John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (5/7) 相対主義

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westが、自著"Darwin Day in Americaをダイジェストした"The Abolition of Man?"を読むシリーズ


A fourth influence of scientific materialism on public policy has been relativism. Darwinian theory in particular has supplied a powerful justification for evolving standards in politics and morality. Part of the justification is by way of analogy: If evolution is the normal state of the natural world, why should it not be regarded as the normal state of politics?


The preeminent achievement of applying the evolutionary paradigm to politics was the doctrine of the evolving Constitution championed by Woodrow Wilson and other Progressives. No longer would American government be hamstrung by a static understanding of human nature or human rights. It must adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of new conditions. In the words of Wilson:

進化的パラダイムの政治への適用の大いなる業績はWoodrow Wilsonなどの進歩主義者たちによるものだった。もはや米国政府は人間性や人間の権利について静的な理解に煩わされない。新たな条件の調整に合うように、適応し進化しなければならない。Wilsonは次のように述べている:

[L]iving political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of Life.... [A]ll that progressives ask or desire is permission...to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle.[20]


[20]Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, with an introduction and notes by William Leuchtenburg (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 41-42.
Dr. John G WestはこのWoodrow Wilsonの記述にどういう違和感を感じているのだろか。

その前後を見れば、Woodrow Wilsonは特に感銘を受けるようなことを言っているように見えない:
The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick co-operation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day, of specialization, with a common task and purpose. Their co-operation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.


All that progressives ask or desire is permission -- in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.


Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence, signed in Philadelphia, July 4th, 1776. Their bosoms swell against George III, but they have no consciousness of the war for freedom that is going on today.

米国の批判者の一部は、1776年7月4日にフィラデルフィアで署名された独立宣言を超えたことがない。彼らはGeorge IIIへの敵愾心はあっても、今日において進行中の自由を求める戦争を意識していない。

[Woodrow Wilson: "The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People", 1912]
Dr. John G Westの引用はかなりアクロバチックだ。「機械ではなく生けるもの」という表現だったのを、「法則に従う生物機械」という意味合いにしている。そこまでしても、Woodrow Wilsonの記述に違和感は感じられない。どうも、Dr. John G Westは、"Darwin"という単語そのものを問題にしているとしか考えられない。また、"相対主義"らしきものも見当たらない。

で、よくわからないWoodrow Wilsonの引用のあとに、Dr. John G Westは次のように続ける:
But the link between Darwinian theory and relativism is not merely analogical. In The Descent of Man, Darwin depicted morality as the evolving product of natural selection. Rather than reflecting timeless standards of truth sanctioned by God or nature, moral codes evolved by natural selection to promote survival. As the conditions for survival changed, so did what was moral for any species. In one situation, maternal love might be moral; in another situation, infanticide. In one situation, kindness might be moral; in another situation, cruelty.

しかし、ダーウィン理論と相対主義の関係はアナロジーだけではない。"The Descent of Man"において、ダーウィンは倫理を自然選択による進化の産物として描写した。倫理は、神あるいは自然によって認定された、時間を超越した真理の反映ではなく、生存のために自然選択によって進化したものである。生存条件が変われば、種の倫理も変わる。ある状況では、母性愛が倫理であるが、別の状況では幼児殺しが倫理になるかもしれない。ある状況では、親切が倫理になり、別の状況では虐待が倫理になるかもしれない。

While Darwin surely hoped that traditional virtues were biologically beneficial in 19th century Britain, if circumstances changed and those virtues no longer promoted survival, he would have to grant that they would no longer be virtues. Darwin himself admitted as much in a particularly startling passage:


If...men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.[21]


[21]Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), Vol. 1, p. 73. This is a reprint of the first edition, which was published in 1871.
インテリジェントデザイン支持者によるダーウィンの引用は、ほぼ確実にQuote Miningになっている。原文はこんなかんじ...
It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.


[Charles Darwin: "The Descent of Man"]


==>Discovery Instituteフェローの歴史学者Richard WeikartのQuote Mining (1) Steven Pinker (2008/09/07)

で、Dr. John G Westは次第に自然主義の誤謬の派生品へと近づいていく:
Whatever his own personal moral preferences, Darwin's reductionistic account of the development of morality left little room for objectively preferring one society's morality over another's. Each society's moral code presumably developed to promote the survival of that society, and so each society's moral code could be considered equally "natural."


Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origin of the family was just as relativistic. It was clear from his account that there was no right form of marriage or family life for every time and place. Sexual standards differed sharply across societies and human history, and each form of family life was adapted to meet the biological and environmental requirements of its particular situation. In Darwin's framework, everything that regularly occurred in nature must be regarded as normal almost by definition.

やっと、Dr. John G Westの主張がここで明確になる。すなわち、Dr. John G Westは自然主義の誤謬の派生品を自明として語っている。

ここで、自然主義の誤謬の派生品とはOliver Curryが列挙したもので、以下の8つ。

  • Moving from is to ought (Hume’s fallacy). ("である"から"べき"へ)
  • Moving from facts to values. (事実から価値へ)
  • Identifying good with its object (Moore’s fallacy).
  • Claiming that good is a natural property. 
  • Going ‘in the direction of evolution’.(進化の方向へ向かって進め)
  • Assuming that what is natural is good. (自然なものは良いと仮定)
  • Assuming that what currently exists ought to exist. (現に存在するものは、存在すべきと仮定)
  • Substituting explanation for justification.

