a 'useful' science that would make the lot of man better as opposed to earlier science that had hardly done anything to help ordinary people. The example of medicine is a good one - in Descartes' day you would probably be better steering clear of doctors altogether, with their bloodletting, humours and mercury treatments. Today, after Jennings, Pasteur, Fleming, etc, we have medicine that has undoubtedly prolonged human life. PLEASE don't anyone deny this - life expectancy in this country is double what it was then.
The point about the intellect is a good one. Maybe for another post, but there is no doubt that a gulf exists between Plato's concept of reason, and Descartes's. The ancient concept is quasi-mystical ... the modern one not at all. The ancient one is much more inspiring, but the modern one is much more effective.
I think that my view would be that the effectiveness of science does not mean that it is 'bad' or in itself lacking. It is just a very sharp scalpel, unique in the history of man. It's a tool, in the way that Platonic reason is not. Do you require such a tool? That's the only question that matters.
As you say, Kapila, we're using a cutting-edge technological tool right now, and that doesn't harm the soul.
Kevin
Yes, I take the point about the difference between technology and the 'pure' science but I still have a problem...
The point about 'bad science' from earlier was to do with reductionism (maybe this is Descartian but whatever it is, it is widespread). We think we can draw a box around a certain area to study. But this way of thinking is 'blind' to universals (ie, that outside of the box). I used to subscribe to Time magazine a few years back. Each week they would have a table which listed 'the good news' and 'the bad news'. The list referred to various scientific studies regarding health. What became obvious to me after a while was:
-one week it would say, "studies show that drinking more tea leads to increased chance of getting x disease'
-next week it would say, "studies show that drinking more tea leads to decreased chance of getting y disease'
We hear the same kind of thing on the news continuously.
I'm sure all of these studies were performed with scientific exactitude but they amount to collective confusion. Because the whole is not seen and it wont be seen analytically. The whole will be seen holistically and intuitively. James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis goes some way towards this. It's interesting to see how he marries scientific analysis back into a holistic view of things. I personally feel this is what is desperately needed. I'm inclined to compile an analysis(!) of these 'Time' type studies to just demonstrate the collective confusion being created in the average man. In many ways the (pseudo-)scientists have become the new high priests and people believe them because of their trust in 'authorities who sound confident'. In doing this they deny their own instinctive/intuitive knowledge.
Have a good Xmas!
Kapila,
Your point about Time mag is right, but what you're actually looking at is not science or even pseudo-science, but journalists attempting to make stories out of scientific studies. Usually they don't have the training or the motivation to understand what the study says, they're just looking for a headline. The studies may be flawed or valid, but it's impossible to tell that from reading second-hand accounts. I'm not a scientist, but this is what my wife tells me from her research.
James Lovelock made this point in a different way recently when he spoke about his scientific career. He says that all scientists should make their own instruments, so that they understand what is being measured. The mediation of other people's technology creates an illusion of truth, when in fact it is second hand information.
If Lovelock interests you, have you read Teilhard de Chardin? He was probably the originator of the hypothesis that the earth should be seen as a single being, but he is far more mystical and thoroughgoing in his exploration of the spiritual implications. He used to be popular in the School long ago, Vamana informs me. If you happen to be at Mandeville for the study day on 7th Jan I am doing a presentation on his work ...
Happy Christmas!
Some may be interested in a transcript of a conversation between the physicist David Bohm and Krishnamurti which is available online:
http://tuljo.store20.com/krishnamurti/the_future_of_humanity/the_future_of_humanity.html
Excerpt:
DB: … I have asked myself," Would I go into science again?"
JK: Yes.
DB: And, I am not at all certain now because science does not seem to be relevant to this crisis.
***
DB: You see, one of the ideas might be, if you compare with science, that people might think, although their knowledge is limited they are constantly discovering,
JK: What you discover is added to, but is still limited.
DB: It is still limited. That's the point. I can keep on; I think one of the ideas behind a scientific approach is that, though knowledge is limited, I can discover and keep up with the actuality.
JK: But that is also limited.
DB: My discoveries are limited. And there is always the unknown which I have not discovered.
JK: That is what I am saying. The unknown, the limitless, cannot be captured by thought.
***
DB: But many people might feel that the basic things are the highest achievements of man. For one thing, people may feel proud of man's achievement in science and art and culture and technology.
