. MYTH IN SCIENCE. *
By Jesús Olivares Rolando Solis
A minute concave spirit
an unexpected night,
random
at any stage irrelevant
- in the third review of the sidewalk,
in the bar, between two bitter drinks,
or bare summits of insomnia-
occurs nothing more, mature, falling
simply
as age, the fruit and catastrophe.
José Gorostiza, in endless death
This paper will address the issue of whether science can or can not be disinterested, and that, two articles, the first of Hugo Arechiga, entitled The ethical aspects of modern science, and the second León Olivé, and entitled Are they ethically neutral science and technology?
This work tries to summarize or to be a journal of the aforementioned, but part of it as criticism and comment.
Aréchiga The statement 1 , that the ideal of the scientist who sacrifices himself for humanity has been very rooted in the collective imagination, is something that can discussed, because if it is true that all cultures can find the concept of 'wise' (priest in some cultures, scientist, philosopher, demagogue, or teacher in others), the concept of 'scientist' is something came just two centuries ago, in the boom scientists representing the entire eighteenth century.
sense which interprets the myth of Prometheus as bringing light to men-that is, actually bringing knowledge to the men by a mythical character with something divine, - may change as you want to bring the special circumstances of an era.
say that such knowledge was 'scientific', understanding this concept as understood since the eighteenth century, is to limit the interpretation of this myth. It is true that Prometheus brought the light to men, but not brought by nature altruistic or disinterested, or because it has detected that the man would die if he did so. At first Prometheus brought fire to men because his brother Epimetheus made a mistake. The fact that man has something as great as the fire (light, knowledge), the myth of Prometheus, is the product of an error and the fact it was worthy of punishment.
The other myth is commonly used to try to give an air of selflessness and class attribute a special feature of the human essence of science is that of Adam and Eve. It is quite pleasant to cite "the tree of knowledge of good and evil", "eritis sicut Deus" and other famous phrases, as well as the people involved, ie, the woman and the serpent, for example, for Nietzsche, who identifies, and Bakunin, for whom the second was the first free-thinker.
But this myth sounds like that man (as humanity, not male) has no part in the first process of acquiring knowledge. It has to be an umpire again, the snake, who take the first step for the man to find a way of knowing other than that God has given you naturally. Divine Science reveals, once again the man is unable to achieve alone, and again purchase warrants punishment. But once again this punishment is not for the fact that he wanted to know, but rather by circumstance, is punishment for 'having lucky ', if it can be expressed as a punishment for something that was not conscious at first.
In this way, or the myth of Prometheus, or the myth of Adam and Eve is useful to justify altruistic nature of science, since one is a product of an error and error compensation of such , while the other is the result of incitement by a third party that appeals to women to know, to be like God, without actually having a clear awareness of what was to happen.
These connotations of science, more like something fortuitous product of chance, or something alien to human nature in the beginning indicate that science has no purpose. Science is a stroke of luck and divine come from remote places, that man receives as a gift, but at first there is no reason for being. There's a what, a how, and even why, but there is no final cause, for which there is no science. Science is like the minute Gorostiza: happens, nothing more, matures, falls easily.
Attached to this thesis, it could be said that the pursuit of knowledge as an activity is not inherent in human nature, but not the capacity to know it ceases to be a part of its essence. Rather, it could say that this quest for knowledge may be, according to the myths above, or the only weapon for survival of man, or a curse, and so the man does not act by his will when 'doing science', but is impelled by forces outside it.
Thus man is a puppet of the gods, as the result of superior forces him to take him to find something that only partly can be found, and that does not seek more than simply forward. With the departure blind as their only rule. "Always go beyond", "always push the limits" could be the themes of science, but in the way the 'scientists' scientific martyrs lose everything for the ideal of his conscience.
know is suffering, it is passion, in both mythologies. Scientific activity should be called 'scientific passion' because while the investigation involves action, the foundation that leads to the inevitable quest for knowledge is a passion. Man can not get rid of it, although at the beginning he had nothing to do with the acquisition of such a need. Science, in principle, is a passion, like all other forms of knowledge as philosophy itself, but also the whole range of feelings that man is capable. Science and love are identified in this rule and it all works again and instance belong to the same ontological sphere. The Sorrows of Young Werther particle accelerator and respond to the same principle: passion.
In this way all the manifestations of knowledge converge at a specific point in man and his passion, his being in the world as a plaything of larger forces can not understand, and which no longer participating that residue. The evolution of man has produced reality with all its manifestations, including la divina chispa de la ciencia, el fruto del árbol de la ciencia del bien y del mal, a fin de cuentas, la ciencia no resulta, para la mitología, más que un accidente afortunado que pudo no haber sucedido, sin que por ello el hombre dejara de ser hombre.
Según el texto citado de Hugo Aréchiga, la posesión del conocimiento se dio de la siguiente manera:
Primero, y como consecuencia lógica de esta concepción de haber recibido la chispa of the gods, who had a privileged position with respect to knowledge were the priests, who were believed able to interpret signs sent by the gods. But this interpretation became more limited the more limited religious practice grew, the more he instituted an ecclesiastical authority and that eventually determine what could or could not meet.
This resulted in a number of thinkers, that while they were in the very institution of the church, could not fail to observe the world and know it. The passion that represents the knowledge could not fail to act on their cassocks and habits for more than sanctified with holy water.