==>自然主義の誤謬の派生品 (2008/02/11)

While for the most part Darwin did not press his relativistic analysis of morality to its logical conclusion, he laid the groundwork for others who came after him. The ultimate result of Darwinian moral relativism can be seen in the sex research of zoologist Alfred Kinsey and the moral pluralism embraced by sex education reformers from the 1960s to today. Their efforts to convince the public that all variations of sexual behavior are "normal"--including, according to some of them, adult-child sex and even incest--were a logical culmination of the approach Darwin pursued in The Descent of Man.

ほとんどの場合、ダーウィンは倫理に関する相対主義的な分析を論理的帰結につなげていないが、後から来る者たちの基礎を築いた。ダーウィン的倫理相対主義の究極の結果は、動物学者Alfred Kinseyの性研究や1960年代から今日に至る性教育改革者たちが主張した倫理多元論に見られる。彼らの努力は人々に対して、あらゆる種類の性行動が"普通"なものであり、一部の者たちにおれば、大人と子供の間のセックスや近親相姦さえもが、ダーウィンが"The Descent of Man"で追求したアプローチの論理的到達点だと納得させた。
Dr. John G Westの言う"相対主義"とは、自然主義の誤謬の派生品を指しているようだ。ただ、宗教右翼あるいは福音主義キリスト教の教義に「自然主義の誤謬の派生品」がビルトインされているのか、その存在に気づいていない。


==>自然選択を嫌うLeftistたち (2007/03/07)

posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/09 15:03 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (4/7) 人間性喪失

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westが、自著"Darwin Day in Americaをダイジェストした"The Abolition of Man?"を読むシリーズ


A third influence of scientific materialism on public policy has been dehumanization. Although its supporters saw scientific materialism as a way to solve social problems and advance human dignity, the historical record shows that it often denigrated entire classes of humanity. The claim that men and women could be reduced to their physical capacities plus their material inputs turned out to be profoundly dehumanizing.


In criminal justice, the belief that a person was, in the words of one textbook, "no more 'responsible' for becoming wilful and committing a crime than the flower for becoming red and fragrant"[16] may have led to more humane treatment in some cases, but it also robbed the criminal offender of the dignity of being treated as a rational being whose choices matter. At the same time, in many other cases it opened the door to horrific forms of "scientific" rehabilitation that never would have been allowed if they had been imposed as punishments.


[16]Nathaniel Cantor, Crime, Criminals and Criminal Justice (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932), p. 265.

なお、[16]Nathaniel Cantorの本は入手できそうにないが、確かに引用された一文が存在することはbooks.googleで確認できた。ただし、この引用部分が19世紀のLudwig Buchnerという人物の執筆物として引用されているが見れられる。

In sex education, the depiction of human sexuality as little more than mammalian behavior reduced human beings to the level of animals and drained human relationships of the moral and spiritual context that gave them their deepest meaning.


In the corporate world, scientific materialism fed eugenic employment policies and the use of advertising to manipulate consumers scientifically into purchasing products.

In the welfare system, the quest to identify the biological roots of poverty paved the way for forced sterilization, anti-immigrant hysteria, and the demonization of anyone who was regarded as physically or mentally imperfect.


The impact of scientific materialism on welfare policy is especially worth noting because it directly challenged the guiding principles of the existing social-welfare system. Charity in the traditional view was premised on the idea that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore worthy of assistance, mercy, and redemption. Eugenic welfare reformers denounced such humanitarian views as false and dangerous. Harvard biologist Edward East attacked the idea that "man is created in the image of God" as unscientific and suggested that the claim that all human beings have equal worth is ludicrous.[17] Margaret Sanger warned of the "dangers inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste, of inequality and inefficiency."[18]

福祉政策に対する科学的唯物論の影響は、それが特に既存の社会福祉制度を導いている原理に直接に疑問を呈した点に注意する価値がある。伝統的な見方における慈善は、人間は神の似姿に創られ、したがって、援助と慈悲と贖罪に値するものだという考えを前提としていた。優生学的福祉改革者たちは、そのような人道的な見方が誤っていて危険なものだと非難した。Harvardの生物学者Edward Eastは「人間が神の似姿に創造された」という考え方を非科学的だと攻撃し、すべての人間が同じ価値を持つという主張が奇妙なものだと示唆した。[17] Margaret Sangerは「人道主義と利他主義について、まさしくその考えの点が、不平等と非効率性の危険性、今日、人間の廃棄物を完全に収穫する危険性」を警告した。[18]

[17]Edward M. East, Heredity and Human Affairs (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927), p. 29.

[18]Margaret Sanger in Michael W. Perry, ed., The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective (Seattle, Wash.: Inkling Books, 2001), p. 214.

