addendum to post 'faith in technology'

An astute reader pointed out several things with regard to my post, 'faith in technology', posted on facebook. I will attach his comments in full after my response.

Alex does not really take a contrary viewpoint so much as say that science has never tried to yield a theory of 'truth' that is unequivocally true. Instead, he argues, science is given such stature in our society for its "astonishing effectiveness at solving our problems and making our lives more comfortable". Now, I will start by simply saying that Alex and I really have no substantive disagreement; he has conceded that it is 'easy' for me to make a successful religious or epistemological objection to scientism, but that I am not really disputing the usefulness of science in society.

I'm not sure Alex should allow me that. To me, that concession is made under the assumption that epistemologists and armchair theologians may come up with incontrovertible proof that science is wrong, but the improvements that it has brought to our lives through medicine, communication, transportation, etc. all show just how important science is to our society.

Now, any disagreement from me will be just how far and important epistemological objections to scientism are, and I would rather save Alex time than bother rehashing an argument to that end. However what I think he does not see is that science does make knowledge claims, with very damaging implications. A cursory look at the latest New York Times Magazine that purports to demonstrate exactly what is wrong with your brain if you have anxiety is not a constructive way to look at the mind. Modern psychotherapy has successfully medicated an entire nation of people with little mind for the consequences on our long-term sanity.

But Alex would probably object to my polemicizing against science with psychology as a surrogate. I'll leave him with one big, unanswered question:

Has science really made life better?

A few qualifications: I do not think that you can convince me that atomic theory has made life on earth better off. Similarly, I do not believe that the advent of coal-fired power plants has not necessarily made the world a better place. Of course, if you consider only the past and the present as case studies for your consideration, you would disagree (and be correct). But science itself is discovering what it has wrought in the form of global warming, lack of natural resources, etc. These problems, however, are not limited and are not going to be 'patched up' by science in order to make a better future.

They all stem from the one, fundamental problem of science: tunnel-vision. Alex may claim that Einsteinian Mechanics is better than Newtonian mechanics, but like he says, all scientific theories have a use. And unfortunately, this use involves a necessary separation of an object from its environment, and a denial of its relationship with all other things in the environment from which it was taken.

This mentality, older even than science proper, is given rise to in Greek metaphysics and epistemology; it is the idea (which has found itself perverted and extended beyond all reasonable limitations in modern analytic philosophy and its cognates, cognitive and the other behavioral sciences) that an object can be mastered and permeated through with our comprehension absent its surrounding environs. I do not dispute that science is the way of the future; I simply want to raise a simple, yet in my mind quite important objection: Every scientific advance that has been the cause of a problem (anti-depressants, utilization of fossil fuels for energy and heat) could have been tempered in order to avoid its consequent problem. However this is not the job of science, because contrary to what Alex believes, I think that science does make a knowledge claim, however bedecked it is in the robes of humility and good conscience.

Addendum to my addendum: Alex further claims that science is self-correcting, and that most scientists test their theories to the breaking point in order to further refine their theories and the current science. Does he really believe this? I would ask him: is it not the case that a scientist comes up with a theory which he then conducts experiments to prove rather than disprove his theory? To paraphrase my favorite philosopher: Every instance can be made to accord with a law, and a law can be made to account for every instance; I simply deny that in doing this you are actually following rules or creating laws.

Alex's Original Comments:

Sure, science may be something we almost worship and diefy, but it is mechanistically distinct from all other religions. While all of them are born from an unending quest for "Truth", science is the only 'religion' that fully takes into account the potential for human fallibility an bias in misleading our ascent to this divine understanding of the universe - and this is where the scientific method is born. With the scientific method, and with agreement upon certain metrics (distance, time, pH, etc.), humans of all shapes, sizes, colors and cultures are able to replicate the findings of others and test hypotheses- the hypothetical descriptions of reality provided by others.

