You talkin’ to me?
The Aggravations of Morality in the realm of Reality, Dreams, and
Imagination
Irving A. Lerch
Reality
Science requires objective reality that other realms of the
human intellectual enterprise appear able to do without. Thus “Cultural Relativism” has risen with
the argument that objective reality is a “Cultural Construct” no more valid
than any other cultural construct.[i] While these ideas may have credence in
ethics, theology, cultural anthropology and the “non-quantitative sciences”[ii]
they have little relevance for the quantitative sciences except at the
interface (neuroscience and molecular genetics as an underlying determinant of social
organization or individual behavior for example). But most important, cultural relativism is the cause of a
violent confrontation between assumed values and perceived morality.
Objective reality guides our inquiries. We cannot know it except to know that
it exists. Otherwise once we
obtain a satisfactory answer to a given question, our inquiries would cease. Observation leads to speculation as to
the cause—the reality—giving rise to any phenomenon. To enhance our observation, new technologies are innovated
to improve the precision and accuracy of our measurements which might, in
consequence, overturn existing understanding by uncovering discrepancies in our
knowledge. This filigree of
associations between observation, modeling and technology has created a vast
powerhouse that dominates our intellectual energies, perceptions, economic progress
and imagination. It is the
foundation of industrial society.
Dreams
Deistic belief provides no means for discovering verifiable approximations
of truth. Canonical formalisms
must be molded to accommodate a given end even when the resultant world view
denies the systemics of science, law, government, economics and philosophy. Science on the other hand, holds that discoverable
truth exists and that all theses are open to question, all propositions must be
confirmable and no authority is beyond challenge. There has been a great deal of nonsense built on the claim
that science, like religion, is a faith-based enterprise. This is sheer sophistry founded on the
fabricated consilience of two vastly dissimilar systems.
We are drawn to an objective reality just beyond our grasp
because of the inevitable failure of perception and theory to satisfy all that
is presently known. This insures
that we will move in the direction of discovery and that always there will be
mysteries to solve.
We cannot spontaneously grasp the grand truth that moves the
world beyond our dreams although that is the hope of many scientists in hot
pursuit of the universal theory of everything (similarly in medieval and renaissance
times, the lost sacred knowledge, prisca
sapientia, was the irresistible lure for many scholars). And once we adopt a unifying principal,
we hold it fast until it defies experience at which point we must scramble to
find refuge within a new edifice that may evaporate before we can set up
housekeeping.
A common proposition is that our intelligence is
structurally inadequate to grasp the factual laws of nature. True or not, this is irrelevant as is lamenting
our inability to “see” the quarks within the proton or the singularity preceding
the Big Bang. We cannot directly apprehend
the fundamental laws that guide the cosmos until we inform our imagination
about how and where we must look.
Imagination
Imagination is the foundation for all creative
activity. For the scientist, the
fabric of imagination is a kind of spandex that allows speculation to be
channeled in many directions providing it is contained, disciplined and open to
exploration. Newton imagined
gravity as an invisible force reaching across space instantaneously—a breech of
scientific etiquette. Einstein saw
gravity as the curvature of space that mediated the motion of interacting masses. The two systems converged at one end of
experience but General Relativity explained esoteric divergences at the other
end and did away with action at a distance. How could Newton not be impressed?
What does this say about the conflict between science,
culture, politics and religion? In
an age of specialization, we suffer from a fragmentation of knowledge and
language. The non-scientist,
excluded, is deeply suspicious of the cadre that dictates the origin of the
species and the universe, the cause of global climate change and the nature of
human biology in contravention of religious prescripts, economic interests, political
views and cultural conditioning.
But this is an ambivalent relationship not marked by total hostility. There is a fascination with matters
scientific and technical which is fed by science popularizers on an industrial
scale.
The most important conflict is political. Science has always been a thorn in the
side of the religious establishment which commands that scripture and doctrine
dictate the transcendent and corporeal. Eventually dogma must yield to reality. But in politics, science confronts
governance, economic interests, cultural norms and policy. Scientists are often portrayed as an
interest group and their image as disinterested, truthful observers is attacked
by opponents concerned that scientific positions could damage their interests.
Political arguments tend to be about personalities, motives,
presumed costs and the distribution of material benefits, not about the merits
of propositions, scientific conclusions and the overarching consequences of
specific policies. Scientists are
unprepared to respond to attacks on their motives and political operatives are
not interested in the intricacies of scientific inquiry. The 2009 hacking and release of the
personal emails of climate scientists in the University of East Anglia's Climatic
Research Unit in the UK, one of the research centers that constructs various
global temperature and precipitation analyses, was presented as proof that
advocates of climate change were engaged in deception and fabrication. The scientific merit of the work of
generations of climate scientists was never in dispute. The subsequent academic investigation
and finding that there was no deception or fabrication did little to diminish
continuing denunciations.[iii] Once a charge is leveled, it is
repeated, amplified, circulated and given a permanent place in the discourse. The political pitch is the arena for
blood sports.
Aggravation
One problem is that the consequences flowing from scientific
innovation—good and bad—cannot easily be defined by experience. Unseen costs emerge with time. Another problem is that scientists, as
instruments of society, do not control their creativity. This is the responsibility of the
political and commercial establishments.
In sum, science innovates, society disposes.
This brings us to the system of values we rely on to mediate
our behavior: morality and ethics.
