As
we attempt to build a moral system we can all try to live by, we need to look
for a way of thinking about thinking and knowing that is deeper and 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 from empiricism, not just in degree but in kind.
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 enormous world views or theories.
They even had their own “sciences,” dictating 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 to base 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. They claimed
this was the way of the world, and it must be so. Hiter’s team were gambling,
confidently, that in that struggle, the Aryans, with the Germans in the front
ranks, would win.
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. If people
calmly and clearly look at the evidence of history, they can 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. According to the
Nazis, this was merely a logical consequence of accepting the survival-of-the-fittest
rule that governs life.
Hitler’s
ideas about race and 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 Werner Heisenberg, chemists like Otto Hahn,
and biologists like Ernst Lehmann becoming willing tools of Nazism is not so
much that they became Hitler’s puppets, but that their life philosophy as
scientists did not equip them to break free of the Nazis’ 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 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 grandchildren, 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—that is, a moral code. Empiricism as base for the
moral code project simply does not inspire confidence.
Is
there something else to which we might turn?
Notes
1. “Lysenkoism,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Accessed April 1, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism.
2.
Rudolf Carnap, The Logical Structure of
the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy (Peru, IL: Carus Publishing, 2003).
3. Willard
V.O. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” reprinted in Human Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary Approaches, ed. Paul
Moser and Arnold Vander Nat (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995), p.
255.
4.
Hilary Putnam, “Why Reason Can’t Be Naturalized,” reprinted in Human Knowledge, ed. Moser and Vander
Nat, p. 436.
5.
John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding (Glasgow: William Collins, Sons and Co., 1964), p. 90.
6.
Donelson E. Delany, “What Should Be the Roles of Conscious States and Brain States
in Theories of Mental Activity?” PMC Mens
Sana Monographs 9, No. 1 (2011): 93–112. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115306/.
7.
Antti Revonsuo, “Prospects for a Scientific Research Program on Consciousness,”
in Neural Correlates of Consciousness:
Empirical and Conceptual Questions, ed. Thomas Metzinger (Cambridge, MA,
& London, UK: The MIT Press, 2000), pp. 57–76.
8.
William Baum, Understanding Behaviorism:
Behavior, Culture, and Evolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005).
9. Tom
Meltzer, “Alan Turing’s Legacy: How Close Are We to ‘Thinking’ Machines?” The Guardian, June 17, 2012.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/17/alan-turings-legacy-thinking-machines.
10. Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York, NY: Basic
Books, 1999).
11. “Halting
Problem,” Wikipedia, the Free
Encyclopedia.
Accessed April 1, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem.
12. Alva Noë and Evan Thompson, “Are There Neural
Correlates of Consciousness?” Journal of Consciousness
Studies 11, No. 1 (2004), pp. 3–28.
http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/ccs/NoeThompson2004AreThereNccs.pdf.
13.
Richard K. Fuller and Enoch Gordis, “Does Disulfiram Have a Role in Alcoholism
Treatment Today?” Addiction 99, No. 1
(Jan. 2004), pp. 21–24. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2004.00597.x/full.
14.
“Nazi Human Experimentation,” Wikipedia,
the Free Encyclopedia.
Accessed April 1, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What are your thoughts now? Comment and I will reply. I promise.