Although Darwin may be cited ad nauseum, the contributions of science to philosophy and religious practice cannot be denied. For many science is a religion.
Where lie the boundaries between biological discovery and philosophy - at what point (or by which mechanism) does biological understanding cross into common philosophical discourse? Dawkins is the most obvious contemporary biological philosopher, but given the abundance of scientific discovery at the end of the 20th century, and the rise of a new scientifically literate generation, what will be the impact of biology on philosophy in the next 50 years?
Will biological rationale become the de facto deciding factor in social and economic policy? If this is a greater level of human knowledge, and thus likely to enhance decision making for the good of humanity, will it be employed to this end. If the biology of human contentment is understood, and can be achieved, then is it not sensible to employ means to reach it (and then perhaps simply strive to improve on it)?
In the shorter term, many policy decisions already derive their authority from biology. Who controls biological knowledge? Will these become new centres of mystical (essentially religious) authority?
E.O. Wilson’s “Sociobiology” is a good book that relates to alot of this sort of thing. Also, R.C. Lewontin’s “Biology as Ideology”. Interesting stuff…
As for the “mystical” knowledge, I’ll disagree. Science is a self-correcting discipline that is very difficult to bend in strange directions. That is, until it becomes a non-experimental discipline like theoretical physics – which is already a favorite of mystics everywhere.
No, I don’t see biologists as becoming authorities on the real of mystic thought . . . though I imagine plenty of mystics will latch onto biology and extrapolate non-scientific conclusions from it. It was all the rage at the turn of the century, no reason it won’t happen again.
To a lay person, and as a scientist it is easy to forget that most people are out there laying around, biology is mystic. A marginal understanding of DNA in know way gives them the knowledge of how they exist and function, no more than did consideration of humors, it is all taken on faith (so long as it seems to fit with their world experience).
Science benefits from being distributed, but how long can this survive? Biology is becoming increasingly expensive, and physics is far beyond. As biology plays increasingly important roles in government policy decisions, so there is a demand for consistently accurate advice. The current situation is clearly failing, too many voices, too much media manipulation. At what point do NASA or medical counsels take charge as pre-eminent sources of scientific advice? The ability for science to self-correct depends upon observations being readily testable. The fewer people trained and facilitated to carry out the experiments, the easier it is for politics to influence the science.
Politics have always affected science, there is nothing new there. The issue of “what gets funded” is alone enough to ensure that politics will dominate science – to say nothing of the disturbing trend of the fusion of the public and private spheres where results are expected to be, well, more expectable, which invited academic dishonesty or at least a narrowing of the field to prevent curiosity.
But I don’t see science as being on the “giving” end of that spectrum. Politics hits science first, and science responds.
As for the ignorance of others, well, that unfortunately can’t really be helped. Education goes a long way, but not everyone can be fully trained in everything. So, what that means is that we ultimately have to trust each other to work in good faith.
I mean, I certainly don’t understand how electricity works. I really am quite terrible at physics. But I wouldn’t say that because of that electricity is a “mystical” experience for me, since I do know that there are people who do understand it to such a degree that they can pump my house full of it. The limits of my knowledge have little to do with the limits of human knowledge which is generally where mysticism takes off.
‘Mystical’ no, maybe just mysterious. There is a degree to which one convinces oneself that one understands the world - is this any different to convincing oneself of God’s will?
Funding - I think that we are heading towards a very mutual reliance. Science touches so much, and is responsible to such a degree for human welfare, that politics will become far more about how to react to scientific development.
This is an interesting perspective, but in the social scope, highly falsifiable. Politics will not come to respect scientific development in an incorporated ideological sense.
Politics is singularly about power, and just as we see with the current Administration, when science shows an ability to express power over the social parameters of this nation, (stem cell research), politics moves very quickly to limit that ability.
Your stance is from an educated perspective, like any scientifically minded individual of that genre, but in the end, you are in a very small circle, that is quite rather unwelcome to the larger masses, and certainly the power brokers who move politics.
America hates intellectual elitism, it’s offensive because it takes effort and study, and this society, and certainly our politics, are anything but intellectual.
Science will remain on the fringe, and as Xunzian pointed out, it is becoming more about meeting the expectation of economic funders, not exploration and discovery.
Science is a tool of power - a vast number of government decisions are based up on scientific estimation, whether it be the danger of smoking, or the viability of an economic policy given the world estimates on energy resources. This isn’t something that is going to lessen with time, and those who give the best scientific advice (and those who use it well) seem more likely to prosper.