The scientist must scrupulously adhere to the truth as it is defined in
the moment with enough transparency of exchange to promote free flow of
information and to permit the independent testing of results and hypotheses. This provides a basis for ethical
conduct but not morality. Einstein
made little distinction between ethics and morality: “A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs;
no religious basis is necessary.”[iv] This sentiment extended to general
morality and he was explicit: “There is nothing divine about morality; it is a
purely human affair.”[v]
Moral and ethical judgments are derived from a mélange of
culture, language, experience, emotional conditioning, education, history,
religious predisposition, personal interest and institutional traditions. This is also characteristic of politics. Where is the point of convergence
between science, politics and religion?
Cultural relativism is not acceptable when it comes to many moral and
ethical prescriptions (Westerners condemn ethnic cleansing, religious
persecution, female genital mutilation and honor killings) but are unable to
agree on others which are very much the province of relativistic values (abortion,
in vitro fertilization, stem cell
research, birth control).
Scientific consensus is rarely accepted at first blush—especially
on contentious ground. Either the
science is too convoluted or abstract, or popular interests are under assault,
or powerful constituencies have mobilized to convince the public that the
science is unproven. Shouldn’t the
scientist be satisfied by exploring nature and allowing others to define the
implications? Or must the
scientist put science into an ethical and moral frame and engage in political ripostes?
The danger is that if scientists relinquish to others the
interpretation of their work, pressure will mount to suppress the support, and
perhaps, the intellectual freedom essential to the successful progress of the
scientific enterprise. Religion
and government have often moved to marginalize scientists in an effort to
retain their hold on power even as the fruits of science have revolutionized
warfare and economies—FDR insured that atomic policy remained exclusively in
executive hands, in a sense, mirroring the Vatican’s attempt to control science
through the publication of doctrinal Papal Bulls.[vi]
Yet once in a while the moral and ethical interests of
science, government and religion converge (the atmospheric test ban treaty of
1963 and the 2007 declaration by Pope Benedict XVI urging bishops, scientists
and politicians to “… respect Creation …” while “… focusing on the needs of
sustainable development.”
Nonetheless the reality of science is inadequate to move the political
and heavenly firmaments.
Ethics and Morals
When confronting irrationality, our devotion to reality must
take a back seat to our moral standing.
The province of ethics is professional and personal behavior, the
adherence to norms as defined by society and the professional community. Morality encompasses a much larger
arena: individual and collective responsibility for the welfare of
society. But morality is malleable
depending on the narrowness of view.
Conflict can arise when a moral position may be at loggerheads with
ethical conduct or if moral proscriptions appear to put in jeopardy a larger
good. Is it ethical to
misrepresent the facts of a case if a moral end is at stake? Or—to belabor a popular argument—is it
ethical or moral to torture a terrorist if you are certain that he has planted
a bomb in some public place?
Of course what appears a Hobson’s choice is, on examination,
no choice or, more precisely, a false choice. We need not dwell on whether torture produces the desired
result or whether lying in court will lead to the desired verdict (whose?). Stripped of such meretricious
absurdities the question remains: What is the proper moral and ethical position
of a scientist engaged in political discourse? The simple answer is to engage in rigorous research, tell
the truth, admit uncertainties, and cage all arguments in a moral framework
expressing concern for the public good.
When assailed with factual falsehoods, contradictions and irrelevancies,
to advance arguments with force, persistence and without malice.
Debates in the public arena are often brutally nasty and unfair. The stakes are large and emotionally
charged. It is difficult, perhaps
impossible, to maintain equanimity.
In the past, conflicts between the religious establishment and science
have also been mean-spirited but in our time these quarrels have been muted
since reality becomes the final arbiter.
What is lost is the simple fact that such disputes are held
in public and that scientists and other academics, the fourth estate, politicians,
economic interests, religions and institutions are not the sole
interlocutors. The general public
has a seat at the table and they are often voiceless because they have no
megaphone. What is needed is a
mechanism for direct confrontation and exchange. This is the province of the news media but their focus has
been on hyping quarrels and antagonisms, not on serving as a channel of
exchange.
The rules of debate tend to promote rhetorical combat, not
understanding. Turning to the methods
of Socrates (ignoring his failed understanding of the natural world), what is
needed is a kind of “Town Hall” format mediated by fiercely disinterested
referees whose sole purpose is to insure that private citizens are given the
opportunity to explore the science, politics, economics and social dimensions
of an issue. This does not mean
that scientists give lectures, clergy give sermons and politicians rouse
passions. Scientists may explain
their science and their personal positions. But the focus must be on mutual exchange—dialog (or to
invoke a much abused word—dialectics) where fabrication and fuzzy logic are
challenged. There must be taxonomy
of human exchange whereby the world of science, religion and politics meet in
the mind of the public to explore the great issues. Perhaps somewhere in the democracy of the cybersphere there
is a prescription for sanity.
Irving Lerch
24 September 2012
[iii] Sir Muir Russell, The Independent Climate Change E-mails
Review, July, 2010
Patrick Johnson, “Climate
scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged,” The
Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 2010 [http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged]
[iv] New York Times, 11/9/30
[v] Albert Einstein, The World As I See It (1949)
[vi] Most
famously Alexander VII Bull of 1664 condemning, “…all books teaching the
movement of the Earth and the stability of the Sun.” This codified his predecessor’s (Urban VIII) condemnation of
Galileo in 1633.
