SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:21AM
Firstly even though I'm not a fan of Star Trek in general (or rather I am but not to the extent a lot of people are. I pretty much just like TNG.) even I know that Spock was meant to be the guy who like other Vulcans says that they evolved beyond emotion into pure logic but then turn around and have outbursts way bigger than any human. It was meant specifically to show that they weren't devoid of all emotion and that it's impossible to truly be. That's just the bullshit as far as lore goes though.
The real bullshit is this idea that because scientists know and acknowledge the nature of emotion they're somehow less fulfilled in life than the next bible thumper. I can pretty much disprove that just by virtue of existing. I've found so much more fulfillment and quality of life in science than I ever did trying to treat the nature of the universe and emotion as something it wasn't when I was religious. And frankly if someone acts like knowing the nature of emotions at a low level is a bad thing they're probably not very good scientists in the first place.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 16 2014, @08:33AM
Chill, Lagg, it's just the Pon Farr! It will be over soon.