America's experience with the dehumanizing effects of scientific materialism was far from exceptional. The three regimes of the 20th century best known for being founded explicitly on the principles of scientific materialism--Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China--are most remembered for their horrific brutality rather than any advancement of human dignity. In Germany, the connection between scientific materialism and Nazi crimes against humanity is unmistakable, as historian Richard Weikart has ably demonstrated in his recent book on the influence of Darwinian ethics in Germany.[19]

科学的唯物論の人間性喪失の影響に接した米国の経験は特別なものではない。科学的唯物論の原則に直接に基づいて建国されたことが知られている20世紀の3つの体制たる、ソビエトロシアとナチスドイツと共産中国は、いかなる人間の尊厳の発展よりも、恐るべき残忍さによって記憶されている。歴史家Richard Weikartがドイツにおけるダーウィン倫理の影響を明らかにした最近の著書で、ドイツにおける科学的唯物論とナチの人道に対する犯罪の関係が紛れもないことを示した。[19]

[19]Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Richard Weikartはインテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのフェローである。インテリジェントデザインが査読論文が皆無に等しいように、"Darwin to Hitler"という彼の主張も同様である。

==>歴史学でも査読回避するインテリジェントデザイン運動 (2009/11/13)

The dehumanizing effects of scientific materialism remain a live issue for public policy today, espcially in so-called right-to-die cases. Efforts to redefine mentally and physically disabled infants and adults as already dead, the widespread careless diagnosis of the "persistent vegetative state," and the demeaning rhetoric of bioethicists such as Peter Singer all raise, chillingly, the ghosts of evils past.

科学的唯物論の人間性喪失の影響は、今日の公共政策において、特に死ぬ権利をめぐって、問題でありつづけている。精神的および肉体的な障害胎児と成人を既に死んでいるものと再定義しようとする努力と、「持続的な植物状態」の広範囲にわたる不注意な診断と、Peter Singerにような生物倫理学者による品位を落とすレトリックは、凍りつくような過去の悪しき幻影を呼び覚ます。
Dr. John G Westは脳死と移植について述べている。脳死による移植手術の状況を考えれば、この部分だけは、間違いなく米国よりも日本に多くの支持者を見つけるだろう。

タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/08 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (3/7) ユートピア的理想主義

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westが、自著"Darwin Day in Americaをダイジェストした"The Abolition of Man?"を読むシリーズ


A second influence of scientific materialism on public policy has been the cultivation of a vigorous form of utopianism. Believing they possessed the key to understanding and ultimately controlling human behavior, defenders of scientific materialism over the past century were supremely confident that science could usher in heaven on earth if experts were only permitted to implement its teachings without obstruction.

Their heady optimism is not difficult to understand. By the late 19th century, science had produced marvelous advances in medicine, agriculture, sanitation, and transportation. Why could the triumphs of the scientific method over the natural world not be extended to the social sphere? If science could prevent the spread of physical diseases like smallpox, why could it not also prevent out breaks of social diseases like crime and poverty? If science could breed better strains of cattle and corn, why could it not breed better kinds of people?


彼らの目がくらむ楽観主義を、理解するのは難しいことではない。19世紀後半までに、科学は医療、農業、公衆衛生と交通手段において、素晴らしい進歩を実現した。どうして、自然界についての科学的研究法の勝利を、社会分野にまで広げられないのか? 科学が天然痘のような身体の病気の拡散を防ぐことができるなら、犯罪や貧困のような社会的病気の拡散を防げないわけがない。科学が牛やコーンの良い品種を生み出せるのであれば、良い種類の人々を育成できない理由があるだろうか?

Addressing the American Breeders Association in 1913, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson acknowledged that the wholesale replacement of "inferior" human stocks with "the best part of the human race...at first seems like an Utopian vision" but then quickly added: "Why should it not come? Must science stop in its beneficence with the plant and the animal? Is not man, after all, the architect of his own racial destiny?"[9]

1913年にAmerican Breeders Associationで演説した米国農務長官James Wilsonは「劣った」人間の在庫を「人類の最良の部分」で卸の段階で置き換えることは「初めは夢想的に思える」が、「何故、そうならないのだろうか? 科学の効用を植物と動物で止めるべきだろうか? 結局は、人間は自らの種の運命の開拓者ではないのか?」と述べた。

Wilson's rosy rhetoric revealed the startling naivete at the heart of the scientific materialist agenda. Scientists and policymakers who were readily skeptical of claims made by religion or tradition turned out to be supremely credulous when it came to claims made in the name of science. They accepted at face value the purported benefits of such procedures as lobotomies, psychosurgery, and forced sterilization. They made grand promises about how science could solve intractable social problems such as crime and poverty. They showed little appreciation for the fact that science, like all human endeavors, could be misused, especially when allied with political power.


[9]James Wilson, "Presidential Address," American Breeders Magazine Vol. 4, No.1 (First Quarter, 1913), p. 56.
この部分のDr. John G WestによるJames Wilson農務長官の演説の引用は、かなりアクロバチックである。原文をみると...
A new line of public service has recently developed which promises more far-reaching results than those relating to improvements through breeding: The work of our agricultural research institutions has demonstrated that we can slowly but surely and very economically increase production by finding those best families, strains, varieties, breeds, and sub-breeds which yield the largest net profits per acre or per farm, and multiply them so that they will supplant all inferior forms. To so educate, place in position of advantage, and reward the best part of the human race that they will rapidly multiply and become the great improved body of people which can best utilize the opportunities of this beautiful earth at first seems like an Utopian vision. Like world peace, however, it may come; and may we not all ask: Why should it not come? Must science stop in its beneficence with the plant and animal? Is not man, after all, the architect of his own racial destiny? Cannot the best people of the best races be wise enough to multiply and become dominant in numbers as well as in efficiency and goodness?

