Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the green-skinned-dancing-metaphors dept.

Alva Noë has an interesting piece on NPR about how some scientists, and cultural defenders of science, like to think of themselves as free of prejudice and superstition, as moved by reason alone and a clear-eyed commitment to fact and the scientific method. "I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek," writes Noë. "I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior."

According to Noë, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, Spockians give science a bad name because if you think of science as being in the business of figuring out how atoms spinning noiselessly in the void give rise to the illusion that there are such things as love, humor, sunsets and knuckleballs, then it isn't surprising that people might come to think that the inner life of a scientist would be barren. "The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value. What we need, then, is a Kirkian understanding of science and its place in our lives. The world, for Captain Kirk and his ontological followers, is a field of play, and science is a form of action."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:09AM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:09AM (#93811)

    "I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free..."

    It's always easier to make your point if you allow yourself the lattitude to re-define words arbitrarily. Because "logical, purely rational, detached, and value-free" is pretty much EXACTLY what science is (or, at least, strives to be).

    Belittling the definition of the word as a "misconception" is a convenient way to always be "right." It's easy to win an argument when you get to decide what words mean.

    Fortunately for TFA, no one's ever claimed language was logical or rational.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:47AM (#93892)

    > "logical, purely rational, detached, and value-free" is pretty much EXACTLY what science is (or, at least, strives to be).

    Don't be silly - papers are written by people, people are morons (irrational, attached, prejudiced). Science can't strive for anything as it is an abstract notion.

  • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:29PM

    by JeanCroix (573) on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:29PM (#93985)

    It's easy to win an argument when you get to decide what words mean.

    From what I recall of just about every conversation I ever had with philosophy majors when I was in school, that is their standard operation procedure.

    • (Score: 1) by hendrikboom on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:04PM

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:04PM (#94196) Homepage Journal

      And often the philosopher finds that several different plausible definitions of a word yield completely different answers to an important question.