|
Edited on Wed Jul-28-04 12:03 AM by happyslug
Ideology is one's closely held beliefs. The proper name for this is "religion". Anything that is a "Path to illuminating Judgment" is a religion, for it indicates that you will find the "real truth" by following that path.
Science is cold and ruthless. It does not say it will produce Nirvana. Science is the study of how things ARE. As we learn more of how things ARE (and how their work) the theories that are the heart of Science change. Science helps us understand ourselves based on its discoveries and the theories that help explain those discoveries.
For example why and how humans organize themselves as a social animal can best be explained by the Scientific theory of evolution, but that theory does NOT tell us how WE SHOULD ORGANIZE OURSELVES. There is NO right or wrong in Science, just different outcomes. If you see right or wrong in Science, if you see morality in science, you are worshiping it not permitting it to flourish.
You differentiate between "Technology" and "Science" and said technology can be abused but Science can not be for "practitioners will report and interpret the universe through the honest and most precise available measurement of its physical nature" is a statement of belief that the High Priest of Science will follow such ethical rules no matter how it will affect them personally (primarily economically). If you study other religions when it came to maintaining power (Mostly economic power) and holding onto to their ethics, ethics died in favor of economics. You cite Stalin and how Soviet Science under him suffered from this very fate. Even the hard Sciences under Stalin had to follow Stalin's beliefs or the Scientists in question would lose their jobs and maybe even their lives. That was the ECONOMIC REALITY UNDER STALIN and Soviet Science suffered from it.
I hate to say this (For some of your other thread in DU have been very good) you have an ideology that you do not even want to admit to. It is the worship of Science, not as a way to understand things (Which is The Strength of Science) but as a good in and by itself. That is NOT Science but Ideology. Science to do the most good must be free of ANY IDEOLOGY EVEN WORSHIP OF THE IDEOLOGY OF WORSHIPING SCIENCE.
That is all I have to say on the subject of Science being amoral but let me say a few words about William Jennings Bryan. Read something about him, you might even learn to like him. Bryan was to the LEFT of FDR 30 years BEFORE FDR became President. Bryan favored unions, state control of Corporations, regulations of Financial Markets way before the rest of the Country. Bryan favored an Income Tax, and that the tax should be on the wealthest of Americans.
Bryan's rejections of Evolution was based more on the fact Evolution theory in the late 1800s was tied in with Social Darwinism (Which has nothing to do with Darwin, except its name).
The premises of Social Darwinism that some people where "higher evolved" than others and it was this fact that made Whites better than Blacks and the rich better than the poor. Social Darwinism violated Bryan's deep held belief in Democracy. Bryan rejected the concept that some people are better than others just because they have money. Bryan came to the political stage when both Social Darwinism and Segregation was the newest political fad, and he rejected Social Darwinism as a rejection of the concept of Majority rule.
As Bryan aged, Bryan had to make several compromise, Bryan supported the KKK in the 1920s (More do the the Power of the Klan in the 1920s than any real sympathy for the KKK). Bryan made several speeches opposing imperialism pointing out that just because third world nations are NOT Christian and White does not mean Christian and White-men should rule them (Through Bryan was silent on domestic Segregation, more to help his election campaign than any real opposition to blacks voting).
While Bryan made compromises (all politicians do, look at Clinton and "Welfare reform") Bryan's basic belief in the nobility of all people stayed with him. The chief reason Bryan took on the job of prosecution in the Scopes Monkey trial seems to have been the growth of the Eugenics movement in the 1920s. Bryan opposed Eugenics for the same reason he opposed Social Darwinism, in it is the seeds of rule not by the people but by an elite. Bryan was going to defend majority rule over any rule by any elite be it financial or other.
Please note DO NOT GO BY THE MOVIE INHERIT THE WIND, Bryan had no problem with extended geological time periods. In fact he seems to have read much about Evolution. Bryan even defended anyone's right to teach evolution PROVIDED SUCH TEACHING WAS NOT ON THE PUBLIC EXPENSE.