育種による改善に関するものよりも、さらに広範にわたる結果を約束する、新たな公共事業が開発された。我々の農業研究機関は、単位面積当たり、あるいは農場当たりの純利益を実現し、劣った形態に置き換わるように繁殖する、最良の科・株・変種・品種・亜品種を見つけることで、我々がゆっくりだが、確実に経済的に生産を増加させられることを示した。そのように教育することで、有利な立場におき、人類の最良の部分に報酬を与えることで、この美しい地球の可能性を最も利用することができる人々の大きな改善された集団とする。初めは夢想的に思えるかもしれない。しかし、それは世界平和のように実現するかもしれない。我々はこう問うてはいけないのだろうか:何故、そうならないのだろうか? 科学の効用を植物と動物で止めるべきだろうか? 結局は、人間は自らの種の運命の開拓者ではないのか? 最良人種の最良の人々は効率や長所のみならず、繁殖して数でも支配的になるに、十分に賢明なはずではないのか?

"単語とフレーズの組み合わせで、Wilsonの主張を作っていて、なんとなく、元の意味を反映していなくもない"というDr. John G Westの"引用"である。原文に"replacement"がなくて、これを補うことで、かなり強い優生な主張に見せている。

続いて、優生について例を挙げるDr. John G West:
Eugenist Herbert Walter sanguinely predicted that nothing like "the Spanish Inquisition or...the Salem witchcraft persecution" would take place in an age of modern science. Only two decades before the Nazis ascended to power in Germany, Walter predicted that "it is unlikely that the world will ever see another great religious inquisition, or that in applying to man the newly found laws of heredity there will ever be undertaken an equally deplorable eugenic inquisition."[10] Eugenist Harry Laughlin similarly asserted with confidence that no one-- not even one person--had been wrongly sterilized in America.[11]

優生学者Herbert Walterは「スペインの宗教裁判所やセイラムの魔女迫害」のようなことは現代科学の時代には起きないと楽観的に予測した。ナチがドイツで政権をとる、わずか20年前にWalterは「世界が新たに大規模な宗教的な徹底調査あるいは、新発見の遺伝法則を人間に適用しようとして、等しく嘆かわしい優生学的徹底的な調査がなされることは、ありそうにない。」と予測した。[10]  優生学者Harry Laughlinは同様に自信をもって、ただの1人も、米国で誤って断種手術を受けた者はいないと主張した。[11]

[10]Herbert Walter, "Human Conservation," in Horatio Hackett Newman, Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), p. 531. The essay was reprinted from a book published by Walter in 1913.

[11]Harry Hamilton Laughlin et al., Legal Status of Eugenical Sterilization (Chicago: Fred J. Ringley Co., 1930), p. 79.
[Herbert Eugene Walter: "Genetics: an introduction to the study of heredity" (1922), P334-335]

Dr. C. V. Chapin recently said with reference to the eugenic regulation of marriage by physician's certificate: "The causes of heredity are many and very conflicting. The subject is a difficult one, and I for one would hesitate to say, in a great many cases where I have a pretty good knowledge of the family, where marriage would, or would not, be desirable."

Dr. C.V. Chapinは医者の証明書による結婚の優生規制に関して「遺伝要因は多くて非常に矛盾している。この問題は困難なものであり、結婚が望ましいものか否かについて、家族についての非常に適切な知識を持っていると言うのを躊躇するケースが大多数である。」と述べている。

Desirability and undesirability must always be regarded as relative terms more or less undefinable. In attempting to define them, it makes a great difference whether the interested party holds to a puritan or a cavalier standard. To show how far human judgment may err as well as how radically human opinion changes, there were in England, as recently as 1819, 233 crimes punishable by death according to law.


One needs only to recall the days of the Spanish Inquisition or of the Salem witchcraft persecution to realize what fearful blunders human judgment is capable of, but it is unlikely that the world will ever see another great religious inquisition, or that in applying to man the newly found laws of heredity there will ever be undertaken an equally deplorable eugenic inquisition.


It is quite apparent, finally, that although great caution and broadness of vision must be exercised in bringing about the fulfillment of the highest eugenic ideals, nevertheless in this direction lies the future path of human achievement.

Herbert Eugene Walterの記述は控えめなものだ。遺伝的要因で単純に人間を判断できないことがわかっているので、宗教裁判のような形にはなりそうにないと言っている。また、ナチ政権の出現と行動を予測できなかったことを甘いというDr. John G Westの主張は、優生思想にのってしまったメインラインバプテストなどにもあてはまることである。

続いて、Harry Hamilton Laughlinも:
[Harry Hamilton Laughlin et al., Legal Status of Eugenical Sterilization (1930), p.79]

The problem of hereditary inadequacy is a major one. The states have thus far used eugenical sterilization very cautiously, and only in extreme cases, but such work has served to acquaint the American people with the usefulness of the experiment, and has paved the way for a more extensive application in full accord with a most conservative program. Sexual sterilization of degenerates is not a cure-all for the problem; it will not uproot degeneracy forthwith, but it is one of the most effective instruments which the several American states can now use legally in promoting race betterment on its negative side, that is, by preventing reproduction by its most degenerate families.


It is of especial value to note that, of the 8515 operations which have been performed up to January 1, 1928, under several sterilization laws of the different states, no one has yet suggested that in a single instance has the state made an eugenical error; that is, that it has by legalized sterilization prevented reproduction by an individual whose offspring would, by any token of biology or statistics, probably have been a credit to the state.

