 Although it has recently disgraced itself
by promoting hate propaganda, CBC radio's Ideas series still
occasionally comes up with some thought-provoking programs. One of
these is the series How to Think About Science, which has been running
Wednesday nights since last November, and whose first 20 programs are
now up on podcast.
Tonight's episode #24 featured a number of scientists and philosophers
talking about how science is sometimes guilty of being unconsciously
ideological, and how it uses myths and analogies (like Dawkins'
'selfish gene') to advance an ideological position that (because of the
power of myth and analogy) can interfere with our ability to appreciate
other, competing theories of how the world works. And science is, after
all, just theories, models, approximations and representations of
reality, that are interesting and, sometimes, useful.
One of the philosophers criticizing this unconscious ideology, interviewed in the program, was Mary Midgley
who, after reiterating her now-famous criticism of Dawkins, said
something so remarkable (perhaps because it was so obvious but I'd
never realized it) that I had to pull my car off the road to stop and
digest it. She said:
Before human beings can change their behaviour, they have to change their way of thinking.
When
humans (including scientists) believed that other animals were
unthinking, unfeeling robots, for example, we had no qualms about
subjecting them to unimaginable torture and suffering. Even today, in
many cultures and religions, 'nature' is viewed as a savage, hostile
force to be subdued by humans (exemplified by shows on the wingnut
networks like Fox -- Survivor, When Animals Attack etc.)
I was
listening today to a speech by our ghastly prime minister Harper, who
is misrepresenting what his government is doing to protect biodiversity
at an international meeting somewhere (he's actually doing less than
nothing, with policies whose effect is to accelerate loss of
biodiversity). What struck me was his comment that much of the alleged
work protecting Canada's biodiversity was being done by -- get this -- "environmental philanthropists".
A philanthropist is someone who donates to charity. So Harper was admitting that he views "the environment" as a charity case.
This
is, of course, completely consistent with the conservative worldview.
Nature is put here by God to be conquered, bent to man's will, and used
as he sees fit. Defeating nature is God's test of our strength and
valour. Once it's beaten, it's really of no use. Harper buys this myth
completely; it is beyond his comprehension to see humans as just
another, not especially extraordinary, creature that evolved as an
inseparable part of the environment, dependent on that environment. The
only way in this ideological worldview he can 'make sense' of spending
money on environmental protection is by viewing it as an act of charity.
My point in writing about this is two-fold. First,
we should not presume that the environmentalists' worldview is devoid
of mythology and ideology either. I think that Gaia theory (and the
ever-evolving theory of evolution) is a brilliant scientific theory,
one that intuitively resonates with me as having great explanatory
power and predictive value. It's very useful. It's fascinating, even
exciting. But it is only a theory, a model, a representation of
reality. Like reality, it continues to evolve; it evolves as we learn
more about how the world appears to work. It is not "the truth".
This is not a defence of creation theory, which is an utterly indefensible misrepresentation
of reality, and hence completely useless (except perhaps as a tool for
propaganda and subjugation of the ignorant and fearful). But as useful
and consistent with observation as Gaia and evolution theories are,
they are only ways of thinking. They are not
The Truth. In fact, as another interviewee on the program commented,
the more we learn through science, the more likely it seems that The
Truth is unknowable. Learning is a journey without end, and we will
always find new models, new ways of thinking that make 'more sense'
than what we thought before, and cause us to change our way of thinking
and discard that old thinking.
Secondly, that italicized sentence above gave me a huge rush of appreciation for the value of writing, blogging, and being a generalist.
I've been enormously restless and self-critical because I keep thinking
out loud and writing about what I think needs to be done, what I think
perhaps my Purpose is, but somehow never really get started doing
anything about it. But maybe I'm not meant to be an activist, founding
communities and enterprises and creating models of a better way to live
and make a living. Maybe instead my Purpose is to change people's way of thinking. And for those of you who write as obsessively as I do, maybe that's your Purpose too.
What do you think?
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
