To Mary and others who may be following this thread: Sorry to be so slow in
responding, the press of other stuff sometimes makes it hard to be
very timely. Mary, I particularly appreciated your long and thoughtful
reply and hope my seemingly philosophical nit-picking is not too
aggravating. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree and go back to other
topics. Part of me wants to do just that; but if I'm fully honest here I
must admit that part of me feels the discussion is well worth pursuing
further. That part seems to have the upper hand at the moment, so ...
Let me begin by noting some points you made in your last post that I agree
with:
1) that humans have more choices than other species on the planet [that I
know about]
2)that "we cannot dump poison into our water supply and expect it not to
matter."
3)that "having choice ... implies knowing that there are alternatives",
hence the cows pissing in their drinking water are not doing so by choice.
4) that "deep scientific aspects" of environmental issues should be examined
and understood.
5) that we do need to consider both scientific and extra- or non-scientific
viewpoints. (I accept the both/and position! and am reassured that you do
also.)
6) that scientific truth is not the only truth
7) that environmentalists should be scientifically literate
8) that "science is often wrong, [but] so are all other areas of human
thought"
So it seems we agree on quite a bit of what might have been at issue -- more,
certainly, than I initially thought we might. Good. But I think I should
own the fact that I do still disagree on a couple of your points -- ones at
the center of the deeper problems of how we construct ourselves, our
beliefs, practices and projects as ecofeminists. And I'd like to try to
clarify my "position" (in so far as I have one, that is) so that you and
others interested can consider whether it may indeed be helpful in avoiding
some of the traps our culture poses (in effect) to serious ecofeminists.
Of the points of disagreement that remain the single one that seems most
central to me is one you have put in several ways, such as:
a) "not recognizing physical laws [such as those that explain why rocks break
in earthquake zones]... leads, IMHO to silly arguments."
b) "that there are certain inalienable natural laws in which we have NO
choice whether or not we will comply."
c) "there are certain natural laws we will not overcome, no matter how much
freedom, choice, privilege, rights or money we have (F=ma for instance)."
Now I hasten to add that I don't disagree with every aspect of these
statements. Not recognizing physical reality certainly can lead to silly
arguments sometimes. There are aspects of the world (reality) that are
beyond our control and if you don't watch out they can even kill you. And,
yes, F=ma is an acceptable principle of mechanics, at least in this
earth-bound realm where we reside.
My problem is not that I want to calculate forces differently, emulate
omnipotence, or ignor physical reality. My problem is a good deal narrower
than that. I find that I cannot accept that modern science is the only
correct way of constructing the nature of reality as it actually is. For
example, the Kogi of the Columbian highlands construct the world very
differently than we do (I'll get the reference tomorrow and post it). Not
only do I find their construction very
appealing, I suspect it may be true. But the way modern science works, and
so many scientists talk (I never thought you intend to be doing this!)
presupposes or takes for granted that if something conflicts with the claims
of science then the only rational course is to reject it as false. This is
what I meant by the exclusivity of scientific claims to truth (hope this is
clearer), and I just can't accept it. As the philosopher Nelson Goodman
once wrote, there are many ways the world is and every true statement
captures one of them. To me this means that both the Kogi version and
scientific versions may be actual aspects of physical reality,
notwithstanding the fact that so many scientists say only their's can be so.
So the issue for me is not whether there is independent physical reality,
but whether science alone can speak for it.
Now, (and this is a bit of a side issue, but perhaps one that will help with
the main issue), along with your first formulation a) in your post from June
19, you wrote, "it annoys me dreadfully to hear people say things like 'Well,
since the Exxon Valdez spilled millions of gallons of oil into Prince
William Sound, Mother nature retaliated by causing an earthquake in Mexico'
..... I find statements like these frighteningly ridiculous for the
incredible ignorance of science this implies. That is ALL *I* meant by my
previous posts, but you seem to have read quite a bit more into them than I
wrote."
Well, Mary, I don't think I'm reading anything at all into this last passage
that isn't already there in spades. When I read the remark you impugn I
don't see it as necessarily "not recognizing physical laws"; nor do I see
how doing so in this case has lead to a "silly argument." I rather suspect
that whoever was quoted was appealing to a non-standard belief (in Mother
Nature) that is different from what science says and, yes, probably conflicts
with science. The quotee, I suspect, may not accept the exclusivity of
scientific claims to truth. Your seemingly intense reaction strongly
suggests you do; to me you seem to be reacting to the quote precisely
because you take it implicitly so very much for granted that explanations
not based in science cannot be credible. Indeed, isn't this almost exactly
what you were saying a little way further down your last post:
I find arguments about the environment that don't have some basis in
science to be without reality, and as such are only word games, and
have no where to go.
The oil-spill/earthquake quote does not offend me, though I recognize,
as you probably do, that there is no set of scientific principles that would
support an empirical connection between the Exxon Valdez episode and the
Mexico earthquake. But neither am I ready to write it off on those grounds!
Yet in your response to the quote, you seemed to me to be doing just that --
writing it off.
Well, that's the point I've been trying to make in such a way that you can
understand it and not feel as though you were being personally accused.
Culpability is certainly not the issue for me here, obstacles posed by the
deeply seated culture of modern science are! I recognize that many
practicing scientists and plently of "lay" persons as well are bearers of
this cultural legacy (sometimes associated with the word "positivism"), but
in my experience it conflicts deeply and strongly with the cultivation of
diversity, balance, ecological integrity and a host of other values that
keep bringing me (and how many others?) back to this list.
Mary, you also raised other important points that I'll have to come back to
(probably in another thread). 'nuf for now.
ps
Philip T. Shepard, Professor
Lyman Briggs School
Michigan State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