Early scientists were also priests. And over time this trend was secularized, to result in Christians trying to reconcile the increasingly compelling findings with what the old tradition dictates. The Renaissance was an important step in this process.
illustration After finally completing the process. Scientists no longer sought by way of faith that could be found immediately by means of experimentation. Mankind put aside passion of faith to embrace the passion of reason. Reason as the new goddess, pure reason as a panacea for every ill. Reason and emancipation of humanity as a sign of coming of age of the human race, the reason as the basis of infinite progress towards a well. It is at this time when the man finally finds a purpose for science.
And like Athena born from Zeus's head, and came directly from the ideal of reason other ideal, science. Science does not as a human activity concatenated with all that represents the man, but as God again, but deified by being referred to the gods but deified by be referred to pure reason, the most proud of the Enlightenment.
The ideal called science quickly seized the brightest minds of the time, and like a good ideal wanted to remain intact, pure, free from any blemish. Thus science is done to achieve a good, well-known figure, coming of age of humanity. Science was not a human product, but rational product, and therefore higher than the rest of the human manifestations.
" Science is science, is in itself and for itself," would very well have said the new scientific that proliferated everywhere. This ideal has spread throughout Europe and America, resulting in the pursuit of that awful business. The scientist now it looked like saving the world, and finally, after centuries of knowledge, the ideal made flesh.
More the crystallization of all those centuries of activity was not content with this, but wanted more. Learn more, apply more knowledge, not only in a field, but know everything in all areas, in order to dominate nature every possible way. The ideal embodied built a still higher ideal. "If we get here, we can continue in infinitum, must have thought.
was there where he created the conditions for the disappointment that followed the impossible dream of modernity. And when the ideal embodied, the scientist realized that the art and science are just a fragment of man, it was too late because it was all channeled to the fulfillment of that dream.
One day the scientist realized that also has to eat, which is also feel human needs, also suffers pains, also lacks sometimes make mistakes in his trial for lack of common sense. His logic is perfect as a scientist, his way of seeing the world as a causal, could not explain social phenomena. Famine, war, poverty and opulence in a city.
And not only that, but real world conditions began to interfere with scientific work. Soon universities were no longer sufficient for the production of knowledge. Governments wanted to take technological advances, why?, Then to dominate, to destroy, to intimidate other governments.
Soon companies began to get well in the competition, when governments were no longer the players to make way for the phenomenon so popular in these days of globalization. However, projects are made with money, "money dance with the dog," and apparently also the scientist.
Meanwhile, where was the ideal of the scientist who just wanted the good of mankind? Desinterasado where the benefactor who brought the light of knowledge to the world? Where you wanted to know by know, to thereby contribute to most age of humanity? Where the scientific lit?
Like any ideal, the scientist was overwhelmed by a rapid changing world in its real conditions. And the ideal is gone, at least in practice, while some struggled because the scientist did not die, their ashes were crying in imploring the goddess of reason that they are resurrected. They hung their mummies in the holy shrines dedicated to logic, to the holy causality, but no chance to be heard.
real scientist was who was now living, and to counter it were enacted codes of ethics: you must be the it was, you should seek the good of mankind you should pursue knowledge for knowledge, detached from any connection with the mundane, you have no home, no god but the goddess of reason, you should be our ideal.
In other words: Do not trample the interests of research subjects, not to run the interest of other researchers, not against the interests of participating institutions, not against the interests of society, science must be neutral 2 , etc.
This how ethics arises in a context of 'decay', when the ideal is dissipated has to come a standard. This rule is called ethics of science. And the ideal is dying of science itself.
scientist is not a liberating, not an altruistic entity that seeks the welfare of the world. Is a person, like anyone else, needs and convictions, with limits and errors. The Scientist as emancipation was the fairytale result of an age of enlightenment, was an ideal that was ideal as all die before the cruel grip of reality.
And the reality, the world (as Wittgenstein would say) happens. It is not something that can be regulated by rules a priori. The world grows every day decisions, acts of God, with luck and with conviction. All human expressions are subject to change, as the man himself is subject to change, there is only a reference point in which everything converges, and is the man himself.
In this sense, ethics can be constructed in retrospect, as a theory that reflects what has happened. But the ethics rules that seek to limit the manifestations of man to a liminal value reasonable.
This applies to science and to the other manifestations of man that as we have seen, not much different from science. Why limit science, not literature? Why avoid the creation of new technologies and philosophies rather than creating more accurate? The world is, and as the minutes of Gorostiza, nothing happens, matures, falls, just as the age, the fruit and catastrophe.
Taking everything together has been said about the science and if knowledge is disinterested or not, it can be stated as follows:
Knowledge is not an activity greater than any other human activity.
The ideal of disinterested science is a relatively new concept for the modern concept of science is relatively new.
can not a 'disinterested knowledge', for man acts from its particularity, and as there is no "poetry disinterested ',' selfless philosophy ',' selfless love ', nor is' disinterested knowledge ', the interest lies in order to accounts from the particularity and to himself same.
Arechiga, Hugo (2004) "The ethical aspects of modern science" in Aluja, Martin and Birke, Andrea (Coordinators). The role of ethics in scientific research and higher education , Fondo de Cultura Economica, Mexico DF: 2004.
Olivé, León (2000) "Are ethically neutral science and technology? "in The good, the bad and the reason, Facets of science and technology, Paidós Ediciones, Mexico, DF: 2001.
1 Cf Aréchiga, Hugo (2004) "The ethical aspects of modern science" in The role of ethics in scientific research .
2 Cf Olivé, León (2000) "Is it ethically neutral science and technology?" In The good, the wrong and why, Facets of science and technology .
* Paper presented at the Regional Meeting for Students and Interns of Philosophy: "Philosophy without quotes." Monterrey, NL. February 2008.
CopyLeft 2008 - Jesús Solís.
