Mr. Weisberg's latest contribution directs our attention to a sad and troubling yet litttle-recognized truth, that our deepest truths and most passionate convictions cannot always be made to work together in ways we would prefer and indeed believe to be both rational and just. Conflicts arise, contradictions loom, choices, compromises and casuistries become necessary. It seems that world is not the way we should wish it to be and that when we attempt to straighten out one imperfection others spring up Hydra-like in its place.

Though there are indeed many like Mr. Weisberg for whom this little-recognized truth remains so, there are others for whom it is a foundational insight upon which all their subsequent reflections tend to rest. There are many ways to distinguish and characterize those on either side of the great ideological fault line running through our world. Terms such as conservative and liberal and their many more or less adequate synonyms have long since become hackneyed and stale as well as uninformative. Thus it may prove helpful to distinguish between those who believe it is both possible and righteous to have it all, and those who believe that perfect outcomes are seldom if ever possible in this world, and that the demand to have them is therefore always irrational and often wicked.

We cannot have it all. We cannot have everything we want at the same time and in the ways that we want it. Choices, sometimes difficult and distressing ones, must be made. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. From this point of departure comes caution, prudence, respect for tradition, nervousness about big changes, modesty of aims and a certain humility in regard to the diagnosis and treatment of complex social problems. It is understood that there are limits to what may be achieved, that ideals are ideals rather than goals, and that progress, if it comes at all, is apt to be erratic and seldom quick.

Those who think otherwise are greatly offended by the condition of affairs and therefore in haste to remedy them without delay. They consider that it is not only possible but morally obligatory to make everything right and they are not concerned that forceful methods could have consequences both unintended and undesirable, because they tend to view moral goods as infinitely expansible, in other words to think that it is possible to have everything they want when they want it and in the ways that they want it. There is not much room here for humility or modesty of understanding and aims. Such people seem to be perfectly certain of their positions and plans for changing the world even or perhaps especially when these may be novel and therefore untested. Caution, prudence, apprehension in regard to the immediate institution of sweeping reforms and fundamental alterations in government and social norms are dismissed as unneccesary, reactionary, uninformed or motivated by evil intent.

The growing danger in our time is the rising tide of political militancy among those who, though they are themselves completely convinced they both know how the world ought to be and how to make it so, are nevertherless unable to articulate and demonstrate their claims so as to persuade those with whom they differ. This accounts for the majority of the vulgarity and juvenilia on sites such as this and many others as well in public discourse. Passionate conviction that is unsupported by adequate instruction, i.e. education, is quickly reduced to insults and threats when challenged. The next step is physical violence against adversaries.

What is needed desperately is a return to basics in education that will permit future generations to be able to examine and criticize their own claims and convictions before they set to work vandalizing and seeking to wreck those of their political opponents. Until then we shall behold little else than the continuing clash of ignorant armies by night. Such violent and barbarous certitude about matters concerning which certitude is more than difficult reminds one of a maxim of Goethe's: Nothing is so terrible as ignorance in action.

>>Though there are indeed many like Mr. Weisberg for whom this little-recognized truth (our deepest truths and most passionate convictions cannot always be made to work together) remains so, there are others for whom it is a foundational insight upon which all their subsequent reflections tend to rest.<<

Your argument rests on the assumption that it isn't possible to have a philosophy in which all the most important truths are compatible. I reject this assumption. A world view based on physics and evolutionary biology is completely compatible and consistent. Theist like to talk about the beauty of the physical world and its interconnectedness as evidence of gods handy work while ignoring that science has developed independent fields that also interconnect and have formed a single unified explanation. Just one of the beauties of this belief system is its comforting consistency.

ru.empeirikos:

>>Though there are indeed many like Mr. Weisberg for whom this little-recognized truth (our deepest truths and most passionate convictions cannot always be made to work together) remains so, there are others for whom it is a foundational insight upon which all their subsequent reflections tend to rest.<<

Your argument rests on the assumption that it isn't possible to have a philosophy in which all the most important truths are compatible. I reject this assumption. A world view based on physics and evolutionary biology is completely compatible and consistent. Theist like to talk about the beauty of the physical world and its interconnectedness as evidence of gods handy work while ignoring that science has developed independent fields that also interconnect and have formed a single unified explanation. Just one of the beauties of this belief system is its comforting consistency.