「自信をもって、ただの1人も、米国で誤って(wrongly)断種手術を受けた者はいないと主張した」というDr. John G Westの記述は"だいたいあってる"が、Harry Hamilton Laughlinの原文は"優生学的誤り(eugenical error)"よりは強い意味になっている。

AAAS president Charles Eliot at least acknowledged the prospect that physical and chemical science could be enlisted "as means of destruction and death." But even he thought the application of biology to society posed no danger: "Biological science has great advantage in this respect over physical and chemical [science]. It can not so frequently or easily be applied to evil ends."[12] Eliot wrote those words in 1915 as the eugenics movement was well on its way to forcing the sterilization of thousands of people across America.

AAAS理事長のCharles Eliotは少なくとも、物理と化学が「破壊と死の手段」となりうることを認めていた。しかし、彼は生物学の社会への適用にには危険性はないと考えていた:「生物化学は、この点で物理や化学より大きな利点がある」[12] Eliotは優生運動として全米で数千の強制断種が進行中の1915年にこの言葉を書いた。

This is not intended to imply that scientific materialism was the only source of utopianism in America. There were elements of utopianism in religious reform movements of the 1800s and early 1900s, as well as in various expressions of secular populism. But scientific materialism was one of the most powerful sources of utopianism because it eroded previous obstacles to the spread of utopianism.


[12]Eliot, "The Fruits, Prospects and Lessons of Recent Biological Science," p. 928.
Dr. John G Westは微妙にバランスをとりつつも、"科学的唯物論"を"ユートピア的理想主義"という誤った考えの源泉だと批難する。

Prior to the rise of scientific materialism, a strong realist, anti-utopian sentiment in American political culture counterbalanced the idealism and utopianism of reformers. America's Founders, in addition to their idealism, displayed a keen realism about the imperfections of human nature. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," James Madison wrote in The Federalist.[13] "The best Institutions may be abused by human depravity.... [T]hey may even...be made subservient to the vilest of purposes," echoed George Washington.[14]

科学的唯物論の高まりに対して、米国の政治的な文化の断固たる現実主義・反ユートピア理想主義の意見は、改革派の理想主義とユートピア的理想主義に対してカウンターバランスをとった。米国の建国者たちは理想主義とともに、人間の欠点について強い現実主義をとっていた。「人間が天使なら、政府は必要ないだろう」とJames Madisonは"Federalist"に書いた。[13] 「最良の機関は人間の堕落によって悪用される。さらには最悪の目的のために利用されるかもしれない」とGeorge Washingtonは述べた。[14]

[13]James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 51 in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961), p. 322.

[14]George Washington, "[Proposed Address to Congress]," in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799 (Washington, D.C.: United States George Washington Bicentennial Commission), Vol. 30, pp. 301-302.
ここはまさに正しい。George Washingtonの引用も正しい。

さらに、Dr. John G Westは続ける:
The anti-utopian undercurrent in American culture continued during the 19th century when writers such as Nathaniel Hawthorne satirized the overblown hopes of contemporary reformers. In his short story "Earth's Holocaust" (1844), Hawthorne described how militant do-gooders planned to cleanse the earth of imperfection by creating a giant bonfire out on the western prairies on which they could throw every conceivable cause of social evil.[15] The great conflagration burned for days and consumed everything thrown into it, but the fire still did not produce the perfect society. Hawthorne's punch line was that the reformers failed because they could not reach the ultimate cause of human misery: the human heart. Social conditions might wax and wane, but sinful human nature was unchangeable this side of heaven.

米国文化の反ユートピア理想主義の底流は、Nathaniel Hawthorneのような著作家が現代改革派の度が過ぎた希望を諷刺した19世紀には続いていた。彼の短編"Earth's Holocaust"(1844)で、社会的悪の原因と考えられるすべてを投げ込める焚火を西部大草原に発生させて、地球の欠点を浄化しようとする好戦的なお節介を描いた。[15] 大火は幾日も燃えて、投げ込まれるものすべてを焼き尽くしたが、炎は完全な社会を作れなかった。Howthorneの聞かせどころは、改革者たちが人間の惨めさの第一原因、すなわち人間の心へと到達できなかったために失敗したのだという点だった。社会状況は盛衰するが、積み深き人間の性質は変わらない。

[15]Nathaniel Hawthorne, "Earth's Holocaust," at www.eldritchpress.org/nh/holo.html

Scientific materialism tried to refute this kind of political realism. According to its adherents, human nature was not fixed; it could be remade through the methods of modern science. Men may not be angels now, but under the right biological and environmental conditioning, they might become angelic. Scientific breeding and medical treatment could usher in a new age only dreamt of by previous reformers. Scientific materialism undermined the very premises of American political realism.


One would like to believe that Americans have learned from the excesses of scientific utopianism, but current political controversies inspire no confidence in this regard. The miracle cures may be different today, but the utopian rhetoric is remarkably similar.


Seventy years ago, eugenics promised to cure America's social problems through better breeding. Today, mental-health crusaders promise to eliminate behavioral problems among America's children by screening every schoolchild for mental illness and putting millions of them on psychoactive drugs. Like the eugenics crusade of the last century, the current push to increase dramatically the number of children on psychoactive drugs reduces behavioral problems to a purely material cause. Like the eugenics crusade, it is accompanied by grandiose claims that go far beyond the actual science. Like the eugenics crusade, it is justified in humanitarian terms even while it raises serious issues about civil liberties and human dignity. How many people will be harmed before this latest crusade runs out of steam?

