Previous in thread
Next in thread

Hi, Danyeke and all.

It's hard to express affinity for science among non-scientists, but I find that most of the descent to science meaningfulness comes from people who've had very little contact with science and are therefore intimidated by it. My friend Robert claimed it robbed people of spirituality and nature of beauty -- until he found that evolution made sense and that it was grand. He didn't like trigonometry or geology, but, eventually, he found science less frightening and we no longer arm wrestle about whether there can be insight for our spirit in the way nature orders itself and goes about its varied business.

Could anyone who knows how DNA works not be stricken with awe that a molecule "knows" when to unravel, when to call for certain proteins and so on? Beyond that, could there be no awe in the way the cell operates to send and receive these messages and how the body as a whole functions, including the mind whose electrical impulses create the reasoning we use to wonder with?

I always use my understanding of DNA replication and protein synthesis to demonstrate how inert nature can be fascinating and how much more fascinating still when you realize that this inertness rules your body.

Even those who separate body from soul have to agree that that is an awesome task for a molecule and the body is an awesome task for a bunch of them together.

I always try to impart a little experience of science to those I'm trying to convince; I avoid just explaining my own feelings. I try to demonstrate the awe instead and have them get the feeling on their own.

Thanks for sparking this input.
Maya Lessov

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danyeke J. Swanson" <djs@bogon.net>
To: <science@lists.pdx.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Science and alienation> Greetings all,
>
> A brief introduction: I'm a post-baccalaureate student, majoring in
> philosophy and minoring in mathematics. I specialize in philosophy of
> cognitive science and artificial intelligence. I wanted to discuss a
> recent experience and ask for suggestions from those of you who probably
> deal with this kind of thing more often than I.
>
> In one of my philosophy classes, we are discussing certain existentialist
> philosophers' claims that science is (partly or wholly) responsible for
> human alienation. These philosophers have advanced the idea that, in
doing
> science, scientists have presupposed something ontologically
inappropriate
> about the "being" of objects--namely, that in describing, say, a hammer
(in
> terms of subatomic particles), they are *beginning* with ONE object rather
> than, say, two or five or twenty. It's as if they are saying that
> divisions between an object or organism and the world are arbitrary. (I'm
> aware that I could be misinterpreting the intent here, but that's the best
> way I know how to sum up what I heard).
>
> Several students spoke up about how science (especially physics) and its
> reductionist methodologies "reduce everything to subatomic particles or
> collections of atoms" and "strip things of their human meanings and
> purposes" by "separating us off from the objects of our perception". They
> called for a more "humanized" worldview, and made it clear that this kind
> of view would not be available from science's "disinterested, detached"
way
> of explaining the world.
>
> Most of the students agreed with this view, but I did not. I spoke up in
> defense of science, but unfortunately, I found myself the lone voice in
> support of of the idea that science does *not* have to be alienating--in
> fact, I added, science can be a profound source of wonder, awe, and
> connection to the world. (One of many examples that convinced me of this
> is a book by Evelyn Fox Keller called "A Feeling For the Organism: The
Life
> and Work of Barbara McLintock").
>
> I mentioned that I thought good science should be self-critical and always
> open to re-evaluation, rather than thought of as the final arbiter of all
> possible truth and reality to the exclusion of other worldviews. To take
> one example, I suggested that we could use complementary "levels of
> explanation" in order to hold these ideas in our minds at once, instead of
> positing them as opposite ends of a continuum. We could think of a hammer
> as BOTH a "collection of atoms" and a tool for human use, simultaneously
> and without any loss of "meaning" that comes from its human uses.
>
> However, I don't think the instructor or my fellow students were very
> convinced. Admittedly, I was struggling to find the best way to express
> these views from within a philosophical context. I used to think science
> was alienating, but that changed a lot as I got older and learned more
> about science.
>
> So I would like to ask: What might *you* have said in a similar
> situation? What might I have said that would discourage people from such
> glib dismissals of science? I'd like to be better prepared if an
> opportunity like this arises again in the future.
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments!
>
> ----*----*----*----*----*----
> Danyeke J. Swanson http://www.bogon.net/dswanson
> "Mathematics has been most advanced by those who distinguished
> themselves by intuition rather than by rigorous proofs."
> - Felix Klein