Passion and Knowledge

[krustyegg]

The phenomenon of mechanistic thinking, follows the age old tradition of fads and fashions; and also comes from the trap of function fixedness of heuristics: i.e. this method of thinking has worked so well so many times that it is the first schema used to answer a question.

Something that really pisses me off is all these guys talking about the body and mind as a machine/computer: It is not and here is why: a machine is made for a purpose where as I am not made and don’t exist for a purpose!

[stealthswimmer]

yeah, I think i get what you're saying when you say "nothing is value-free" but what I think people mean when they say economics is value-free is that there is not any sort of moral connection is has to anything.

[ediblepet]

I can see two reasons why other people aren't as passionate about knowledge as you and other philosophers are. The first is that you are abnormally intelligent. Most people don't have your intelligence and will get frustrated and even resentful towards knowledge. Another I think is psychological. The truth can be a real downer and people are trying to keep their sanity and contentedness together. You should read The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker if you haven't.

[Sepero1]

I agree that nothing we take action towards is without value.

Mises based his economics primarily on a foundation of utilitarian cosequentialism.

[Cailwyn]

I don't don't think that it is scientists, or intellectuals in general, that have become dispassionate, but rather the cultural perception of intellectuals that has changed. Before the 20th century, intellectuals were the rock stars of their day. Now they are considered to be nerds and know-it-alls.

I think, on a cultural level, people are less interested in intellectual endeavors because of the noise of cheap amusements out there; people forgot how to sit and think and be awed.

[nine9s]

The post-enlightenment period of science is actually something I've read quite a bit about. It seems that many scientists ("natural philosophers" at the time) during the Enlightenment had that passion you're talking about, but those outside the scientific circles didn't understand that passion, or thought it cold. The poet Coleridge respected science and befriended the great chemist Humphrey Davy, but he was a committed relativist and turned Davy into one too. (cont.)

[nine9s]

At the time (early 1800s), Germany was enthralled with Kantian phenomenalism, which said we could never know reality, only appearances. As a result, German science petered out within a few decades. After all, if we can't know reality, what's the point of science? No passion possible. France and England became prominent in Germany's absence, but as phenomenalism spread, the sciences became described by all practitioners as a study of appearances, not reality. (cont.)

[nine9s]

Even as atomic theory had all the evidence necessary for its acceptance in 1870, scientists were still unwilling to say anything definite about what exists. Even as late as the early 1900s there were scientists who said that atoms were only a mental aid, not a description of what is. In fact, a seller of molecular model kits (balls and wires) was laughed out of a scientific conference for the effrontery of presenting molecules as something that actually existed. (cont.)

[nine9s]

As science became a statistical description of appearances, the old accusation of science as a dry cold undertaking came true. There's nothing inspiring about intricately studying something that doesn't really exist.  In fact, physicists started talking about "modern physics" vs. "classical physics" in the 1880's, decades before Einstein, because everyone was already explicitly dismissing the idea of studying what exists outside the observer. (cont.)

[nine9s]

The predominant epistemology and metaphysics among scientists at the time didn't allow them to definitively state "This is true." Yet science is all about discovering the truth. Imagine embarking on a career where one has to go through the motions of doing something that can't be done. Horrible. And it only got worse as physics became more and more incomprehensible.

So in summary, science became dry and cold when its end goal was undercut by bad philosophy.

[nine9s]

(cont.) Or, at least, that's a dominant reason. There's a lot of plain, unavoidable personal preference at work too. But you don't see art or history getting a reputation for being dry and cold. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are just upset that they can't BS their way through science the way they do the humanities.

[ExistentialExistent]

I agree, and it's bad for science!

[clonepsi]

Why are people scared of knowledge?

I hate to be cliche but this idea sums it up.

Ignorance is bliss.

[UnschoolingEagle]

I totally agree. I am passionate about nearly everything I research because I look for what is best for humans. I am passionate about improving humanity.

[GodHatesFacts]

Agreed.

[Mastikator]

I agree, science and learning is awesome and deserves all the love in the world.

[joebot1]

I agree and dissagree!, sometimes you have to shelve the pasion to retain our objectivity.

But make no mistake about it, scientists are very passionate aout their science, ever seen a theoretical phicasist running down a corridour when a new particle is descovered giggling like a school boy, or the tears in a scientists eyes when a probe lands on mars!, it happens all the time.

Although, unbridled passion caused newton to almost lose his sanity over the trinity and einstine to waste...

[joebot1]

...the last so many years of his life chasing a theory that simply could not be achieved at that time!.

Passion should play a part in the motivation for your doing things like you said, and a source of strength to follow through in your endevours, but it should in no way colour your desisions or rob you of your objectivity!, and that can and has happened often!.

[modelmark]

I don't think what is generally meant with value free theory, is that the person pursuing the theory has no values. He/she can be passionate like crazy about it. It is just that the theory itself does not require values.

'If you want to be healthy, you have to eat vitamins.', is a value free theory. Is does not say health is a value.

[XOmniverse]

I actually did a video in my ethics series called Rational Oughts that you should watch. It addresses how even if statements like that can't truly be value free.

[modelmark]

what values are buried in the statement :2+2=4 ?

[XOmniverse]

The better question is; what values are buried in the person that motivates them to say 2+2=4?

[modelmark]

this person is indeed motivated and not value free, like no person is value free. But the statement 2+2=4 itself, seems value free. You can see that statement independent of the person uttering it.

[XOmniverse]

I could be wrong, but somehow I think the statement "2+2=4" contains stuff like "mathematical accuracy is good."

[modelmark]

I do not think it says that. It just states a fact of reality, I think

[gedgetips]

Yes, it is important to realize that our personal participation in acts of understanding does not make this understanding "subjective." On the contrary, when we merely repeat things we assume to be valid then whatever truth is in what we say can be lost in terms of our own responsibility in following out such truth -- because we are just being subjective in trying to sound so objective. Michael Polanyi has explored this subject in science in his Personal Knowledge.

[fede2]

values are existential necesities. without values there's no purpose. without purpose... there's pretty much stagnation or death.

[FriendOregon]

Very true.