I am afraid it would require a good deal of time and effort to persuade me to base my world view upon physics and evolutionary biology.

It is likely in fact that all such attempts, regardless of their nature, would be in vain. The reason is that I find it more plausible that physics and evolutionary biology themselves are based upon a certain world view, one that I cannot see to be rendered valid merely because it is widely shared and largely unexamined.

So your argument would necessarily go in a circle for me by saying that within the world view of physics and evolutionary biology the world view contains no serious irregularities and antinomies - an assertion, by the way, of utmost doubtfulness even on its face.

It is often remarked that liberty and equality are uneasy companions, for their mutual correlation inclines strongly to the negative, i.e. more liberty means less equality, more equality means less liberty.

This is one of the profoundest political conundrums of our time, one that appears again and again in different guises. I believe Toqueville, among others, took note of this. A modern exponent is Sir Isaiah Berlin. Although exponents of modern pluralism and diversity seldom seem to recognize it, the only valid argument for such fads depends upon our inability to have it all.

And if one wishes to reach still further back Sophocles' play Antigone is often cited as a tragic example of the conflict. It is hardly necessary to compile a bibliography of such things, for everyday experience ought to suffice to convince us that, like it or not, choices have to be made. We cannot have it all.

Those who presume to lay violent and Procrustean hands upon complex affairs of which they are profoundly ignorant in an attempt to have it all are the ones who bring hell rather than the heaven they desire to earth.

Physics and evolutionary biology may change all this for the better one day - but that day looks to me a long way off, and the chances equal or greater that they will bring about a result opposite to what is desired.

Science adds to our power without increasing our wisdom, and may perhaps, by giving us false confidence, even subtract somewhat from such wisdom as we have managed to build up over the ages.

>>I am afraid it would require a good deal of time and effort to persuade me to base my world view upon physics and evolutionary biology.<<

You underestimate yourself. There are many books available that are written for the layman; I prefer Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson and Jared Diamond.

>>The reason is that I find it more plausible that physics and evolutionary biology themselves are based upon a certain world view, one that I cannot see to be rendered valid merely because it is widely shared and largely unexamined.<<

The science disciplines are based on a single view, that the best way to acquire knowledge is through experimentation and observation.

>>So your argument would necessarily go in a circle for me by saying that within the world view of physics and evolutionary biology the world view contains no serious irregularities and antinomies - an assertion, by the way, of utmost doubtfulness even on its face.<<

I’m referring to the consilence of diverse fields like archaeology, geology, and comparative physiology, forming a single consistent narrative. You can doubt this if you want but that doesn’t change the broad interdisciplinary agreement.

>>Science adds to our power without increasing our wisdom, and may perhaps, by giving us false confidence, even subtract somewhat from such wisdom as we have managed to build up over the ages.<<

Most scientists don’t presume to know everything but the Scientific Method has proven to be our greatest instrument to acquire knowledge and refute folklore and dogma. The wisdom achieved by the use of science is unparalleled.

Most scientists don’t presume to know everything but the Scientific Method has proven to be our greatest instrument to acquire knowledge and refute folklore and dogma. The wisdom achieved by the use of science is unparalleled.

Now this is a bold claim, one I can't recall ever having been made before now, that science has given us not only useful knowledge in certain areas -which is of course undeniable and something to be grateful for despite its mixed blessings- but that it has also made us wiser in the process.

Of course there are the usual terminological considerations, e.g. what is meant by knowledge, wisdom, understanding, etc. So I should say that by wisdom I understand the kind of knowledge that informs us how to live life rightly and well, how to behave and what to think about such matters as readers and contributors to Slate regularly argue. Wisdom is the knowledge of how to live well. This or something very like it is, I believe, the usual and customary understanding of the term.

