![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Freya Mathews' critique of science
Mar. 23rd, 2009 09:00 pmI finished reading Freya Mathews' book about panpsychism. I really liked the first three chapters, and the later one reinterpreting the myth of Eros and Psyche, but I had a problem with her critique of what she considers science. She strongly favors dialogue and intersubjectivity as the basis for worldviews, following my dear hero Martin Buber, but unlike Buber, she doesn't see a place for "I-It" thinking. Like some other philosophers I've come across, she has a misguided idea of scientific thinking as necessarily flawed. Too much exposure to the myth of objective neutrality, maybe? She critiques the concepts of experimentation and intervention as if these are always tools of indifferent, paternalistic, social engineers in white coats. Sometimes, sure, they are.
But what about science like the kind we do at work, science in the name of helping people who want help, so that they can more easily do what they themselves truly want? Overcoming addictions, or changing their health-related habits? Intersubjectivity definitely has its place, but when you've got limited resources and you want to help several thousand people quit tobacco, it is certainly desirable to have responsible science on your side to help you help them. And if you want to work on issues of, say, social justice, to try to redress the wrongs that continue to result from the previous actions of large or powerful groups of people? Try limiting yourself to meaningful one-on-one encounters and see how far it gets you.
Given that elsewhere in the book she attacks the notion of ideals and idealism, it's ironic that she should herself be so idealistic that she doesn't address the fundamental problem of how we can make the transition to how the world ought to be from how it unavoidably is.
Meanwhile, poor D! I can't imagine that getting to have vanilla pudding and red gatorade for dinner can quite compensate for feeling so awful all day and having to turn down invitations from friends. Not a great way to spend spring break.
But what about science like the kind we do at work, science in the name of helping people who want help, so that they can more easily do what they themselves truly want? Overcoming addictions, or changing their health-related habits? Intersubjectivity definitely has its place, but when you've got limited resources and you want to help several thousand people quit tobacco, it is certainly desirable to have responsible science on your side to help you help them. And if you want to work on issues of, say, social justice, to try to redress the wrongs that continue to result from the previous actions of large or powerful groups of people? Try limiting yourself to meaningful one-on-one encounters and see how far it gets you.
Given that elsewhere in the book she attacks the notion of ideals and idealism, it's ironic that she should herself be so idealistic that she doesn't address the fundamental problem of how we can make the transition to how the world ought to be from how it unavoidably is.
Meanwhile, poor D! I can't imagine that getting to have vanilla pudding and red gatorade for dinner can quite compensate for feeling so awful all day and having to turn down invitations from friends. Not a great way to spend spring break.