JK: We have achieved in all those directions, certainly. In technology, communication, travel, medicine, surgery, we have advanced tremendously.
DB: Yes, it is really remarkable in many ways.
JK: There is no question about it. But what have we psychologically achieved?
DB: None of this has affected us psychologically.
JK: Yes, that's right.
DB: And the psychological question is more important than any of the others, because if the psychological question is not cleared up the rest is dangerous.
JK: Yes. If we are psychologically limited, then whatever we do will be limited, and the technology will the be used by our limited...
DB: ...yes, the master is this limited psyche, and not the rational structure of technology. And in fact technology then becomes a dangerous instrument.
Wise words, it seems ... and yet, they are still using the language of science - ie "psychology" - as if it were (in their hands) something beyond science. So where does that leave us? It's not really advancing the discussion.
I have just started reading "Flow" by Czikszentmihalyi (that's "Cheeks Sent Me High"), which is a book of psychology on how to achieve happiness. One thing that strikes me about it is that the author's point of view (25 years old) is already rather dated. EG He says very dogmatically that religion is only a temporary solution to our problems. Another scientist in the same field, Jonathan Haidt, writing in 2005, takes a far more conciliatory view.
Science is learning and changing ... but some of its opponents are not. That, for me, suggests that science may eventually subsume the virtues of religion, and not the other way around. The living adapts and absorbs the energy of the ossified.
It is surprising that we haven't defined our terms so far.
My understanding of science comes from Karl Popper, who says that its special characteristic is that it makes hypotheses that can be disproved. EG "All swans are white" would have been true until the discovery of Australia. The first black swan disproved that hypothesis, allowing for a more refined hypothesis.
A friend of mine says that at university he was told that science:
(a) observes
(b) controls
(c) predicts
Observation of phenomena, control of the observation so that external factors are eliminated as much as possible, and prediction of what should happen if the hypothesis drawn from the experiment is true.
This seems to me to give us a pretty good methodology for establishing a common understanding for all humanity.
What does anyone think about being in the School of Economic 'Science'? Is it just a name, or more than that?
More on the theory ofevolution.
I am helping a new friend write a book about the possible resolution between modern science and theology.
He begins with an account of conventional evolutionary theory, explaining that when we hear a bird sing we would be mistaken if we assumed that this is some kind of joyful or magnificent occurrence. No, it is merely an assertion of territorial rights, or maybe an attempt to attract a female for the propagation of selfish genes.
So, please comment on the following.
a) A bird utters sounds (interpreted by ourselves in our sentimental ignorance as beautiful, divine etc.) merely so as to let other birds know that they should not intrude on its territory.
b) Mozart writes a mass merely to earn cash.
Yes, I am not denying that on one level this is true. But is there any difference between these two acts?
Yes, you say (possibly), there is a difference. It is this: unlike Herr Mozart, the bird is not able consciously to express anything (which leads to interesting speculations about the special nature of the human being, but let’s leave that till later).
But I say that the joy of the Creator is expressing itself through the bird just the same, and through everything else too. That is what creation is for. It is a vast song of praise.
If this, or something like it, is so, are not the territorial and survival issues necessary only so that the play may be kept on the road so that its message may be heard by those with ears to hear?
To try to lead others into the barren and joyless outlook of evolutionary reductionism is, I believe, a spiritual crime.
Yet I do no see how this is to be avoided if the conventional evolutional doctrine is propogated.
Discuss.
Maybe this could begin a new 'thread', since this sutra sequence is getting rather long.
It's an old name which, for some reason, hasn't been updated.
In a (much) earlier post it was pointed out that the Rules of the Fellowship of the School state:
'1. Objects
The objects of the Fellowship are:
(1) To promote the study of natural laws governing the relations between men in society and all studies related thereto and to promote the study of the laws customs and practices by which communities are governed and all studies related thereto.'
The subsequent objects in the Rules amplify and define rule 1.
After reading that earlier post about the AGM of the Fellowship at which a question was asked on the continuing relevance of object 1 (standing on its own, as it were)I obtained a copy of the Rules. The quote given above is correctly transcribed from the Rules.
I do not know why the objects of the School, as given in the Rules, have not been changed to take into account the philosophical purpose and function of the School.
Post a Comment