Now according to the above definition or something near to it, your scientific triumphalism seems to me not only unwarranted but positively strange. I cannot think you mean to say what you seem to me to be saying. Do I understand you correctly here?

Are we henceforth to look to men and women of the science establishment for wisdom as well as practical knowledge about natural phenomena? Is it even possible to imagine such a thing?

It is no case against science and scientists to recognize the boundaries and limitations of scientific thinking and method. Indeed, the principle of limitation is at the very heart of all scientific reasoning. One goes as far as data permit and no further, all the while keeping in mind that even then his understanding may be utterly wrong.

What science is good for it is very good for. What is the basis for the claim that it is good for everything? Such an extravagant hope is not science but the new and often occult religion called scientism. Apostles and evangelists of the religion of scientism purport to know and to share the good news whose ground they take to be science but whose true basis lies quite elsewhere in their personal, unexamined beliefs.

But I am at least in theory open to persuasion if you can show me how science has increased wisdom, or even that science, real science, has anything whatever to do with wisdom as commonly understood.

>> Now this is a bold claim…but that it (science) has also made us wiser in the process.<<

Wisdom is-

Knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment to action: sagacity, prudence or common sense.

Of course science has increased our knowledge of the world: theory of gravitation, electro-magnetism, and evolution. And uses that knowledge to spectacular results: man on the moon, eradication of small pox, comprehensive understanding of our place in the universe. To argue that science hasn’t made us wiser is to be willfully ignorant.

>> Are we henceforth to look to men and women of the science establishment for wisdom as well as practical knowledge about natural phenomena? Is it even possible to imagine such a thing?<<

There was a time when scientist deferred to philosophers and theologians to help solve society’s ills, those days are gone because the contributions of the former greatly surpassed the latter.

Of course science has increased our knowledge of the world: theory of gravitation, electro-magnetism, and evolution. And uses that knowledge to spectacular results: man on the moon, eradication of small pox, comprehensive understanding of our place in the universe. To argue that science hasn’t made us wiser is to be willfully ignorant.

As I feared and is usually the case, we are tangled in the terms like storm troopers in concertina wire. There can be no advance without getting unstuck.

We seem to concur as to the approximate meaning of the term wisdom but to differ radically in regard to its connection, if any, to science.

I would not agree nor I think would most people concur that increased knowledge of electromagnetics is the same as increased wisdom in the sense we appear to agree is the right use of the term. To be able to land a man on the moon is a laudable achievement - but few I think would go to NASA in search of wisdom for life.

Science, in short, provides important knowledge in regard to some things but not to all. Science cannot tell us what is right nor how we ought to live. Real science and genuine scientists would never dream of trying to do so. Preachers of the gospel of scientism, on the other hand, are more than ready to share their revelations with the masses. This is idolatry and not science.

One can not say that there were never any wise men before the advent of modern science or that the general quotient of human wisdom has been demonstrably augmented because of scientific discoveries. The undeniable, desirable manifold conveniences and improvements to the material conditions of human life do not represent wisdom but technical competency resulting from an understanding of cause and effect in natural phenomena.

I cannot see that our mutually agreed upon definition of wisdom has anything to do with the kinds of knowledge and techniques made available through science. It seems to me that we are talking about wholly distinct domains of knowledge here and that in regard to wisdom as traditionally understood science is and must always remain mute - if for no other reason that science is necessarily about how, never about why, while wisdom requires both in order to be wisdom.

Do you say that there were no wise men or women before modern science? That those traditionally held to be wise were not in fact wise in regard to the topics of human action, the right life, how to think and behave, what to praise and what to condemn? That they did not know how to live and that we, possessed of the good gifts of science, are infinitely their superiors in such matters?

The greater command of natural phenomena afforded by science is certainly convenient, though hardly without its inconveniences and also its dark side. No one in their right mind would wish to be without it. But this is a far cry from the assertion that because life is easier, safer and generally longer today we are therefore wiser than those of former days.

Only by stretching or disregarding the common usage of the term can scientific knowledge of natural phenomena be considered to be wisdom rather than factual knowledge.

>> As I feared and is usually the case, we are tangled in the terms like storm troopers in concertina wire. There can be no advance without getting unstuck.

We seem to concur as to the approximate meaning of the term wisdom but to differ radically in regard to its connection, if any, to science.<<

Let me be clear, for the past 200 years science has provided mankind more wisdom than any other institution.

>> Science cannot tell us what is right nor how we ought to live.<<

Science answers questions. I’m not saying scientists should be in charge of everything but denying their contribution is silly.

ru.empeirikos:

>> As I feared and is usually the case, we are tangled in the terms like storm troopers in concertina wire. There can be no advance without getting unstuck.

We seem to concur as to the approximate meaning of the term wisdom but to differ radically in regard to its connection, if any, to science.<<

Let me be clear, for the past 200 years science has provided mankind more wisdom than any other institution.

>> Science cannot tell us what is right nor how we ought to live.<<

Science answers questions. I’m not saying scientists should be in charge of everything but denying their contribution is silly.

Perhaps a few simple examples:

1. Science has made it physically possible for us to put a man on the moon. But is spending the money to put a man on the moon a good or bad use of scarce resources? Is "all knowledge is worth having" sufficient justification for spending billions of dollars that could have been spent providing clean water to 100 million third world peasants? That is a matter of wisdom that science cannot answer.

2. Science has made it possible to extend the lives of very ill, very old, people by years, sometimes decades, by constant, invasive care, at the cost of thousands of dollars per year. But is this a good or bad thing? Should medical science work to extend life at any expense, regardless of the quality of life it can provide to the patient? Or would medical science better serve the human race by focusing more on quality of life during the earlier years and reducing suffering for the elderly and allowing them to die instead of spending 20 years in a nursing home as invalids? Or, even more, should we support the right to die through active euthanasia? This is a matter of wisdom, not science.

I could give many examples, but these two, I think, are apt. Science is very good at figuring out how the world works and how to manipulate it to our ends. But it has nothing whatsoever to tell us about what those ends should be in the first place. That is simply not its job.

If we examine our nation's policy choices of the last few years, we find that a great many of them were based on deeply held and seldom challenged convictions which were misapplied in particular situations. For example:

* Oppressed peoples hunger for democracy.

* High taxes and regulation can restrict economic growth.

* Religion is a key American value.

* Hard work and thrift lead to success.

* A strong national defense is essential for protecting freedom.

I could hardly argue with any of these as general propositions, but I would quarrel with the way they have been applied, for example in the attempt to impose democracy in Iraq, a country where it was practically unknown.

The general principles can easily be condensed into slogans and illustrated with numerous examples. The "yes, but . . ." part is much more difficult to understand, and usually becomes obvious only after the fact.

>>Science has made it physically possible for us to put a man on the moon. But is spending the money to put a man on the moon a good or bad use of scarce resources?<<

That is a difficult question. I believe the Apollo Project did more than bring moon rocks back to Earth. It was used as a wake up call to show Americans that we were losing the technology race to Russia, and the technology developed helped other national interest.

>>Science has made it possible to extend the lives of very ill, very old, people by years, sometimes decades, by constant, invasive care, at the cost of thousands of dollars per year.<<

Science makes new discoveries. It is the role of all of society to figure out how these discoveries are then integrated. I’m only arguing that that discussion should also include scientists.

>>I could give many examples, but these two, I think, are apt. Science is very good at figuring out how the world works and how to manipulate it to our ends. But it has nothing whatsoever to tell us about what those ends should be in the first place. That is simply not its job.<<

You and teleologicus have very old fashion views of the role of scientist in society. The truth is that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution changed everything. Our understand of the world changed completely with this discovery. Since Darwin the contributions and esteem of scientist has continued to grow and that of philosopher and theologian has diminished.

Since you two think scientist should only open their mouths when we need to generate empirical data or accumulate knowledge but should not have an opinion on the use or role of that information, why don’t you tell us who should the public look to help solve difficult questions?

