Joho the Blog
|
|
|
May 03, 2003
Arnold Kling writes about the continuing triumph of technologists over humanists:
Arnold paraphrases Will Wilkinson to define the terms:
One of his examples:
The question of the accuracy of smart bombs is for the scientists. Humanists who pronounced on that topic via introspection and empathy were misapplying their skills. But technologists who pronounced on the wisdom and morality of the war based on their assessment of the accuracy of smart bombs were also off base. Are humanism and science equals, then? Nah. Humanism is broader and more fundamental. But not if you define it as "introspection and empathy." That'd be like defining science as "measuring stuff." Humanists, as I understand the term, don't sit around looking inwards. Originally, humanism was a break from God-centered philosophies, asserting the magnificence of our capabilities as opposed to our feebleness and frailness in the face of our Creator. The term has come to refer to those who assert something like: 1) There is no external authority that settles all questions for us; 2) Human reason is not all that matters; 3) Human experience does not reduce to the physical. If that's an acceptable definition, put me down as a humanist. And I don't want to leave it at a misty-eyed plea for embracing both points of view. I love technology and want every child trained in the scientific method. Objectivity is one very important way of seeing the world. It has precedence in certain projects, and those projects are crucial. But it is just one stance we can take toward the world. Humanism, however, isn't just one stance. It is what explains — and grounds — how and why we humans take different stances towards the world, including science. Humanism rulz! We're #1! We're #1! Whooooo! Posted
by D. Weinberger at May 3, 2003 10:30 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Humanists and Scientists:
» Religious flame wars from Licquia.org Tracked on May 8, 2003 03:09 AM |
Comments
I did volunteer ambulance work years ago. The people who did the best, fastest, and smartest work for our patients were the ones who could keep on the "scientist" hat with a patient suffering in front of them--later, after we got back from the hospital, the "scientist" hat can come off and the feelings catch up with you.
I wish people who think of themselves as humanists would quit dividing the world between humanists and scientists, with all the virtues of empathy and caring on the humanist side. When you cook a meal or change a lightbulb, you take off your "humanist" hat and put on a "scientist" hat--trying to make stuff work. And people who wear the "scientist" hat do take it off to worry about stuff like justice, compassion, and those doggone Red Sox.
Posted by: Betsy Devine | May 3, 2003 11:28 AM
Betsy, I think you're agreeing with what I wrote: science is one very important way of seeing the world (and operating in it). We care about operating that way because we are not (only) the objective creatures pure science describes.
Posted by: dweinberger | May 3, 2003 11:43 AM
One common criticism of "atheism" from many theists' point of view surrounds morality: if there is no God, there can be no ethics.
Your distinction between "humanism" and what I'll call "scientism" reminded me of that. Often, the theist objection is raised when a theist encounters an adherent of scientism, yet the refutation of the objection is entirely humanist.
I don't know what my point is, other than to hope that the non-theist contingent of humanity trends more towards humanism than scientism, as I think the objection is spot-on regarding scientism.
Disclaimer: I'm a theist, of the Christian variety.
Posted by: Jeff Licquia | May 7, 2003 02:07 PM
I like "humanism" - as a historical project that attempted an open, undogmatic approach to knowledge and an honest, dignified approach behaviour.
However, humanity's not what it was (and you can take that any way you want).
What I'm groping towards is a "recombinant humanism". Something that can incorporate (or at least assess) all the bits that trad humanism left out or never got the opportunity to see.
Posted by: Matt | May 13, 2003 03:57 AM