Sunday, March 3, 2013

On March 2, 2013,
Kent wrote:

Here are comments directly to a couple of your comments:

"I could easily see his [McGilchrist's] position as supporting the idea that science has nothing to say about human values."

I see McGilchrist's position as this:  science is the left-brain contribution into human values, which then also needs a right-brain input.  Right-brain input without science negates human values just as much as (left-brain) science without a right-brain input.

"For me the idea of the separation between science and human values comes from Earnest Nagel who writes that the goal of theoretical science requires that inquiry be directed at the relations of dependence among things irrespective of their bearing upon human values."

For McGilchrist, the dichotomy is not between science and human values, but rather between scientific human values (left-brain thinking) and non-scientific human values (right-brain thinking).

I think Nagel's phrase would be better put by saying that theoretical science is an inquiry irrespective of more wholistic (right brain) values. Or another way of putting it, left-brain thinking is also part of our human value system.

Yet another way of saying it is that left-brain thinking helps us find the morsel of food--- helps us focus on a specific object--- and right-brain thinking helps us be on guard --- lets us be aware of our total environment--- so that we can find the morsel of food.

Determinism is a left-brain conundrum which melts away in a right-brain way of thinking.


No comments: