NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/environm/14868

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 6.8 KB | 131 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!skool.ssec.wisc.edu!tobis
From: [e-mail] (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Objective Environment, again - reluctantly (was Re: Temperate ...)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The News)
Organization: U.Wis.-Madison; Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:12:46 GMT
Lines: 119

We are discussing different things. Hardwick thinks that my insistence on
a single objective environment amounts to a (rather stupid) insistence
on a UNIFORM environment, which is plainly ridiculous. My point is
that OBJECTIVITY IS POSSIBLE.  He speaks of the necessity of acknowledging
other points of view. I insist that other points of view are of interest
only if we acknowledge that there IS AN OBJECTIVE LANSCAPE which we are
viewing from our various points.  Hardwick often lapses into the vocabulary
of the radical relativist, though I am not really sure whether he embraces
or even understands their program.

I don't actually intend to respond to him directly, as he has shown
himself to be not only confused and self-contradictory, but capable
of astonishingly bad manners. That being as it may,

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:

|> To me, this whole issue of an objective environment is understood by
|> recognizing how little of this environment science has actually been
|> able to describe.  That which we can describe, such as in the basic
|> laws of physics, apply everywhere we can test them.  But if the
|> definition of an objective environment includes the relationships
|> between the various elements of the environment, as I think it must,
|> then I would suggest that the extent of our current knowledge, for
|> all of its gains, really is just nibbling at the edges of a true
|> and thorough understanding.

I do not claim that a complete objective description of the environment
exists. In fact, if anyone saw my posting binge on comp.ai.philosophy a
few months ago, they would know that I go against the modern consensus
here in that I doubt that such a description is even possible! But that
the world cannot COMPLETELY be described objectively is a very different
assertion than the assertion that the world cannot be objectively described
AT ALL.

|> I think an objective scientific
|> definition of cultural relationships is about as fantastical to us
|> as is the technology of the most outlandish science fiction - and we
|> humans are, after all, a part of this environment, are we not?

Agreed.

...

|> The problem of indigenous development is
|> not much informed by successes in particle physics or atmospheric
|> chemistry and people deeply involved in this field are not likely to
|> accord as much value in such advances as those intimately involved in
|> them.

Quite so, but for them to turn around then and claim that such methods
have no value (even in the physical or life sciences) is both arrogant and
plainly wrong, not to mention profoundly dangerous if taken seriously.

|> Policies in the real world need to recognize the ignorance of humanity
|> as much as the knowledge of humanity.  Some people suggest that this
|> ignorance be recognized as an ethic, those others believe that this
|> would impede further knowledge.  Yet others prefer
|> an intellectual understanding of our limits of knowledge, but it seems
|> to me that an intellectual understanding of ignorance is problematic
|> at least.

Well, "problematic at least" hides many millions of words of discussion,
some of it quite serious, though much of it is pompous puffery. My point is,
though, that while of much philosophical interest, it has little
practical value. We have ways of knowing which demonstrably work,
regardless of what exactly "knowledge" or "truth" means. To deny this
is to proceed blindfolded through the rough terrain in which we find
ourselves. Our position is too precarious for childish games like that.

|> To deny the objective environment altogether may serve a
|> pragmatic purpose in a world where its mis-application causes so many
|> problems.

Your argument that some people overestimate the extent of our knowledge
(which I agree with) is quite distinct from a statement that denying the
existence of any knowledge at all serves some practical purpose.
If it serves any purpose, it is as a neurotic, if not psychotic, defense
mechanism. That is, it may be comfortable, but it is deeply dysfunctional.

The existence of a few foolishly arrogant techno-libertarians (a
self-contradictory position, in my opinion, since high technology requires
large scale organization, but never mind that) will not serve as an excuse
for abandoning the remarkable edifice of rational thought that is
arguably the most profound, beautiful and impressive accomplishment of
humankind. This is particularly true now that we find ourselves in an
ever more tangled maze of complex interconnnected problems that requires
reason of the highest order if any progress is to be made.

A problem with the debate as it appears here (and possibly elsewhere) is
that both you and Alan McGowen, and possibly others seem to think it
represents the debate in society at large. Here, we find ourselves arguing
against arrogance, overconfidence, and insensitivity to subtlety. In society
at large, the battle is against inertia, apathy and defeatist fatalism,
not to mention superstition and misinformation.

Rallying to the clarion call of relativism may score a few points against
people who confuse space cadet fiction with reasoned analysis, but it
looks to society at large (and to me) like a celebration of confusion
and uncertainty. Difficult and expensive changes in behavior are unlikely
to be widely accepted using anti-rational arguments. Indeed, I would
hope they would not be, as changes promoted by anti-rational people are
far more likely to be counterproductive than to be helpful.

It's been suggested that change requires a profound shift in the values
of the populace, but I would argue that much of the necessary shift has
already occurred, and that many people see the banality and futility
of a course that doesn't recognize the value of nature's health and
the aesthetic harmony of both the natural and the built environment.

What we need is carefully reasoned responses to our situation so that
changes tend to be ameliorative. The last thing we need is to convince
ourselves that we are powerless and stupid, which is ultimately the
purpose of the unholy relativist alliance of "new age" superstition and
academic "deconstructionist" nihilism.

Let's be reasonable.

mt