[You and teleologicus have very old fashion views of the role of scientist in society. The truth is that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution changed everything. Our understand of the world changed completely with this discovery. Since Darwin the contributions and esteem of scientist has continued to grow and that of philosopher and theologian has diminished.Since you two think scientist should only open their mouths when we need to generate empirical data or accumulate knowledge but should not have an opinion on the use or role of that information, why don’t you tell us who should the public look to help solve difficult questions?]

Scientists are certainly welcome to their opinions, and welcome to express them in the public debate. But when they are speaking outside their fields of expertise - in other words, when they are speaking on anything other than the empirical data - they are no longer speaking as experts. They are on the same level as the rest of us.

Remember, it was scientists who invented the nuclear bomb, scientists whom Tojo employed to conduct biological experiments on living human beings, scientists who experimented with syphilis on american blacks in the 1930's, etc. A high level of scientific knowledge does not guarrentee an ethical outlook.

Who should the public look to? Ourselves, and no other men.

Wow, an interesting discussion here! I thought the original post was pretty insightful, but disagree with some of the further discussion.

Utilitarian philosophy is the only one I know of that arises from scientific thinking. I'd recommend reading up on it to see some interesting exploration of these issues. What follows isn't necessarily a description of that philosophy, but my interpretation of how that kind of thinking would be applied to this discussion.

Knowledge is gained through the scientific method (and that includes knowledge of social issues as well... not just physics, biology, etc...) But as was said earlier, knowledge alone isn't enough to make a decision. Any choice requires having a goal in mind. What is the desired outcome? What is the perfect state that we wish to approach?

Knowledge, gathered through the scientific method, can give us the most likely result of any given action. Therefore, if there is a place for what you call "wisdom" I think it has to be in determining what that perfect state is that we're trying to reach. The unfortunate thing (which is why I agreed with the initial post) is that people's interests will always be divergent. A gain for one usually means a loss for another. Balancing divergent interests is difficult, but if there truly is some ideal that we are trying to reach, one option will usually get us closer than the other.

The point is that while we definitely have to accept the fact that we will never be able to get everything we want, there are ways to make decisions in a scientific way such that we know we are going in the direction we want to go (to the best of our knowledge). This method does not allow for dogmatic thinking and doesn't lend itself to soundbites, though, so I don't see many politicians adopting it any time soon.

>>I thought the original post was pretty insightful, but disagree with some of the further discussion. <<

The original post argued, “our deepest truths and most passionate convictions cannot always be made to work together in ways we would prefer and indeed believe to be both rational and just.” I take this to mean that the ideals of an individual can not be consistent, not that, “people's interests will always be divergent.”

When I read “our deepest truths” I take that to mean- man’s place on Earth and Earth’s place in the universe. The reason I focused my comments on physics and evolutionary biology is because these two fields are best suited to answer these questions.

As far as Utilitarian philosophy, that strikes me as too rigid and without inspiration. Helping the most people is good, but truth is also important. I’m quite happy as an atheist who believes in empiricism.

>>Knowledge, gathered through the scientific method, can give us the most likely result of any given action. Therefore, if there is a place for what you call "wisdom" I think it has to be in determining what that perfect state is that we're trying to reach. The unfortunate thing (which is why I agreed with the initial post) is that people's interests will always be divergent.<<

This is very good. It is what I was getting at when saying wisdom is knowledge coupled with just judgment to action (sagacity).

Here is a piece from Edward O. Wilson’s book, Consilience- The unity of knowledge:

The production of science, other than medical breakthroughs and the sporadic thrills of space exploration, are thought marginal. What really matters to humanity, a primate species well adapted to Darwinian fundamentals in body and soul, are sex, family, work, security, personal expression, entertainment, and spiritual fulfillment- in no particular order. Most people believe, I am sure erroneously, that science has little to do with any of these preoccupations. They assume that the social sciences and humanities are independent of the natural sciences and more relevant endeavors. Who outside the technically possessed really needs to define a chromosome? Or understand chaos theory?

Science, however, is not marginal. Like art, it is a universal possession of humanity, and scientific knowledge has become a vital part of our species’ repertory. It comprises what we know of the material world with reasonable certainty.