It's agreed that science doesn't nor ever will yield "Truth" - for every epistemologist will raise hell whenever a scientist asserts that his/her theory is "known" to be true. However, the utility of our theories is confirmed as people worldwide repeat the experiments and find similar results.

Take Atomic Theory. To be blunt, Atomic theory was born as ejaculate from the intellectual masterbation of mathematicians found itself resting smugly upon phenomena nobody could explain. The math worked - it allowed people to predict with stunning accuracy the amount of given chemicals that will be used up or produced in certain reactions. Once the math worked, people had to come up with explanations for what the math seems to be describing - and so they said that billiard balls called "atoms" are the building blocks of all matter. The mathematicians didn't stop there. Call them nymphomaniacs or what you will, but the mathematicians time and time again pushed the frontiers of understanding of the subatomic world - and scientists had to come up with concepts that fit the math.

Nobody has ever seen an atom, much less an electron, proton, neutron, gluon or what have you (let's not mention this obscure concept of "energy").

So, we have no way of knowing if this concept of an "Atom" is actually "true". However, regardless whether or not these scientific theories are true, they still yield stunning accuracy of metrics and provide firm foundations for making predictions when we're faced with a novel scenario. Regardless whether or not we "believe in atoms", adopting atomic theory will allow an individual to take huge strides in understanding how the physical universe works.

This will be the case until some other guy, maybe some nympho mathematician, maybe some labrat, or maybe some little kid who asks a piercing question about matter, discovers some phenomenon (using metrics we've agreed upon) that atomic theory fails to explain, no matter how much we try to stretch it...
Delete

Then, the race is on to generate an all-encompassing theory. As a matter of fact, mathematicians and quantum physicists are confronted with this right now as they try to find out a theory that unifies all of the forces of the universe (the sadly named "Theory of Everything" - what happens when we find some phenomenon that this theory can't explain?)

This self-correction of science is what makes it so different from other religions. Buddhism, under our homeboy the current Dali LamaTenzin Gyatso, is one religion that has similar self-correction (they assert that you should never believe anything preached in Buddhist philosophy if your own experience proves otherwise), but nobody is actively trying to disprove the tenets of Buddhism. In science, there are geeks everywhere that would give a kidney to come up with a new and better theory - and so they try to push theories to the limits and find that anomaly that can't be explained by the present theory....

Philosophically and theologically, it's easy to make an argument that science is just another religion. However, it's important to notice the mechanistic uniqueness of science that yields its astonishing effectiveness at solving our problems and making our lives more comfortable. Science and math, founded on the premise that there are metrics and logical tools (cummulative addition, etc.) that we can all agree upon, allow us to correct the basic tenets of these 'religions', and this active self-correction is what makes all the difference. This self-correction, when powered by armies of geeks worldwide who are playing by the same rules, allows for such a rapid advancement of science that generates the myriad technological advancements we see today.

faith in technology?

Hello decent reading public; I hope this sabbath day finds you all content in your homes with your family and close friends; perhaps you have read a book today (scandalous!) or maybe even taken your wife to a dancing-hall (!). Hopefully you have spend a good deal of time thanking the creator for the wonderful life which he has bestowed upon you.

Of course, if you read this blog, the entire paragraph above is laughable. Sunday is just like any other day; it's a day to study for tests, a day to lie in bed with your lover, a day to cry about last night's injustices. We've all got our recompense on sunday.

It's often that I find myself stimulated by the philosophers I study for class towards thoughts about technology and its place in our collective consciences. Take Nietzsche, for example, the great "sham-smasher", according to Mencken. Now, I am not a sooth-sayer so do not take the following words to be any sort of spiritual meditation on our life. If my words are effective you might find your mind sharing a parallel path to my own, at least for a short while. Let us clear away some brush with our sharply-honed (or at least dense enough) machetes and see how Nietzsche comes to bear on the philosophy of technology.