ここで、Dr. John G Westは意図したのかわからないが「実際の科学を大きく超えた壮大な主張」と「科学的唯物論」をリンクさせている。しかし、何を以って「実際の科学を大きく超えた壮大な主張」とするかはそもそも「科学」を以ってするしかない。

なので、「科学」ではなく「優生学とのアナロジー」によって、「精神衛生改革運動家」を批難するという論を例として挙げるDr. John G Westは、何か別なる手段を以って「実際の科学を大きく超えた壮大な主張」か否かを判断するつもりだろう。
タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/06 23:02 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする




ということで、インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteの公式ブログ執筆陣のひとMichael Egnorは魂の存在を主張する
"confusing the question of how the brain causes mind with the question of does the brain cause mind"


Dr. Novella elides the central problem with strict materialism in the mind-brain problem. The first question isn’t "how the brain causes the mind" or "does the brain cause the mind." The primary question is this:

Dr. Novellaは、心と脳の問題の、厳格な唯物論の中心的問題を無視している。最初の問題は、「いかに、脳は心をつくるか」ではない。あるいは、「脳は心をつくっているか」でもない。最初の問題はこれである。

can the brain cause the mind?


In order to subject a theory to empirical test, it must first be logically coherent. Materialism fails as logic. What does it mean to say, "The brain causes subjective experience"? There is nothing about the physical scientific description of the brain that invokes subjectivity. The salient qualities of the mind — free will, restricted access and incorrigibility, qualia, intentionality, persistence of self over time, and unity of consciousness — are not properties of matter. Subjectivity is imputed by materialists to neural function, without coherent explanation or logical law-like dependence. The materialist assertion that the brain is the entire cause of the mind is merely an act of faith appended to the science.

理論を経験的に検証するには、まず、論理的にに筋が通っていなければならない。唯物論は論理として失敗している。「脳は主観的な経験をつくれるか」とは何を意味するのか? 主観を含む脳についての物理的科学的な記述はない。心の顕著な特性である自由意志・制限されたアクセス[私の思考を私が経験する]・頑固さ[論破不可能な知識・赤い色とか]・クオリア[主観的経験]・意図[自分の外にあるものに言及する能力・意味付け]・自己の持続性[脳を構成する物質が入れ替わっても同一人物]・意識の統一は物質の属性ではない。主観は、首尾一貫した説明または論理的法則依存性なしに、唯物論者によって神経機能によるものだとされる。脳が心のすべてであるという唯物論的断定は、科学に付加される信仰の成せるわざにすぎない。

[Michael Egnor:"It’s Time for Me to Unshatter My Three Pillars of Neuroscience Denial..." (2009/01/08) on Discovery Institute公式ブログ]
論の形式は"God of the gaps"と同じで、「科学的に説明がつかないから」を論拠としている。


  • 魂それ自体は、超自然の存在で、科学的に検出できないという仕様でもかまわない
  • 魂が自然界を観測する方法は、人間の神経系を経由しても、直接に外界を観測してもよく、それを科学的に検出されないという仕様でもかまわない
  • ただし、魂が脳に干渉しない限り、魂が思ったことを、人間の肉体は表現できない。
  • 魂による脳への干渉は、科学的に検出できないという仕様でもかまわない
  • ただし、干渉前と干渉後で脳の状態は違っていなければならない。それは科学的に検出できなければならない。脳が思ってないけど、魂が思ったことを文字に書くためには、魂が脳にその"思い"を何らかの形で残さないといけない。脳そのものを観測していて、自然界の外側からの干渉の"結果"を見つけられないなら、何も魂は脳に作用していないことになる。
  • 現在の技術では検出不可能
  • あるいは、魂は存在するかもしれないが、脳には干渉していない

タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/02 00:00 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする


John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (2/7) テクノクラシー

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westが、自著"Darwin Day in Americaをダイジェストした"The Abolition of Man?"を読むシリーズ2回目はテクノクラシー。

One influence of scientific materialism on American public policy has been the elevation of technocracy -- rule by scientific experts -- over democracy. Since science was supposed to be the only true source of objective information about the world, proponents of scientific materialism logically concluded that scientists -- not the general public or their elected representatives -- should be the ultimate arbiters of public policy.


At its core, this message was profoundly anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic. Speaking before the Second International Congress of Eugenics in 1921, Alleyne Ireland declared that current conditions had rendered America's original form of government, established by the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, "utterly unsuitable." America's Founders believed that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and they set up arrangements "designed with a view to making abuse of power difficult." But in an age when government must increasingly provide a wide range of social services, society could no longer afford to rely on government by non-experts. Ireland stated that it was "imperative...that the omnipresent activity of government should be guided by the light of scientific knowledge and conducted through the instrumentality of a scientific method."[6]

このメッセージの中心的意味合いは、きわめて反平等主義であり、反民主主義的であった。1921年の第2回優生国際会議(Second International Congress of Eugenics)の前の演説で、Alleyne Irelandは現在の状況は、憲法と独立宣言によって確立された米国の政府の原形を「まったく不適切なもの」にしたと断言した。米国の建国者たちは「統治される者たちの同意によって、政府は正当な権力を得る」ものだと考え、「権力の濫用を困難にする目的」で制度を設計した。しかし、政府が幅広い社会福祉事業を提供しなければならない時代にあっては、素人による政府に頼る余裕を持てなくなった。Alleyne Irelandは「政府の遍在する活動は、科学的知識によって導かれ、科学的方法によって実行すべきだというのが肝要である」と述べた。[6]

