Chapter 3. Part H
As we attempt to build a moral system that we
are all going to try to live by, we need to look for a way of thinking about
thinking and knowing that is deeper, is based on stronger logic: a way of
thinking about thinking that we can believe in profoundly. We need a new model
of human thinking, one built around a core philosophy that is different, not
just in degree but in kind, from Empiricism.
Empiricism’s disciples have achieved some
impressive results in the practical sphere, but then again, for a while, in
their times, so did the followers of medieval Christianity, Communism, Nazism, and
several other giant world views/theories. They even had their own “sciences”.
They dictated in detail what their scientists should study and what they should
conclude from their studies.
Perhaps the most disturbing examples are the
Nazis. They claimed that they based their ideology on Empiricism and Science.
In their propaganda films, and in all academic and public discourse, they
preached a warped form of Darwinian evolution that enjoined and exhorted all
nations, German or non-German, to go to war, seize territory, and exterminate
or enslave all competitors -- if they could. This was, they claimed, the way of
the world, and it must be so.
Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler
"In eternal warfare, mankind has
become great; in eternal peace, mankind would be ruined." (Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”)
Such a view of human existence, they claimed,
was not cruel or cynical. It was simply built on a mature and realistic
acceptance of the truths of Science. Adults, if they calmly and clearly look at
the evidence of history, see that war always comes. Mature, realistic adults
learn and practice the arts of war, assiduously in times of peace, and
ruthlessly in times of war. This was, according to the Nazis, merely a logical
consequence of accepting the “survival of the fittest” rule that governs life.
Hitler’s ideas of “race”, and thus his ideas
about how the model of Darwinian evolution could be applied to humans, were,
from the viewpoint of the real science of Genetics, largely unsupported. But in
the Third Reich, this was never acknowledged.
Werner Heisenberg
The disturbing thing about physicists like
Heisenberg, chemists like Hahn, biologists like Lehmann, and even medical researchers like Mengele becoming willing
tools of Nazism is not so much that they became the tools that they did, but
that their whole life philosophy as scientists did not equip them to break free
of the Nazi's distorted version of "Science". Their religions failed
them, but clearly, in moral terms, Science failed them too.
Otto Hahn
There is certainly evidence in human history
to support the view that the consequences of science being misunderstood can be
horrible. Nazism became humanity’s nightmare. Some of its worst atrocities were
committed in the name of advancing
Science. (14.) For practical, evidence-based reasons, then, as well as for
theoretical reasons, millions of people around the world today have become
deeply skeptical about all “systems”, and in moral matters at least, about
scientific idea systems in particular.
At primal levels we are driven to wonder:
should we trust something as critical as the survival of our culture, our
knowledge, our children and grand-children, and even our Science itself to a
way of thinking that, in the first place, can’t explain itself, and in the
second place, has had some large and dismal practical failures in the past?
In the meantime, in this book, we must get on
with trying to build a base for a universal moral code. Reality requires that
we do so. It will not let us procrastinate. It forces us to think, choose, and
act every day, and to do these well, we need a guide, i.e. a moral code.
Empiricism as base for the moral code project just does not inspire confidence.
Is there something else to which we might
turn?
Notes
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
2. Carnap, Rudolph; “The Logical Structure of the
World and Pseudo-Problems in Philosophy”; Carus Publishing; 2003.
3. Quine, W.V.O.; “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”;
reprinted in
“Human Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary
Approaches”;
Oxford University Press; 1995; p. 255.
4. Putnam, Hilary; “Why Reason Can’t Be
Naturalized”;
ibid; p. 436.
5.Locke, John; “An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding”; William Collins Sons
and Co.;
1964; p. 90.
6.Delany, Donelson E.; “What Should Be The Roles Of
Conscious States And Brain
States In
Theories of Mental Activity”;
7.Revonsuo, Antti; “Prospects For A Scientific
Research Program On Consciousness”
on p. 57
to p. 76 of “Neural Correlates Of Consciousness: Empirical And Conceptual
8. Baum, William; “Understanding
Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution”;
Blackwell Publ.; 2005.
9. Meltzer, Thomas; “Alan Turing’s Legacy: “How
Close Are We To Thinking
Machines?”;
The Guardian, June 17, 2012.
10. Hofstader,
Douglas; “Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid”; Basic Books;
1999.
11. “Halting Problem”; Wikipedia; 2012.
12. Noe, Alva and
Evan Thompson; “Are There Neural Correlates Of
Consciousness?”; available online at
13. Fuller, Richard K.; “Does Disulfiram Have A
Role In Alcoholism Treatment Today?”;
Addiction; Jan. 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment
What are your thoughts now? Comment and I will reply. I promise.