Nietzsche's achievement was to call into question moral systems as a whole. That is, he was the first to ask: "What is the value of our values?" Nietzsche's answer is unsettling for Hegelians, Christians, and moralists alike. First, some background:

Nietzsche, in his Genealogy of Morals, undertakes an etymological investigation of the words "good", "bad", and "evil". He argues that firstly, there is no word for "Evil" in ancient Greek or Latin. Secondly he notices that the words "Good" and "Bad" are derived from positive, self-affirming values in the aforementioned cultures. There are no 'virtuous' connotations to the word "Good"; the words in Latin and Greek are derived from words for war ('bellum') in the former and 'strong' in the latter; hence the words for "bad" are only attributed to those things lacking strength or prowess in battle.

"Well, what does this have to do with the price of Dell laptops?" my faithful readership might ask. Hold on, hold on. We'll get there. Note now that the ideas of judeo-christian morals are cast in a peculiar light. No matter how 'virtuous' they are, we notice now that they are based upon denials of ego, upon restraint. What implications does this have for religion? Well, once we see that this is our conception of morals, then we see that Christian morality is based upon the restraint of our urges to avenge or commit violence.

Now, before we get to an examination of technology (and, more widely still, science) in contemporary discussion, an examination of Nietzsche's arguments against the existence of God. Nietzsche argues that notions of a 'god' are created from ancient communal worship of ancestors. As a society becomes more wealthy and prosperous, the 'debt' that a society feels to its ancestors increases, until what were previously ancestors are now transformed into demi-gods. One can follow the logical progression of this, but the important thing is to see that God is created out of a notion of indebtedness; the Christian God is the ultimate and logically complete form of this notion: a god that for your sins comes to Earth as a human and allows himself to be destroyed for your forgiveness. Talk about a large tally of debt!

Now, Nietzsche astutely points out that it is the achievement of the modern age to realize this truth, and subsequently turn to science to derive a meaning from life. But, Nietzsche notes, this is simply the exact same sort of worship associated with previous gods! Does one not see this idea of a God echoed in the wide-spread respect for 'scientific truth' and 'logical necessity'? Nietzsche's philosophy was about getting beyond this notion of Truth, but at this point I would recommend the reader to take his attentions to Nietzsche himself rather than listen to this poor conduit.

The important thing to realize is that what people take to be the full-hearted truth, and the thing into which people place the entirety of their hard-fought faith into, this is the same sort of dogmatism that existed before! Any cursory look at the place that technology holds in our society will yield this view. How can it be otherwise? Who do we expect to deliver us from the spectre of global warming? Science and human ingenuity, of course! What we have to realize is that science is something that is of use, not something that yields Truth, in any qualifiable form. We are not interested in Holism (and Truth without qualification is necessarily part of a holistic worldview) - we are interested in the things that will make life easier.

The Internet's case against Democracy

With so much ado about the presidential nomination process going on in the states presently, I feel some commentary on this matter from a more technologically-inclined view might merit my attentions. The greatest question raised by these elections is not which of the three possible nominees are going to best serve the ideals of the nation. It is quite simply this: is the current methodology by which we determine our leadership at all adequate for solving the problems that our country currently faces?

First a bit of an ahistorical preface: I do not here intend to concern myself with facts and a politically correct (read: moralistic) account of the current state of affairs. It is possible that my current diet of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer has motivated me along this course; the important thing is that those who read this article must withhold judgment if it is based upon some petty disagreement with the facts I invoke. If you can see the ideas and processes with which I am struggling then the value of this essay will not be lost on you. If, however, you choose to assume a reactionary, moralistic stance towards me and deny my views a priori on account of their seeming to be politically incorrect, then I encourage you to visit a more palatable website.