[6]"Eugenics in Politics," The New York Times, October 9, 1921, p. 93.
Dr. John G Westは優生国際会議の前のAlleyne Irelandの演説を引用して、"科学的唯物論"は米国の議会制民主主義に敵対するものだと主張する。

このAlleyne Irelandの主張は引用部分だけを見れば、そのように受け取れる。しかし、その前後をみると、違った内容を述べている:

"In the most impressive passage of the declaration the sole aim of government is declare to be the securing to the people of certain individual right -- to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and, since rights are chiefly imperiled by the uncontrolled exercise of power, the cardinl principle of popular government, is stated to be that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In our Constitution everything was designed with a view to making abuse of power difficult, and it is not easy for our Government, in time of peace, to encroach on the rights of the individual.



"But reflect," continued Mr. Ireland, "how utterly unsuitable the whole arrangement is when the object is, not to prevent Government action against the right of citizens but to facilitate Government action in serving the needs of citizens.

"What between the pressure upon government from without to undertake everything which used formerly to be considered as lying wholly outside the proper scope of official interference, and the pressure set up within government to enlarge its functions and to engross its authority, it has come to this, that government is now the judge, the jury, the witness and the executioner, not only in respect of such of their actions as are affected with a public quality, but even in respect to their personal tastes, habits and opinions.



"It is this pervasion of the whole extent of our daily life by the agents of Government -- by those who make law, by those who administrator law, by those who punish its infraction, by this vast army of legislators, commissioners, judges, magistrates, policemen , secret service agents, inspectors and investigators -- it is this which make it imperative, if we are not to be governed to our total destruction, that the omnipresent activity of government should be guided by the light of scientific knowledge and conducted through the instrumentality of a scientific method."


[Eugenics in Politics (1921/10/09)]
古ぽい英語は一文が長いが、それは気にしない。で、Alleyne Irelandの主張は、夜警国家から福祉国家へと転換しゆく政府を前提としている。かつての市民の自由を守るために政府を制約することをのみを考えていた法制度が、市民のために行動する政府を有効に機能させるわけではないと言っている。特に問題な主張でもなんでもない。

例によって、Dr. John G WestはQuote Miningをやったようだ。これは次のパラグラフの印象操作のための準備。別に内容があるわけではないので、無視して次へ。

で、ここからが、Dr. John G Westの主張になる:
The claim that society should place its faith in scientific experts rather than ordinary citizens or elected officials was a common refrain in public policy debates influenced by scientific materialism. To be sure, few were as blunt as Ireland in directly attacking the Constitution or demanding that scientists govern ordinary citizens. Yet in controversy after controversy, the underlying message was unmistakable. Whether the issue was education or welfare or crime, members of the public were urged to place their trust in the findings of scientific experts rather than in their own core beliefs or the views of political and religious leaders. Science dictated the replacement of punishment with treatment in the criminal justice system, the enactment of forced sterilization in the welfare system, and the substitution of supposedly "value-free" information from sex researchers for traditional moral teachings about family life in public schools. In each of these areas, the claim was made at least implicitly that scientific expertise should trump other sources of knowledge, including ethics, philosophy, tradition, religion, and common sense.

普通の市民や選挙で選ばれた政治家よりも科学的専門家に社会は信を置くべきだという主張は、科学的唯物論に影響された公共政策論争で広く繰り返されてきた。確かに、Alleyne Irelandのように憲法を直接攻撃したり、科学者が普通の市民を統治することを要求するような率直な者はほとんどいない。しかし、繰り返される論争の背後にあるメッセージは間違えようがない。教育の問題であろうが、福祉の問題であろうが、犯罪の問題であろうが、市民は、自らの中心的な信条や政治的指導者や宗教的指導者の見方よりも、科学の専門家の研究結果に信を置くように言われた。科学は刑事司法制度の懲罰を更生に置き換え、福祉制度における強制断種を行い、公立学校における家庭生活についての伝統的道徳教育を性研究者による"価値観にとらわれない"と思われる情報も置き換えた。これらすべての分野で、科学的知識が、他の倫理や哲学や伝統や宗教やコモンセンスに勝たなければならないと、暗に主張された。
Of course, there is much that can be said in favor of the authority of scientific expertise in modern life. In an increasingly complex and technologically driven world, the need for scientific input on public policy would seem obvious. Since many policy questions today arise in such science-based fields as medicine, transportation, and ecology, why should politicians and voters not simply defer to the authority of scientific experts in these areas?