Drug and oil companies exert vast influence based upon their technology. How long will non-profit groups be able to carry out the same cutting edge research free from commercial and political interest?
I never said it wasn’t a tool of power. But just as in your examples, with government legislation of morality, (religious power, because we do not have a secular government), science is used to further moral agendas, or it is not useful to power brokers. This is the error in your perception.
I would prefer that science determines, but in pragmatic reality, the operating mode of the government doesn’t match with your statement, hence, why stem cells research is not funded by the government, it is a “moral abomination”.
Drug and oil companies exert vast influence based upon their avarice. Technology/science is simply the means to that end. You are confusing the “ought” for the “is”.
I would agree with you that “not for profit” or non-profit organisations are going to come under even greater economic stress in coming years, they simply will not be able to maintain.
The abortion debate is fine tuned through scientific advancement, used as a tool, but the moral debate over the treatment of an unborn child has been expanded through understanding of the effects of alcohol/drug abuse on the foetus - maternal conduct has been given a new moral dimension through science. The stem cell debate is more influenced by science, as to how close to a moral line int steps. The debate over the treatment of animals has been vastly expanded by understanding how similar to humans they are.
Drug companies define government policy through their pricing and diversity. Look at how lifestyle drugs influence where the line is drawn in public perception between medical need and necessity. Societal and government choices (ethical and moral) are defined by what science reveals. In turn, influencing public scientific announcements is one way to justify government policy.
This appears to be overly romanticising the instance. While science may illuminate and elucidate correct/error instances, the prime mover is still the synthesised morality behind the politicians. Religion, and therefore morality/ethics, preceded science by a large span. It is received in how the social morality of the country is defined that decides what policies are useful to create from science.
Again, romanticising. The prime mover is avarice, not altruistic tendencies of pharmaceutical conglomerates. Look at how much money they pay to get their product on the market, even when they don’t know for certain the long term effects, because they refuse to spend the money on long term studies. Their hegemony is avarice, not science/technology or human advancement or quality of life. Their consistent millions in lobbying dollars to the FDA and politicians flatly refutes your claim.
This isn’t what I am getting that - of course the companies splash the cash to manipulate the system. The point is that the science and the drugs change the debate.
The climatologists make the choice of national energy policy a global issue that it was not 50 years ago. Its not just a question of scale, but of priority and judgement as to local effects of decisions.
The understanding of diseases in developing worlds brings vastly changes the debate about helping the poor and diseased, not just through inflated costs but also how to manage lifestyles within the population. Day to day decisions in different countries reflect local morality and ethics.
The expanding market in treatment for mental states has shifted the argument about what constitutes a treatable disease (and what treatment can be afforded). An understanding of how the mind works has refined the definition of “patient benefit”.
I realise that it isn’t what you are getting at, and that is inherently the problem; the prime mover in all instances mentioned, is avarice.
Even for the advancements that science may provide, they are all secondary, and contingent, upon levels of avarice and cost benefit analysis.
Debate is a useful tool for intellectuals, for power brokers and politicians, it is a very poorly used tool, and all advancement and maintenance is caste in dollars and cents, before any morality or ethics ever enters into the equation, if it enters at all.
When looking at the pragmatic application of science, what is most often seen is, science has provided us great information, that isn’t acted upon until someone realises how to profit from that information. Then, the jargon starts; “giving a helping hand to those less fortunate” or “patient benefit”.
One of the easiest examples is the global environment argument; no one is yet willing to forego fossil fuels, because that is where the money is, regardless of the fact, science is making enormous strides with alternatives.
If the morality and ethics created by science was actually at the forefront, why then does fusion research only get a few million dollars a year, while oil research funds are still in the billions?
Follow the money, find the mendacity. Anything else is subjective, and wishful thinking.
A touch too pessimistic for me, though doubtless often true.
Another related scenario, the neurobiology biology of greed - or perhaps easier murderous intent. If a curable, biological deficit is found in a convicted murder, should they be released when “cured”. If individual behaviours can be attributed to specific biological mechanisms, how does this affect moral decision making - knowing that biology controls/influences reaction to moral questions?
[I think this reminds me of an episode of ‘House’, apologies for lack or originality]
Actually, I quite admire this line of thinking. The moral issue is one of the eons old “free will” argument. At the point where neurobiology can prove that free will is nothing more than a metaphysical pipe dream, I should see no reason to not fix those aberrations.
For those of us who know the difference, the choices are inherently clear. If religion can be overcome, we may just yet progress as a species.