The American electoral system has its roots in the founding father's desire for a sort of 'landed aristocracy' (or as close as possible in the then just-conceived USA) to make most of the political decisions. I believe that it is from this viewpoint that women and African-Americans were excluded by the constitution from the voting process, not because of any virulent racism (though it of course did exist and was jockeying for this state of affairs as well). The electoral college as such comes into being as a way to limit the ability for the popular vote to determine who holds power in a country. This is obvious to most people: it is for this reason that our political system is so inhospitable to 3rd-party candidates. Instead of getting into this fertile topic however, let us simply concede that the electoral college as such functions as a way to remove and diffuse the power of the popular vote. If an electorate votes in a 'winner-takes-all' local election for the right to decide who their representative will nominate as president, it logically follows that a candidate with popular appeal--that is, a candidate who wins the popular vote--may not and in fact will not necessarily win the election (2000 is the most recent example of this phenomenon; there are other instances as well).

How has this system gone wrong? For several reasons. First of all, the 17th amendment (changing the election of senators to a popular vote instead of being nominated by a state's assembly) and universal suffrage are two glaring examples of "just" or "virtuous" democratization that has had a detrimental effect on the country's election system. Now before I get into the meat of my argument I would like to preface that some of the views (indeed even the one just mentioned) I do not in any way espouse; I am undergoing an exercise to see just how viable our current electoral system remains in this hyper-technological world.

Now, the result of this diffusion of voting power has been beneficial in recent years. Indeed as a fully-liberal democrat I can only be happy that women and minorities are allowed to vote; these demographic groups form the backbone of the Democratic election effort. But what has happened as a consequence is that most people who vote today do not have the slightest knowledge about who they are voting for. Indeed the current state of American democracy is a paradox of epic proportions: presently the widest number of people exercise power over the election process (we are second-only to India in this regard), but also the centralization of both power and the media has induced a process of stultification amongst this country's electorate that is staggering.

And this is the crux of my argument: the internet and its associated de-centralization of media distribution has been a boon to those members of society who have the time to learn about those men and women who stand for election. But at the same time, the people who really do know about what is happening in this country are effectively silenced by the great mass of people who are either too busy or too ignorant to bother with learning about the calamities that stand on our collective doorstep.

So we must grapple with the democratization of information but the necessary limiting of power. Can you not see why this is necessary? The only alternative is to work towards the education of everyone so that they are not so ignorant of our situation. But this is impossible with the current politics in play. The republicans are of course aware of this and have successfully neutered our public education system. So what does a Democrat of good conscience do? Hope for the best and assume that somewhere down the line people will be educated enough to make decisions that are based upon informed opinions and rational debate?

It is saddening for me to have to say this, but if you asked me my political views today I would say that I am a fascist. Not in the antiquated 20th-century use of the term. Global Warming, the war in Iraq, the coming conflict with Iran, and the economic crisis cannot be adequately dealt with by any of the candidates that stand for election (though a cursory glance to the left will show you where the realist inside of me places his hopes and hard-earned cash). What is most necessitated by the internet revolution is a de-democratization of the political process; one that does not allow the current farce to continue. What I refer to as the 'current farce' is the fact-of-the-matter situation in which a select group of people are elected regardless--this is the same situation as the one I am advocating--but for one major distinction: We must realize the pervasive corruption that has taken hold of Washington and destroy it by replacing not the people who hold office but the people who decide who stands for office.

It remains to be determined just who will retain the power to decide elections (and I suppose in that sense this article is most lacking). In this sense my ignorance of history does not pay off: I haven't the slightest idea of how to create a meritocracy that on the one hand keeps the best interests of the nation as a whole in mind but on the other keeps complete fucking tossers such as Jon McCain and George Bush out of the political process. Because indeed our current political situation is the result of a perversion of the existing meritocracy. Where previously distinguished military service or an Ivy-league education were beneficial requisites for holding office, the administration of George Bush has proven this state of affairs to be woefully inadequate.

I do not propose any solutions but I think that it is the job of this generation (my own) to come up with a solution to this problem that can be summed up as: "disenfranchisement, but disenfranchisement of the right people". More later.