>From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Ian: > > >Indeed, lots of the problems of modernity are the uses > > >to which logic, scientific thinking etc. have been put and those > > >problems are not reducible to the problems created by capitalism. > >Carl: > > Yes, I think the basis of many of modern society's worst difficulties >is >the > > pernicious objectification of the individual that results from the > > scientific method, in all its many forms -- especially > > including the social > > sciences -- and with all its many appurtenances, including > > collection and > > analysis of statistics such as the jobless rate. > >so we shouldn't care about the number of unemployed individuals, even when >this number is measured accurately, because it peniciously objectifies the >individual? so if I refer to the high unemployment rate of 1933 in the >United States, I am objectifying people (and doing so perniciously)?
I think statistics are pernicious because the joys of playing with numbers dull awareness of the great sorrow that *any* quantity of joblessness creates -- one unemployed is a tragedy, a million, statistics, so to speak. When you start pondering numbers in the abstract, the next thing you know you're blathering about unavoidable tradeoffs, NAIRU and what level of unemployment is "acceptable." The acceptable level of unemployed is, of course, zero, and any economic system that can't accommodate that has to go. Statistics get in the way of recognizing that truth. > > I don't know any answer to this problem, since science is so central to >modern life, but > > I do see it as a problem. Scientific study by its nature puts distance > > between a human observer and human subject, creates a hierarchical >relationship and > > deliberately limits development of empathy. I think this has had a >deeply > > > damaging effect on human relations overall. > >How does scientific study do this "by its nature"? Because scientific study requires that you rule out all variables not having to do explicitly with the subject being investigated. If you're conducting a focus group, taking a poll or whatever, you have no interest in bonding with the interviewees/participants as full-dimensional people, you simply want to pump them for info on one narrow topic. You ignore their existential reality in order to strip-mine their consciousness for data. Ugly stuff. >and what is the alternative to scientific thinking? That's the horror of it all. As Huxley suggested in Brave New World, there doesn't seem to be any choice between the dehumanization of science and reversion to simple savagery. As I said, I don't have any answer to this. Carl _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