Bryan's objection to the theory of Evolution had less to do with the Theory than with his concept that the majority must rule. If you are going to teach anything and have your salary paid through Public Taxation, than what is taught MUST be what the majority of people want taught. If the majority did not want something taught, Bryan maintained the decision of the Majority has to be followed.
Please note Bryan also opposed public funding of religion and religious schools, in one speech he mentions he had no objections to the teaching of Evolution in any school that did not receive state funds, just like he opposed teaching of religion in public schools. He point out there are churches everywhere in American teaching Christianity (and other religions) and if people who believe in evolution wanted to set up schools to teach evolution he would support their efforts. Bryan also said such schools must be like like Churches and church schools, receive no state aid.
Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial demonstrated one of the great dilemmas in American Democracy, if we are to be a Democracy we need an educated public, the best way to do that is through a public School system so everyone can go to school. The problem is such a school system has to teach not only reading writing and mathematics but how people are to interact with each other. Ethics are not taught in a vacuum. From the start of the Public School System to today what is taught in the Public Schools has been a constant source of friction in society. We minimize it by giving the local school boards broad authority over that issue (Thus the whole issue can be avoided at county, state and even the Federal Level). Most school boards decide this issue by avoiding controversy at all cost (Which is the reason most schools do not teach evolution). Bryan's statement is basically when it comes to Public Schools, leave the majority rule, most times the Majority will try to avoid the controversy (as opposed to suppress ing unpopular ideas). Bryan's position was when it comes to such disputes, we have to go with majority rule.
If a minority wants something else taught to their children, in Bryan' opinion, they can form churches or other religious or private Schools and teach such topics. Under the Bill of Rights you have the right to your opinion and how your children are to be taught, but the state has no obligations to PAY FOR SUCH TEACHINGS IF THE MAJORITY DO NOT WANT IT TAUGHT.
Majority Rule and the protection of Minorities have always been problems not only in American Society but any society. You may disagree with Bryan's solution to the dilemma when it involved the theory of Evolution, but he was fairly consistent in his protection of the minority while defending Majority rule. People who disagree with him tend to want their opinions to be taught in the Public Schools even if the majority do not want them to be taught in the Public Schools.
I admit I tend to go with the concept of Majority rule when it comes to anything paid with taxes, for the opposite stand is rule by the "forces of what is right", i.e. the taking of taxes for what a minority wants those taxes spent on (and the majority oppose) because "it is the right thing to do". How can it be right if the Majority of people PAYING THE TAXES oppose it? Remember we are NOT talking of rights where tax dollars are NOT being spent (Freedom of Religion, Speech, Assembly, association etc when these are NOT being paid by tax dollars). We are taking of spending TAX DOLLARS on something the majority do NOT want their tax dollars spent on.
Byran's solution to this dilemma was simple and workable, leave the local school boards decide what is to be taught on the local level. If someone dislike what is being taught in the schools they can complain. If no response is made to the complaint than the people complaining can teach your child in a private school at their own expense (Which has been the solution since the formation of the Public School System in the 1830s). It may not be an elegant as other solutions to difficult social decisions but it was and is a workable one.
My point here is READ something about the man other than from the Scopes Monkey trial, you will find much to like unless you are a Republican. Remember even Clarence Darrow on hearing of Bryan's death said it was a great lost to the Country.
Bryan converted a morbid obstructionist almost regional party into a party of Liberal reforms. He did it almost by himself, convincing the Populist and Free Silver parties to join him in 1896, and to stay with the Democrats after 1896 (to help him fight the economic hold of the GOP and its supporters).
People forget that before Bryan the Democrats were even more conservative than the GOP (Supporting Segregation and before that slavery). After Bryan you see the quick evolution of the Democratic Party to the be party of Reform of Wilson and FDR (and later Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the Democratic party of today). That movement starts with Bryan and you can not take that away from him.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