Although this line of reasoning exhibits a surface persuasiveness, it ignores the natural limits of scientific expertise. Scientific knowledge may be necessary for good public policy in certain areas, but it is not sufficient. Political problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are ill equipped to function as moralists. C. S. Lewis warned about this drawback of technocracy in the 1950s. "I dread specialists in power, because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects," Lewis wrote. "Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value."[7]

この推論は表面的には説得力を持っているが、これは科学的専門知識の自然な限界を無視している。科学的知識は特定分野では良き公共政策のために必要かもしれないが、それだけでは十分ではない。政治課題は非常に道徳的な問題であり、科学者がモラリストとして機能するには能力が不十分である。CS Lewisはテクノクラシーの欠点について1950年代に警告した。「私は権力を持つ専門家を恐れる。彼らは専門分野の外側について語るスペシャリストだからだ。科学者には科学を語らせよう。しかし、政府は人間と正義と、どの物がどれくらい価値を持つのが良いのかについては政府の仕事だ。これらについては科学的訓練は人間の意見に何の付加価値も与えない。[7]

[7]C. S. Lewis, "Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare State," in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 315.
このC. S. Lewisの引用は文脈通りである。Dr. John G Westの主張も、特に何の問題もない。

Dr. John G Westは、これを具体的に語る:
For example, wildlife biologists may be able to provide policymakers with information about which species are in danger of extinction. Perhaps they can also predict some of the costs of a species' extinction to biodiversity. But they have no more authority than anyone else in determining whether a particular endangered species is more valuable than the jobs that may be lost trying to save that species from extinction. Politics is largely about ranking and reconciling competing goods; but the ranking of goods involves questions of justice and morality, and as Lewis pointed out, "a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value" on such questions.

たとえば、野生生物学者は、政策担当者に絶滅の危険にある種についての情報を提供できる場合がある。おそらく、彼らは生物多様性に対する種の絶滅のコストを予測できるだろう。しかし、彼らには、特定種と、それを絶滅から救うことによって失われる仕事のどちらが大事かを判断する権限は他の誰以上にない。政治とは主として、競合する商品にランク付けて調停することである。しかし、商品のランク付けには正義と道徳の問題が含まれている。これらの問題について「科学的訓練は人間の意見に何の付加価値も与えない」とCS Lewisが指摘するように。

政治の役割についてはDr. John G Westの記述はまったくもって正しい。そして、種の絶滅(あるいは地球温暖化やオゾン層破壊)の影響について予測することが科学者の仕事だというのも正しい。さらにランク付けに客観的基準ではなく、正義や道徳という"価値観"が入り込むという指摘も正しい。


この科学と政治の境界線は何ら問題のある主張ではないが、実際にはDr. John G Westは優生やロボトミーを持ち出して、もう一歩、政治側を強める主張をする。
Technocracy poses a further difficulty: The limits of human reason assure that experts can be wrong, sometimes egregiously. If the history of scientific materialism in politics shows anything, it is that scientific experts can be as fallible as anyone else. They are capable of being blinded by their own prejudices and going beyond the evidence in order to promote the policies they favor. Alfred Kinsey's empirical claims about the sexual behavior of the general American public were junk science, given his deeply flawed sample population; yet that did not stop him from boldly making his claims and vigorously defending them as sound science.

テクノクラシーには更なる問題がある。人間の理性に限界があるために、ときには専門家がひどく誤ることがある。政治における科学的唯物論の歴史が何かを示すとしたら、それは科学の専門家たちは、他と人々と同様に間違うことがあることだ。彼らは自らの偏見によって盲目になり、彼らが選好する政策を推進するために証拠を超えてしまう。一般的な米国人の性行動についてのAlfred Kinseyの経験的な主張はjunk Scienceであり、彼のサンプル集団はひどく誤ったものだったが、彼はそれでも大胆な主張を行い、正しい科学として自らを擁護した。

The errors of the scientific community in the early 20th century were profound. For decades, eugenics--the effort to breed better human beings by applying the principles of Darwinian biology to reproduction--was embraced as legitimate by America's leading scientists and scientific organizations such as the AAAS. Critics of eugenics, meanwhile, were roundly stigmatized as anti-science and religious zealots. Yet the critics of eugenics were the ones who turned out to be right, not the scientific elites.


Similarly, the lobotomy was uncritically embraced for years by the medical community as a miracle cure, and the scientist who pioneered the operation in human beings won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Only after tens of thousands of individuals had been lobotomized did healthy skepticism prevail.

Dr. John G Westの記述は"だいたいあってる"。

==>Christine Rosen: "Preaching eugenics: religious leaders and the American eugenics movement"


それはさておき、Dr. John G Westの「科学者たちが間違うこともある」という指摘はまったく正しい。そして、これに続けて、Dr. John G Westは、やっと本当に言いたいことを言う:
The point is that public policy claims made by scientists ought to be scrutinized by policymakers and citizens in the same way that public policy claims made by other interested parties are scrutinized. Any suggestion that policymakers should simply rubber-stamp the advice of the current majority of scientists is profoundly subversive of the fundamental principles of representative democracy. As equal citizens before the law, scientists have every right to inform policymakers of the scientific implications of their actions, but they have no special right to demand that policymakers listen to them alone.


Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing chorus urging that public policy be dictated by the majority of scientific experts without input from anyone else. Today, this bold assertion is made not just with regard to evolution, but concerning a host of other controversial issues such as sex education, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and global warming. On these matters, any dissent from the orthodoxy of the "experts" allegedly represents a "war on science."[8]


[8]See, for example, Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science (New York: Basic Books, 2005).

Dr. John G Westはつまるところ、「根拠はないけど、科学界のコンセンサスに反して、創造論を理科の授業で科学として教えることを、政治家としての全権限と全責任において決断する」と政治家が言えない現状が問題だと言っているようだ。
タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2009/12/29 02:28 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする