[Cordero] Science Objectivity and Moral Values

7/26/2019 [Cordero] Science Objectivity and Moral Values

1/22

Science Education 1, 49-70 , 1992. 49

9 1992

Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

S c i e n c e O b j e c ti v it y a n d M o r a l V a l u e s I

A L B E R T O C O R D E R O

Queens College, City Univers ity of Ne w York, Flushing, N Y 11367-1597, U.S.A.

AB STR AC T: Scientific acts are loaded w ith values, but, i t is argued, this does not viciously

comprom ise the objectivity of scientific claims, because the values that permeate scientific

discourse (a) are loaded in turn with facts, (b) are not imm une from critical revision, and

(c) ha ve changed in the pa st and co ntinue to be subjected to revision. In science, unlike

such en terprises as Scientific Creationism, value s are discovered, introduced, tested and

challenged in the sam e way that other aspects of scientific discourse are. All of this m akes

scientific discourse relevant to the contemp orary exploration and critique of hum an values

in general, pa rticularly as mo re aspects of life becom e illuminated by science.

1 . SCIENCE WITHOUT TH E FACT/VALUE DICHOTOMY

M y g o a l i n t hi s p a p e r i s to a r g u e f o r t h e h u m a n v a l u e o f s ci en ti fi c k n o w l -

e d g e . I a m p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e a p p l i c a b i li ty o f s c i e n c e a n d c o n -

t e m p o r a r y s c ie n ti fi c t h o u g h t t o t h e d i s c u ss io n o f h u m a n v a l u e s a n d g o a ls .

M y s t a r t i n g p o i n t is a d i s c o v e r y t h a t h a s b e e n w i t h u s f o r s o m e t im e ,

n a m e l y t h a t s c i e n ti fi c c l a i m s a r e v a l u e - l a d e n . 2 I t is a n i m p o r t a n t d i s c o v e r y ,

b e c a u s e i t r u in s t h e h o p e s o f a p h i l o s o p h ic a l o b j e c t iv i s t p r o g r a m t h a t g o e s

b a c k t o c l as s ic a l a n t i q u i t y . I w il l c o n t e n d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e g o a l s o f

o b j e c t i v is m a r e b e t t e r f u lf il le d w i t h o u t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l f r a m e w o r k w i t h

w h i c h i t h a s b e e n t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d .

I r e a l iz e , o f c o u r s e , t h a t t h is is a r a t h e r s t r a n g e c l a i m t o m a k e . P h i l o -

s o p h i c a l o b j e c t i v i s m , s u r e l y , h a s a l w a y s b e e n i n t h e f o r e f r o n t o f th e f i g h t

a g a i n s t v i c i o u s i d e o l o g y in s c i e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s .

F a c t s a n d V a l u e s

I t is n o a c c i d e n t t h a t w e o w e t h e m o s t i n f lu e n ti al f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e

f a c t / v a l u e d i c h o t o m y t o a c h a m p i o n o f r a t io n a l s o c i o l o g y , M a x W e b e r . 3

A c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f s c ie n c e th a t h e a d v o c a t e d , t h e c o n c e p t o f

' v a l u e ' s t a n d s i n r e a s s u r i n g c o n t r a s t t o th e c o n c e p t o f ' f a c t '. W e s i m p l y

r e c o g n i z e th e l a t te r b u t m u s t s e le c t t h e f o r m e r , W e b e r t h o u g h t . B e c a u s e

h e w a n t e d t o s av e o b j e c ti v i ty , h e w a s o p p o s e d t o a n y f o r m o f a s s e s s m e n t

w h i c h c o u l d n o t b e p r o m p t l y

e n f o r c e d

o n a l l . W e b e r w a s t h u s l e d t o a

c o n c e p t i o n o f o b j e c t iv i t y th a t e f f e c t iv e l y d i v o r c e s t h e s e a r c h f o r w i s d o m

f r o m s c i e n c e . I n h i s v i e w , s c i e n c e c a n t e l l u s w h a t t h e f a c t s a r e a n d h o w

t h e y r e l a t e t o o n e a n o t h e r ; i t c a n t e l l u s h o w t o g e t f r o m o n e p l a c e t o

a n o t h e r i n t h e w o r l d o f n a t u r a l p o s s i b il it ie s . S c i e n ti fi c k n o w l e d g e c a n n o t

t e ll u s , h o w e v e r , w h e r e t o g o .


2/22

50 ALBERTO CORDERO

O n e o f t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g p r o d u c t s o f t h e c r i ti q u e o f p o s i ti v is m i s t h e

r e a l i z a ti o n t h a t e v e n t h e b e s t n a t u r a l s c ie n c e s a re s e r i o u s ly a t o d d s w i t h

W e b e r s i d e a l. F u n d a m e n t a l p h y s i cs a n d b i o l o g y a r e v i r t u a ll y d e v o i d o f

t h e r u l e - g o v e r n e d a s s e s s m e n t s t h a t W e b e r h a d i n m i n d . V e r y l i t t l e i n

s c ie n c e c a n b e p r o m p t l y e n f o r c e d o n a l l h u m a n i t y ; v a l u e s d o s e e m t o p l a y

a c e n t r a l r o l e i n s c i e n t i f i c a s s e s s m e n t s . I n s c i e n c e n e i t h e r f a c t s n o r v a l u e s

a r e m e r e l y r e c o g n i z e d b u t e v e r y t h i n g is a c ti v e ly s e l e c te d . H a v e a ll t h e

h o p e s o f c la s si ca l o b j e c t iv i s m t h u s b e e n d e f e a t e d ?

M y a n s w e r t o t h i s q u e s t i o n w i ll b e a c l e a r n o . T h o s e h o p e s a r e n o t

c o m p l e t e l y r u i n e d . A l t h o u g h i t c a n n o t b e d e n i e d t h a t s c i e nt if ic f a c t s a r e

t h e r e s u l t o f a c ti v e s e l e c t i o n , i n t h e h a r d s c i e n c e s t h e s e l e c t i o n t h a t t a k e s

p l a c e is i n t u r n t h e p r o d u c t o f i n f o r m e d j u d g e m e n t , b a s e d o n t h e d e t a i l e d

a p p l i c a ti o n o f p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o n , n o t j u s t e m o t i o n a l f e e l i n g .

A s i m p l e f a c t u a l r e p o r t l i k e h e y , th i s g u y h a s a m a s s i v e s a l m o n e l l a

i n f e c t i o n r e q u i r e s a l e v e l o f r e c o g n i t io n t h a t i s l o a d e d w i t h th e o r i e s a n d

v a l u e s. T h e p r e s e n c e o f s a l m o n e l l a s in a p a t i e n t is b e st e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h t h e

h e l p o f t e c h n i q u e s w h o s e c r e d i b i li t y r e s ts h e a v i l y o n b o t h t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f

v a r i o u s o p t i c a l , c h e m i c a l a n d b i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s , a s w e l l a s o n t h e s a t is f a c -

t i o n o f v a r io u s e p i s t e m i c s t a n d a r d s o f r e li a b il it y . W h e n i t c o m e s t o t h e

f a c t s , c e r t a i n m a r k e r s o f r e l ia b i l i t y a r e d e f i n i t e l y v a l u e d .

S t i l l , t h e r e i s e x c e l l e n t r e a s o n f o r s p e a k i n g o f f a c t s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h

t h e d e t e c t i o n o f s a l m o n e l l a s . T h e t h e o r i e s a n d m o d e l s i n v o l v e d in t h e i r

d e t e c t i o n h a v e b e e n f o u n d t o b e p a r a d i g m a t i c a l l y r e l ia b l e o n t h e b a s is o f

s u c h v a l u e d m a r k e r s o f r e li a b i li t y a s s u cc e s s, c o h e r e n c e , c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h

o t h e r r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e , f e r t i li t y , a n d t e s t a b i l i t y . T h e r e i s n o

d e n y i n g , i n t h i s s e n s e , t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e s u p o n w h i c h s c i e n c e r e l i e s t o

d e c i d e w h e t h e r o r n o t s o m e t h i n g i s f a c t u a l p r e s u p p o s e b o t h t h e o r i e s a n d

v a l u e s . B u t i t i s f a r f r o m o b v i o u s t h a t s u c h d e p e n d e n c i e s n e c e s s a r i l y

d e s t r o y o b j e c t i v i t y .

T h e d e b a t e a b o u t v a l u e - l o a d e d f a c t s c o n n e c t s w i t h a p a r a l l e l d e b a t e

a b o u t t h e o r y - l o a d e d o b s e r v a t i o n s i n s c i e n c e . T h e p o s i t i v i s t s t r u s t e d t h e

s e n se s a s s o u r c e s o f r e l ia b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f a r m o r e t h a n a n y t h e o r y . T h e y

a s s u m e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n o b s e r v a t i o n a l l a n g u a g e w h i c h w a s n e u t r a l

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o r y a n d u n p r o b l e m a t i c w i t h r e s p e c t t o t r u t h , a n d t h e y

t h o u g h t o f t h e o r i e s a s j u s t c o n v e n i e n t l o g i c a l d e v i c e s f o r e x p r e s s i n g t h e

w o r l d o f o b s e r v a b l e r e a l it y .

O b s e r v a t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s n e v e r t h e o r y - n e u t r a l in re a l sc i e n ce . A s H a n -

s o n a n d o t h e r s h a v e p o i n t e d o u t s i n c e t h e

1950S 4 tO

s e e s o m e t h i n g i n

s c i e n c e i s t o b e a b l e t o g i v e s o m e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t w h a t s o r t o f

t h i n g o n e s e e s . E v e n i n a c a s e a s b a s i c as i t f e e l s h o t , t h e r e l e v a n t p o i n t

i s t h a t it f e e l s h o t . T e c h n i c a l l y p u t , s c i e n ti f ic o b s e r v a t i o n i s p r o p o s i t i o n a l

i n a f u n d a m e n t a l s e n s e , i . e . , i t i s n o t m e r e o b s e r v a t i o n b u t observa t i on

that. I n t h e c a s e o f t h e s a l m o n e l l a r e p o r t w i t h w h i c h I b e g a n , t h e p e r s o n

w h o m a k e s i t d o e s n o t m e r e l y s e e s a l m o n e l l a ; h e s e e s t h a t t h e b u g s

u n d e r t h e m i c r o s c o p e a r e

sa lmone l la t yphosa

t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e k i l l e d b y

c h l o r i n e , a n d s o o n . A c o m p l e t e l y u n t r a i n e d p e r s o n w o u l d p r o b a b l y s e e


3/22

S C I E N C E , O B J E C T I V I T Y A N D M O R A L V A L U E S 5 1

t h e s a l m o n e l l a o n t h e m i c r o s c o p e , b u t n o t t h a t t h e y a r e s a l m o n e l l a . A

les s neu t ra l s i t ua t i on wi l l i l l u s t r a t e t h i s . F rom t ime immemor i a l , t he p res -

e n c e o f s to n y m a r i n e s h e ll s fa r f r o m t h e s e a h a s r a i s e d q u e s t i o n s a s to h o w

t h e y c a m e t o b e t h e r e . C o n t e m p o r a r y b i o lo g i s ts s e e , w i th n o d i f f ic u lt y , t h a t

t h e y a r e t h e f o s s il iz e d r e m a i n s o f l o n g - d e a d a n im a l s . M a n y e d u c a t e d

p e o p l e i n t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , h o w e v e r , s a w w i t h c o m p a r a b l e e a s e

t h a t t h o s e m o l lu s k - li k e s to n e s w e r e t h e p r o d u c t o f f o r c e s , s p o r t s o f n a t u r e

tha t cou ld nev er r ea l l y have l ived . 5

p i s t em i c V a l u es a n d t h e F a c t s

S o , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t f a c t u a l r e p o r t s a i m a t , a n d c o m p r i s e a s s e s s m e n t s

o f , r e l i ab i l i t y , va lues and t heo r i es a re i nvo lved ; bu t no t j u s t any va lues

a n d t h e o r i e s . T h e v a l u e s i n v o l v e d h a v e t o d o w i t h e p i s t e m i c r e l i a b i l i t y

a n d m a y t h u s b e c a ll e d e p i s t e m i c ; t h e y a r e g r o u n d e d i n s uc h h u m a n

n e e d s a s t r u th , a u t o n o m y , u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d c o n t r o l o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .

I t i s w i th r ega rd t o t h i s a spec t o f t he human c i r cums tance t ha t such t r a i t s

a s c o h e r e n c e w i t h t h e b e s t i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n c e p t u a l f e r t i l i t y , e m p i r i c a l

a d e q u a c y a n d t e s t a b i li t y h a v e p r o v e d v a l u a b l e a n d a r e h e l d in c o n s i d e r a b l e

e s t e e m a s e p i s t e m i c v a lu e s . I n t h e s a m e v e i n , to t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e o r i e s

a re i nvo lved i n f ac tua l r epo r t s , no t j u s t any t heo ry f rom the s c i en t i f i c

c o r p u s q u a l i f i e s , b u t o n l y t h o s e t h a t a r e d e e m e d r e l i a b l e b e y o n d r e a s o n -

a b l e d o u b t .

T h e b o t t o m l i n e i s t h a t w h a t p a s s e s f o r a l e g i t i m a t e f a c t u a l r e p o r t i n

s c i e n c e i s n e v e r n e u t r a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o e p i s t e m i c v a l u e s a n d r e l i a b l e

t h e o r i e s , n o r u n p r o b l e m a t i c w i t h r e s p e c t t o t r u th , b u t t h e f a c t s o f s c i en c e

a re spec i a l none the l es s . A rep o r t i s s a id t o be f ac tua l on ly i f i t s a t is f ie s

t he s t anda rds o f r e li ab i li t y cha rac t e r i s ti c o f s c i ence .

Relat ivis t Fears

T h e f e a r , o f c o u r s e , i s t h a t i f o n e a c c e p t s t h a t f a c ts a r e l o a d e d w i th v a l u e s ,

t h e n t h e o b j e c t iv i t y o f fa c t s m a y b e c o m p l e t e l y d e s t r o y e d .

T h e f e a r is s tr e n g t h e n e d b y w i d e s p r e a d d o u b t s a b o u t t h e c a p a c it y o f

e x p e r i m e n t a n d o b s e r v a t i o n t o c o n t r a s t t h e o r ie s w i t h t h e f a c t s , l e t a l o n e

r e f u t e a n y s c i en t if ic t h e o r y . I a m r e f e r ri n g t o Q u i n e s D u h e m i a n a s s e r ti o n

t h at A n y s t a t e m e n t c a n b e h el d t ru e c o m e w h a t m a y , i f w e m a k e d r as ti c

e n o u g h a d j u s t m e n t s e l s e w h e r e i n t h e s y s t e m . 6 A c c o r d i n g t o t h is c l a i m ,

c r u ci a l e x p e r i m e n t s a r e n o t r e a l l y p o s s ib l e in s c i e n ce , b e c a u s e t h e o r i e s a r e

a l w a y s t e s t e d v i a a n e t w o r k o f a u x i l i a r y h y p o t h e s e s , a n d s o n o t h e o r y

n e e d s e v e r b e r e j e c t e d . A n y a p p a r e n t r e f u t a t i o n c a n a l w a y s b e i n g e n u o u s l y

r e v e r s e d b y m o d i f y i n g a u x i l i a r y h y p o t h e s e s .

T h i s f o r m o f Q u i n e a n r e la t iv i sm , i f c o r r e c t , w o u l d r e a li z e W e b e r s f e a r s

b y m a k i n g t h e e n c r o a c h m e n t o f m e r e ly p r e f e r e n ti a l v a l u e s u p o n s c ie n c e

i m p o s s i b l e to s t o p . T h i n k o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t, l it e ra l r e a d e r o f th e B i b l e

w h o t a k e s f a i t h t o b e e p i s t e m i c a l l y v a l u a b l e . I f Q u i n e a n r e l a t i v i s m w e r e

c o r r e c t ( a n d f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s w e r e c l e v e r e n o u g h ) , t h e l i t e r a l r e a d i n g o f


4/22

5 2 A L B E R T O C O R D E R O

t h e B o o k o f G e n e s i s c o u l d , w i t h t h e h e l p o f s o m e c h o i c e o f p r o p o s i t i o n s ,

b e m a d e t o a c c o u n t fo r th e s a m e p h e n o m e n a a s c o n t e m p o r a r y e v o l u t io n -

a ry b io logy .

P l a c e d in t h e c o n t e x t o f Q u i n e a n r e la t iv i sm , t h e v a l u e - d e p e n d e n c e t h e si s

be co m es t hus a s t rong t hes is i n wh ich s c i ence s c l a ims t o ob j ec t i v i t y a re

mass ive ly and cons i s t en t l y deva lued . I f t he f ac t s o f s c ience a re l oa ded w i th

t h e o r y a n d t h e s c ie n ti fi c c r it iq u e o f t h e o r y i s i n d e e d f r u s t r a t e d b y Q u i n e a n

re l a t i v i sm, t hen any a l l eged ly empi r i ca l con f ron t a t i on o f a va lue wi th a

f a c t c a n a l w a y s b e i n p r i n c i p l e r e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l n e t w o r k

tha t su r rounds t he f ac t i n ques t i on .

M er e P o s s ib i li t ie s A r e To o th l e s s T ig er s

A f u n d a m e n t a l i st r e a d i n g o f t h e B i b l e ca n b e m a d e t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e

s a m e p h e n o m e n a a s c o n t e m p o r a r y b i o l o g y , i m p l i e s t h e Q u i n e a n s t r o n g

thes is . N o t i ce , h ow eve r , t ha t t he i n i ti a l v iab i l it y o f such a read ing has a t

b e s t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a m er e l o g i ca l p o s s ib i l i t y T h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e

s t rong t hes i s i s no t t ha t s c i ence f a i l s i n i t s s ea rch fo r r e l i ab l e i n fo rmat ion

a b o u t t h e w o r l d , b u t o n l y t h a t i t c a n n o t d r a w o n a b s o l u t e o r l o g i c a l

g u a r a n t e e s o f s u c c e s s . T h a t w o u l d b e d i s t u r b i n g i f s c i e n c e w e r e l o o k i n g

fo r ce r t a i n ty ; fo r t una t e ly , i t i s no t .

I th ink the s t ron g thes i s has in i t ia l p laus ib i l i ty only if w e fa i l to t a ke

in to accoun t t he fo l l owing c ruc i a l a spec t o f con t empora ry s c i en t i f i c

t h o u g h t : s c ie n c e h a s r a t io n a l l y t r a n s c e n d e d t h e n e e d f o r a b s o l u t e e p i s te m i c

f o u n d a t i o n s . I t h a s m o v e d a w a y f r o m t h e f o u n d a t i o n a l is t a p p r o a c h t o

kno wle dge charac t e r i s t i c o f ea r l i e r and mo re abo r ig ina l i n t e ll ec t s , and

b e c o m e a d i ff e r e n t k in d o f p r o j e c t . S c i e n c e h a s m o v e d a w a y f ro m t h e

b io log i ca l and pa l eocu l t u ra l l y con d i t i oned ce r t a i n t i e s o f t he pas t and

l e a r n e d t o w o r k w i t h t e n t a t i v e f o u n d a t i o n s t h a t a r e b a s e d o n c u r r e n t

k n o w l e d g e .

T h e f o u n d a t io n s o f c o n t e m p o r a r y s c ie n c e ar e t h u s o p e n - e n d e d a n d

n e i t h e r h a v e t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a b s o l u t e g i v e n s n o r a r e p r e t e n d e d t o b e

t h e o r y - n e u t r a l. 7 I t w i ll b e m y c l a im t h a t t h e v a l u e s e m b o d i e d b y s c i e n c e

h a v e u n d e r g o n e a si m i la r tr a n s f o r m a t i o n . N o n e o f t h e m f u n c t io n s a s a n

abso lu t e g iven .

O v e r v i e w

I w i l l deny t ha t t he va lue -dependence t hes i s cas t s spec i f i c doub t s on t he

ob j ec t i v i t y o f t he n a tu ra l s c i ences . M y thes is i n s ec t i on 2 wil l be t ha t ,

a l t hough sc ien t if ic f ac t s a re sha ped by ce r t a i n va lues , t he v a lues i n ques t i on

are i n t u rn shap ed by f ac ts . M y thes i s i n s ec t i on 3 wi ll be t ha t t he po s s ib i li t y

o f a rb i t r a ry va lues v i c ious ly encroach ing upon t he na tu ra l s c i ences i s u t -

t er ly implaus ib le . I wi l l cons ider the sc ien t i f i c scru t iny of values in sect ion

4 . F ina l l y , i n s ec t i on 5 , I w i l l p resen t an a rgumen t f rom mora l i n t eg r i t y

f o r t h e r e l e v a n c e o f s c i e n t i f i c t h o u g h t t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y s e a r c h f o r

genera l va lues and goa l s .


5/22


2. V ALU ES PRESUPPOSEFACTS

T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f e p i s t e m i c v a l u e s i s a n e c e s s a r y

c o n d i t i o n f o r m a k i n g a c c e p t a b l e f a c t u a l r e p o r t s , W e b e r s d e f e n s e o f s c ie n -

t if ic o b j e c t i v i ty f a il s. D e s p i t e t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s o f W e b e r s a p p r o a c h , h o w -

e v e r , t h e r e s e e m s t o b e s o m e t h i n g f i g h t i n t h e n o t i o n t h a t f a c t s a r e

d i f f e r e n t f r o m m e r e p r e f e r e n c e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e t o

a rgue t ha t t he s a t i s f ac t i on o f ep i s t emic va lues canno t be a su f f i c i en t con -

d i t i on fo r f ac t i c i t y , fo r t he s imp le r eason t ha t , i n t he matu re s c i ences , t he

l eg i t imacy o f a va lue depends on i t s succes s a s a marker o f r e l i ab i l i t y ,

w h i c h i s b y n o m e a n s s o m e t h i n g g u a r a n t e e d i n a d v a n c e . I w a n t t o a r g u e

a g a i n st t h e s t r o n g t h e si s in t h r e e c o m p l e m e n t a r y w a y s : f r o m ( a ) t h e r e f u t -

ab i l it y o f f ac tua l r ep o r t s , (b ) t he i nvar i ance o f som e fac t s t o cons t i t u t i ve

va lue cha nge , and (c ) t he imp laus ib i l i ty o f the s t rong t hes is .

S c i en t i f i c Re l ia b i l i t y

M y fi rs t a r g u m e n t f o c u s e s o n t h e o p e n - e n d e d c h a r a c t e r o f f a c t u a l r e p o r t s .

In s c i en t if i c d i s course , r e l i ab i li t y is g ran t ed on t he ba s i s o f t he b es t cu r ren t

m a r k e r s f o r it , b u t i ts f in a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n d e p e n d s o n t h e w a y th i n g s tu r n

o u t i n t h e e m p i r i c a l w o r l d . P u t a n o t h e r w a y , t h e v a l u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a

re l iab i l it y r ep o r t w ou ld on ly t h rea t en s c i en t if i c ob j ec t i v i t y i f t he r e l iab i l it y

o f a r e li a b il it y r e p o r t c o u l d n e v e r b e in d e p e n d e n t l y t e s te d . T h a t , h o w -

ever , i s s imp ly no t t rue i n genera l .

I n s c i e n c e t h e f a c t u a l c h a r a c t e r o f a r e p o r t is e x p li c it ly k e p t o p e n t o t h e

poss ib i li t y o f r ev i s i on , an d p ro spec t i ve r ep o r t s a re cha l l enge d a l l t he t ime .

R e p o r t s i ni ti al ly a c c e p t e d a s r e li a b l e o n g o o d s c i en t if ic g r o u n d s o f t e n t u r n

o u t t o b e a d i s a p p o i n t m e n t . T h e d i a g n o s i s o f i n f e c t i o n s c a u s e d b y t i c k s

u s e d t o b e a n a r e n a f o r a l l s o r t s o f e m b a r r a s s i n g m e d i c a l m i s t a k e s . S o

w e r e m a n y e a r l y s tu d i e s o f t h e e f f e c t o f c i g a r e tt e s m o k i n g o n h e a l th .

Th e s c i en ti fi c con cep t i on o f r e l i ab il i ty , I sugges t , de r i ve s it s ow n re l iab i l -

i t y p a r t l y f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t i t r e m a i n s a s t e n t a t i v e a n d o p e n t o t h e

poss ib i l it y o f r ev i s ion as eve ry th ing e l s e i n s c i ence .

a c t I n v a r i a n c e

M y s e c o n d a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t t h e s t r o n g t h e s i s i s f r o m t h e i n v a r i a n c e o f

f a c t s t o v a l u e c h a n g e . N u m e r o u s c l a i m s s e e m t o h a v e k e p t t h e i r f a c t u a l

s t a t u s fo r ages , desp i t e s i gn i f i can t t r ans fo rmat ions i n t he concep t i on o f

e p i s t e m i c v a l u e s . B l u n t c a s e s i n p o i n t i n c l u d e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p l a n e t s

m o v e r e l a t i v e t o t h e s t a r s a n d t h a t m a l e h u m a n s h a v e n i p p l e s .

I f h i s t o ry show s any th ing , i t i s t ha t i n s c ience t he f ac t s have r a re ly be en

loya l t o t he va lues wh ich i n i t i a l l y l ed t o t he i r i den t i f i ca t i on . W hen Darwin

d e v e l o p e d h is t h e o r y o f e v o l u t i o n , h e m a d e l ib e r a l u s e o f f a c ts t h a t h a d

b e e n g a t h e r e d b y h i s t e l e o l o g i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d p r e d e c e s s o r s , b u t h e d i d n o t

respec t t he va lua t i ons wh ich t hose f ac t s o r i g ina l l y ca r r i ed . In f ac t , Dar -

w i n s a p p r o a c h t u r n e d t e l e o lo g i c a l b i o lo g y o n i t s h e a d a n d i n it ia t e d t h e


6/22

54

L B E R T O C O R D E R O

destruction of the man-centered and goal-oriented biology then prevalent.

Where the romantic and pious Louis Agassiz saw in the records of com-

parative anatomy a series of vertebrate animals in which the growing

similarity of man to the creatures along the succession makes the final

purpose of life obvious, Darwin saw a series produced by common descent

with fortuitous variation and survival of the fittest. Where Palefs natural

theology saw evidences of intelligent design in nature, Darwin saw the

workings of thoroughly amoral chance in a cosmic Malthusian context.

The way in which Darwin and his followers excised teleological consider-

ations from biology shows an important aspect o f the invariance of scien-

tific facts to value change. Facts determined with the help of a value can

be used to question that very same value as a marker of reliability and,

hence, its status as an epistemic value. It is simply not true that the uses

of a fact are necessarily loaded in favor of the epistemic valuations that

led to its determination.

The eep Quinean Thesis

I think the two arguments just presented go a long way toward putting

the most common fears about relativism to rest. In an important sense,

however, those arguments deal only with the most superficial aspects of

the strong thesis.

Even if it is accepted that science is capable of absorbing the yields of

prior valuations, that does not quite establish that science gathers the

spoils of previous valuations in a way that saves the claims of scientific

objectivity. At first sight, a strong relativist could interpret the 'success'

of science simply as an indication that scientists have become very good

at saving their values, come what may.

If the above fears were correct, then my previous arguments would

simply provide the strong relativist with an opportunity to be 'ironic'

toward both science and my naivet What the strong relativist wants us

to accept is that the value judgement from which a scientific fact derives

its life can always be effectively protected from refutat ion. This is the

subject of my third argument.

Suppose that a certain standard is accepted as a marker of reliability,

and that a theory that satisfies this standard to perfection is worked out.

Objectivism would be indeed in trouble if it were true that the valuation

of reliability involved could always be saved from refutation. The thesis

that a value could be kept come what may means that, given any appropri-

ate domain, a reliable account which embodies that value will always be

found, if enough ingenuity is invested in the research.

It is to this deeper version of the strong thesis that we must now turn.


7/22

SCIENCE, OBJECTIVITY AND MORAL VALUES 55

3. ILLUSORY RADICALISM

The strong thesis embodies Quine's famous claim that 'Any sta tement can

be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments

elsewhere in the system'. 6 While this claim continues to be influential

among relativists, it has been shown to be seriously incorrect.7 The first

point to notice is that Quine's argument for the claim is purely logical and

so, by its very nature, says nothing about the comparative triviality or

significance of the theories that would result from the adjustments it

specifies. As some critics of the merely logical manipulation of theoret ical

networks have pointed out, s given a theory T, from the statement

T&A--~O,

but not O one cannot deduce the statement (Fo r some

A ' ) ( T & A ' ~ n o t

O) in a non-trivial way. Quine's claim, it turns out, is

not even an interesting logical truth. Unless support is found for it outside

logic, therefore, it must be regarded as pure dogma.

Even if, on a particular occasion, a given value could be protected

against critical scrutiny, come what may, the following case study reveals

that the cost of doing so can only be expected to be enormous in the

context of contemporary science.

Scientific C reationism

Creationists are the intellectual heirs of such people as the Seventh-Day

Adventist George Price, a colorful geologist who in 1906 offered $1000

to anyone who could show him that one kind of fossil is older than

another. 9 Creationists maintain that the biblical account of the creation

of the world is literally true and that biological evolution is not a sound

scientific theory, but only a speculation. ~~ In the 1960s they sought, and

won, court rulings that entitled religious fundamentalists to protect their

children from school classes which featured biological evolution. In the

early 1970s many creationists joined efforts and organized a 'Creation

Science Research Center' in San Diego, to prepare creationist literature

suitable for use in state schools. H They became 'scientific creationists' and

adopted a new rhetoric.

The 'scientific' works of Henry Morris, a leading creationist, try not to

let religious beliefs openly intrude. Morris seeks to justify creationist

claims solely on a scientific basis, without reference to any religious be-

liefs. ~2 He and his followers campaigned in the 1980s to have scientific

creationism taught in American schools along with the theory of biological

evolution, which they oppose. Among the people who have responded

favorably to their plea, there are presidents of the US, senators, poli-

ticians, and a host of other extremely influential citizens.

The philosophically interesting point about scientific creationists is that

their endeavor is fully consistent with the strong thesis. They began their

operations at the Creation Research Society by requiring members to sign

a sta tement of belief accepting the infallibility of the Bible. 11 Scientific


8/22


c r e a ti o n is t s d o n o t o p e n l y c h a ll e n g e t h e e p i s t e m i c v a l u e s o f m a i n s t r e a m

s c ie n c e ; m a n y e v e n c l ai m to t re a s u r e t h e m . C r e a t i o n is t s, h o w e v e r , e n d o r s e

fa i th a s an add i t i ona l va lue . T o t hem , f a i th func t i ons as an ep i s t emic va lue

t o b e d e f e n d e d c o m e w h a t m a y , a n d t h e y d o h a v e f a it h th a t t h e B i b l e i s

l i t e ra l l y and abso lu t e ly t rue . I f t he B ib l e i s l i t e ra l l y t rue , however , i t

f o ll o w s t h a t e v o l u t i o n a r y b i o l o g y m u s t b e w r o n g . A c t u a l c r e a t i o n is t s d o

n o t s e e m t o b e c l e v e r e n o u g h t o e s t a b l is h t h e l a t t e r, b u t t h a t i s b e s i d e t h e

po in t . I f Qu ine i s r i gh t , t hen i t shou ld be pos s ib l e t o s ave t he i r doc t r i ne ,

c o m e w h a t m a y .

Th e l ead ing s t r a t egy am ong sc ien t if ic c rea t i on i s t s is t o show tha t ev o lu -

t i onary b io logy is no t a s c ien t if ic t heo ry b u t r ea l l y on ly a specu l a t i on . F o r

th i s t hey r e ly heav i l y on t he t hough t s o f such ph i l o sopher s o f s c i ence as

P o p p e r ( o n c e a d e f e n d e r o f t h e v i e w t h a t e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y w a s u n t e s t-

a b l e , m e t a p h y s i c a l a n d b a s e d o n t a u t o l o g i e s ) a n d K u h n ( a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

t h e c o n c e p t i o n t h a t s c i en ti fi c d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e e d s i n te r m s o f c o m p e t i n g

w o r l d - v i e w s r a t h e r t h a n t h e a c c u m u l a t io n o f o b j e c t i v e k n o w l e d g e ) . T h e

s t ro n g t h e s is s u g g e s ts a b e t t e r s t r a te g y f o r t h e e n e m i e s o f m o d e r n b i o l o g y .

My po in t i s t ha t , a l t hough sc i en t i f i c c rea t i on i s t s do no t genera l l y r ea l i ze

th i s , t he i r bes t op t i on i s a s t r endy Qu ineans on t he l oose . Le t u s r ev i ew

the i r s t r a t eg i es i n some de t a i l .

The Epistemology of inosaur Talk

H o w d o e s o n e g o a b o u t c l ai m in g t h a t e v o l u t i o n a r y b i o l o g y r e s ts o n n o

b e t t e r s p e c u l a t i o n s t h a n c r e a t i o n i s m ? O n e m u s t b e a b l e t o m a i n t a i n ,

a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s o f b i o l o g i c a l e v o l u t i o n d o n o t

rea l l y cha l l enge a l i t e ra l r ead ing o f t he b ib l i ca l s t o ry abou t t he c rea t i on

of l if e and h um an i ty . The c rea t i on i s t mus t succ eed i n c l a iming , fo r exam -

p l e , t ha t t he r ema ins o f d inosau r s , wh ich b io log is t s m ak e us be l i eve

r o a m e d t h e E a r t h b e t w e e n 2 4 0 a n d 6 5 m i l l i o n y e a r s a g o , a r e n o t m o r e

than 6000 o ld . (The l a t t e r f i gu re comes f rom the ca l cu l a t i ons o f such

s c h ol ar s a s J a m e s U s s h e r , t h e f a m o u s s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y A r c h b i s h o p o f

A r m a g h , w h o l o c a t e d th e c r e a t i o n o f th e w o r l d a t 4 00 4 B . C . , o n t h e b a s is

o f t h e p o s t - A d a m i t e g e n e r a t i o n s r e c o r d e d i n t h e B i b l e . )

C r e a t i o n i s t s r e s o r t t o t w o d e v a l u a t o r y s t r a t e g i e s . O n e a p p r o a c h i s t o

d ivo rce evo lu t i onary b io logy f rom the r es t o f s c i ence . Typ i ca l l y , c rea t i on -

i s t s t ry t o cha l l enge t he s c i en t i f i c i t y o f evo lu t i onary b io logy by showing

tha t t he t heo ry i s no t r ea l l y t e s t ab l e o r o the rwi se s c i en t i f i c i n P opper i an

te rm s.1 3 A n o t h e r a v e n u e i s t o s h o w t h a t t h e t h e o r i e s o f m o d e r n b i o l o g y

a r e n o t k n o w n w i th c e r t a i n ty . 14 B u t n o n e o f t h e s e a l l e g a ti o n s w o r k . F r o m

a n e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w , P o p p e r i a n i s m h a s b e e n s h o w n t o b e

ser iou s ly f law ed. ~5 Fr om a h i s tor ica l po in t o f v iew , no im po r tan t sc ien t if i c

t h e o r y h a s e v e r e x e m p l i f i e d t h e m e t h o d o l o g y t h a t s u c h a d o c t r i n e p o s t u -

l a t e s. 15 In f ac t , on e can appe a l t o na ive f a l s i fi ca ti on ism to show tha t any

sc i ence i s no t a s c i ence . ~6 The case fo r d em and ing ce r t a i n ty f rom sc i ence

is e v e n w o r s e ; c o n t e m p o r a r y p h y s i c s a n d b i o l o g y d o n o t p u r s u e c e r t a in t y


9/22


b u t ju s t m a x i m a l l y r e l i a b le i n f o r m a t i o n i n th e c o n t e x t o f p r e s e n t f a l li b le

kno w ledg e . 17

T h e o t h e r m a j o r c r e a t i o n i s t a p p r o a c h i s n o b e t t e r . I t s a i m i s t o d e v a l u e

t h e e v i d e n c e f o r t h e s t a n d a r d t h e o r y o f e v o l u t io n . C r e a t i o n i s ts w a n t t o

c l a im , fo r exa m ple , t ha t a d inosau r fo s s i l de t e rm ined t o be , s ay , 100

m i l li o n y e a r s o l d b y m a i n s t r e a m s c ie n c e c o u l d a c t u a ll y b e l e ss t h a n 6 0 0 0

y e a r s o l d . A s w e s h al l se e , h o w e v e r , g i v e n th e p r e s e n t l e v e l o f in t e g r a t io n

of s c ien t if i c d i s course , an a t t em pt t o ho ld t he c rea t i on i s t t hes i s t rue i n t h is

w a y w o u l d r e q u i r e a m a s s i v e r e v is i o n o f th e e p i s t e m i c v a l u e s o f s t a n d a r d

s c ie n c e . E v e n i f p o s s i b l e , t h e c o s t o f s u c h a m o v e w o u l d b e n o l e s s t h a n

r e v e r s a l t o a p r e s c i e n t i f i c c o n c e p t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e , o n e b a s e d o n t a b o o s

a n d s p e l l s r a t h e r t h a n o n n a t u r a l r e a s o n a s w e k n o w i t .

N e v e r t h e l e s s , l e t u s a s s u m e , f o r th e s a k e o f a r g u m e n t , t h a t a c r e a t io n i s t

s u c c e e d s i n m a k i n g h i s p r o p o s a l c o h e r e n t ( s o m e t h in g n o b o d y t o m y k n o w l -

e d g e h a s y e t m a n a g e d t o d o ) . I t s e e m s c l e a r t h a t t h e B i b l e h y p o t h e s i s

c a n n o t g e t o f f t h e g r o u n d u n l e s s th e c r e a t io n i s t i s a b l e t o c h a l le n g e t h e

c r e d i b i l i t y o f s o m e e x t r e m e l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t e c h n o l o g i e s . I n o r d e r t o

d o t h is , h o w e v e r , h e w o u l d h a v e t o q u e s t i o n a t l e a s t s o m e o f t h e r o b u s t

t h e o r ie s o n w h i c h th o s e t e c h n o lo g i e s a re b a s e d . O n e w a y t o m a k e t h e

c rea t i on i s t s p re d i ca m en t v iv id i s t o r e f l ec t ab ou t tw o charac t e r i s ti c s o f

such t heo r i es .

( 1 ) A t h e o r y is n o t c a l le d r o b u s t f o r n o t h in g ; o n l y e x t r e m e l y s u c c e ss f u l

t heo r i es t h a t fu lf il t he ep i s t em ic va lues o f m a ins t r e am sc i ence t o ve ry h igh

s t a n d a r d s a r e g r a n t e d t h a t l a b e l . T h e c r e a t i o n i s t m u s t d e n y t h a t s o m e

robus t t heo r i es i n t h i s s ense a re r e l i ab l e . He i s t hus f aced wi th t he fo l l ow-

i ng p r o b l e m : u n l e ss h e c a n r a i se s p e c if ic d o u b t s a b o u t a p a r t ic u l a r t h e o r y

o r t echno logy , h i s cha l l enge wi l l on ly succeed i f he d i r ec t s i t t oward t he

p r e s e n t c o n c e p t i o n o f e p i s te m i c v a l u a t io n . I n t h e l a t te r c a s e , w h a t e v e r

r i val con cep t i on t h e c re a t i on i s t i s w i l li ng to a ccep t , t he e f fec t s o f h is mo ve

c o u l d o n ly b e e x p e c t e d t o c o m p r o m i s e t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f o t h e r r o b u s t

t h e o r i e s , w i t h im p o r t a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e s iz e a n d d e p t h o f h is o w n

sc i en t i f i c background .

( 2) A t h e o r y t h a t i s r o b u s t e n o u g h t o b e e m p l o y e d in t h e c o n c e p t io n

and cons t ruc t i on o f a pa r t i cu l a r s c i en t i f i c appara tus i s a lmos t ce r t a i n ly

b o u n d t o b e e m p l o y e d i n m a n y o t h e r s u c h d e v i c e s . T h a t i s i n f a c t t r u e i n

t h e c a s e o f t h e t h e o r i e s e m p l o y e d i n t h e t e c h n o l o g y f o r d a t i n g t h e a g e o f

d inosa u r fo s s il s. Cha l l eng ing such t heo r i es w ou ld t hus i nvo lve t he c rea t i on -

i st i n a c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h a b o d y o f m u t u a l l y e n t r e n c h e d r e s u lt s , a g a in

w i t h i m p o r t a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e s i z e a n d d e p t h o f t h e c r e a t i o n i s t s

own sc ien t i f i c bas i s .

Th i s i s no t t o deny t ha t t echn iques genera l l y have l im i t a t i ons . Un t i l

o n l y a f e w y e a r s a go , t h e N e a n d e r t h a l s w e r e t h o u g h t t o h a v e l iv e d b e f o r e

t h e e m e r g e n c e o f m o d e r n m a n . T h i s b el ie f , h o w e v e r , w a s b a s e d o n e v i-

d e n c e s g a t h e r e d w i t h th e h e l p o f d a ti n g m e t h o d s t h a t i n v o lv e d r a d i o c a r b o n

t e c h n i q u e s , w h i c h w e r e k n o w n t o b e u n r e l i a b l e f o r m a t e r i a l s o l d e r t h a n

3 5 0 0 0 y e a r s . T h e e s t i m a t e s w e r e t h u s e x t r e m e l y t e n t a t i v e , p a r t i c u l a r l y


10/22

58 ALBERTO CORDERO

since the age of modern man was then estimated at 40000 years. Recent

studies, based on the introduction of such techniques as thermolumine-

scence, electron-spin resonance and uranium series dating, now suggest

that the two groups may have been contemporaries about 120000 years

ago. 18

Robust Calendar

Some problematic spots notwithstanding, the vast collection of organic

remains now available provides us with a body of evidence which is both

paradigmatically reliable and distinctly in favor of evolutionary biology.

It is a body that has been growing in quantity and quality for more than

a century.

Geologists and early Darwinians were unable to determine the age of

any fossils in years, but they had at their disposal the so-called geologic

column as a device for measuring relative antiquity. The column is a

calendar that takes advantage of the fact that fossils occur in roughly the

same general sequence everywhere. Using this fact, the sequence of events

that correspond to the last 500 million years was basically worked out

already in the first half of the nineteenth century. The column has im-

proved in quality and scope since the 1920s. Not only has the sequence

of the geologic column been largely confirmed, but the column has been

also vastly extended, and the age of the different strata is now calibrated

in years.

Nevertheless, creationists dispute the dates assigned by mainstream

science to most fossils and rocks, even when the dating processes employed

are based on the most reliable theories of radioactive decay. They ask

such questions as, how do we know that decay rates have remained

constant? , and how do we know that the abundance of materials has

remained the same since the origin of the Earth?

Standard science does provide answers to these questions. There are

numerous decay paths, and they all confirm the same dates within a

comparatively small margin of error. Geochemists take samples of ma-

terials and estimate their age using several decay paths. Not just one,

but a wide variety of independent radiometric techniques are employed.

Further, the methods currently used are many, and they are based on

independent branches of science. Dating based on radioactive techniques

are checked, for example, against the results of a different and indepen-

dent kind of dating that uses the symmetric flipping of the Earth s magnetic

poles.

The result is a complex system of cross-checked ways of measuring age,

none of which is committed to the theory of organic evolution. The

calendar to which these measurements lead is at the disposal of anybody

who takes the present scientific standards of reliability seriously. It pro-

vides a robust body of evidence about the age and evolution of the Ear th s

natural history from about four billion years to the present.


11/22


T h u s , t h e c r e a t i o n i s t m a y c h a l l e n g e a n y p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e h e f a n c i e s ,

bu t t he po in t i s t ha t , i f he does t h i s i n spec i f i c t e rms , t hen he i s bound t o

c h a l l e n g e o n e o r m o r e e x t r e m e l y r o b u s t t h e o r i e s . H e c a n d o t h i s , o f

c o u r s e , b u t t h e n h e h a s t o c h a l l e n g e a l l t h e o t h e r a p p l i c a ti o n s o f th e t h e o r y

h e h a s c h o s e n t o q u e s t i o n . S i n c e t h e m e t h o d s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a g e o f

a d i n o s a u r f o s si l a r e b o t h m a n y a n d i n d e p e n d e n t f r o m o n e a n o t h e r , t h e

c rea t i on i s t s s c i en t if i c bas i s canno t bu t su f fe r a g rea t de a l f rom such a

wi l l fu l exerc i se .

Self Defeating Radicalism

S o , b e c a u s e t h e p i e c e s o f re l ia b l e s c i en t if ic i n f o rm a t i o n a b o u t t h e n a t u r a l

w o r l d a r e n o w s o u t t e r l y e n t a n g l e d , b e c a u s e t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s a r e

p r e s e n t l y m o r e i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a s o li d n a r r a t iv e t h a t t h e u n t u t o r e d e y e is

ab l e t o d i s ce rn a t f i rs t, t he c rea t i on i s t s c l a im ab ou t t he age o f d inosa u r

fos s il s t u rns o u t t o be so s t rong t ha t i t s eem s to und erm ine any spec if i c

b o d y o f s t a n d a r d g e o l o g ic a l a n d b i o lo g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n w h i c h th e c r e -

a t i on i s t s o w n sc i en ti f ic t heo ry , w ha t eve r t ha t i s, m igh t be c l a imed t o

res t . H e co u ld , o f cou rse , t ry t o s ave t he s t a nda rd s c i en t if i c desc r i p t i on o f

t h e w o r l d c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e p e r i o d e l a p s e d after h i s e s t ima t e fo r t he

m om en t o f c rea t i on , i . e . , t he o f f ic i a l s c ien t if ic p i c tu re fo r t he l a s t 6000

y e a rs . T h a t m a n e u v e r , h o w e v e r , w o u l d d o h is ca s e n o g o o d .

C o n s i d e r t h e o p t i o n s . H e c o u l d t r y to s a v e s c i e n c e a n d s c ie n ti fi c r e a s o n

in a ph i l o soph i ca l way , by metaphys i ca l l y r e s t r i c t i ng t he i r app l i cab i l i t y t o

the l a s t 6000 yea r s . The c rea t i on i s t cou ld c l a im , fo r example , t ha t t he

E a r t h i s t h a t y o u n g , b u t G o d s i m p l y m a d e i t

l ook

o l d e r f o r A d a m a n d

E v e , a s t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y c l e r g y m a n P h i l i p G o s s e a c t u a l l y s u g g e s t s

i n h i s r ep ly t o t he Origin. 19 G od , t h a t i s , m igh t hav e c re a t ed t he w or ld as

i f i t d i d h a v e a l o n g h is t o r y , j u s t a s h e g a v e A d a m a n a v e l . A c c o r d i n g t o

th is v i ew, fo s s il s a re r ea l , bu t t he i r a pp eara nce o f o ld age is i l lu so ry . W ha t

goo d , ho w ev er , can t h i s cha rming l og ica l pos s ib i l it y do t o t he c rea t i on i s t s

s t o ry? I f God i s a dece ive r , a s t he pos s ib i l i t y under cons ide ra t i on imp l i es ,

t h e n H i s w o r d s in t h e B i b l e c a n n o t h a v e a b s o l u t e c r e d ib i li ty . T h e e x e r c i se

tha t beg ins b y r es tr i c t ing t he app l i cab i li t y o f sc i en ti f ic r eason ing t o t he l a s t

6 0 0 0 y e a r s c o n c l u d e s b y c a s t i n g a d a r k s h a d o w o f d o u b t o v e r t h e B i b l e

that insp i red i t in the f i r s t p lace .

A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e c r e a t i o n i s t c o u l d t r y t o d e f e n d t h e v i e w t h a t s o m e

par t icu lar d inosaur foss i l i s l ess than 6000 years o ld in speci f ic , sc ien t i f i c ,

t e r m s . H e c o u l d , f o r e x a m p l e , b i t e t h e b u l l e t a n d t r y t o p l a y t h e Q u i n e a n

u n d e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n g a m e i n s p e ci fi c r a t h e r t h a n g l o b a l t e r m s , h o p i n g t o

c o m e u p w i t h a c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y . A s w e h a v e s e e n ,

h o w e v e r , t h e e n t a n g l e d i n te r d is c i p li n a ry s t a t e o f t h e m o s t r o b u s t t h e o r i e s

i n t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s t o d a y w o u l d m a k e i t n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c r e a t i o n i s t

t o d e v e l o p v i r t u a l l y a w h o l e n e w n a t u r a l s c i e n c e . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s

a n o t h e r p r o b l e m . T h e p r e d i c t io n s o f t h e c r e a t i o n i s t s n e w s c i en ti fi c t h e o r y

w o u l d i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y b e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e p r e d i c t i o n s o f s t a n d a r d


12/22

ALBERTO CORDERO

natural science. In order to protect his new theory from refutation, there-

fore, he would have to indulge in a succession of ad-hoc amendments,

which in the end would require the creationist to challenge practically the

entire body of scientific information furnished by the natural sciences.

Once again, therefore, his informational state would end up in total disar-

ray and complete poverty.

The conclusion is plain. The scientific creationist s challenge of biologi-

cal evolution cannot work in favor of the literal biblical story, unless he

is willing to accept that such a story can neither be established on the

basis of scientific evidence nor said to be scientific in any meaningful way.

The creationist s theory, that is, can begin to be worked out as a theory

only at the cost of very dramatic changes in the standards of reliability

presently endorsed by mainstream science. The actual cost would be to

give up the conception of epistemic values from which our present stan-

dards of reliability derive their life.

The Strong Thesis is not even Plausible

Unless the creationist agrees that he is reasoning from faith alone, his

project seems therefore bound to fail. For the theoretical revisions to

which he is committed push him to challenge the very facts that he could

conceivably use to ground his Bible story. His denial that dinosaur fossils

can be more than a few thousand years old deprives him of the theories

that might help him to establish scientifically, say, the archeology of the

Bible. My point is that an honest creationist seems committed to nothing

less than pre-scientific agnosticism.

So, not only is it not a logical truth that, given a value v, a reliable

theory Tv that embodies it will be found if scientists try hard enough. It

turns out that such a claim is also extremely implausible. The mere logical

possibility on which the strong thesis derives its life is simply preposterous,

as preposterous as, say, the logical possibility that babies are born from

cabbages.

4. THE SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY OF VALUES

Admittedly, the failure of the creationists attempt to support faith as an

absolute epistemic value, come what may, dispels the fears raised by the

strong thesis only for the person who has learned to live without certainty.

Admittedly also, absolute certainty was once valued as the principal

marker of reliability. But scientific values change. Science develops and

learns what to value and how to value; that is the subject of this section.

Knowledge Without ertainty

Certainty is a property of valid conclusions from true premises in deductive

inference. How did certainty come to be devalued in science?


13/22


A l r e a d y i n t h e d a y s o f D e s c a r t e s m a n y t h i n k e r s r e a l i z e d t h a t r e a s o n i n g

i n w h a t w e c al l m o d e r n s c i e n c e i s n e i t h e r e x c l u s iv e l y d e d u c t i v e n o r

p r imar i l y gu ide d by ce r t a i n ty . S c i en ti fi c i n fe ren ces a re ava i l ab l e i n p l en ty ,

and som e a re a s ton i sh ing ly conv inc ing , bu t t he i r va l i d i ty i s genera l l y

p r o b l e m a t i c . T o d a y , n o n o n - tr i v ia l s c ie n ti fi c t h e o r y i s e i t h e r i n f e r r e d f r o m

t h e o r y - n e u t r a l d a t a k n o w n t o b e t r u e , o r d e r i v e d f r o m p r i n c i p l e s k n o w n

w i t h c e r t a i n t y . T h e o r i e s a r e i n f e r r e d w i t h t h e h e l p o f b o t h d a t a t h a t a r e

loaded wi th p roduc t s o f p rev ious s c i ence , a s we l l a s spec i f i c d i r ec t i ons t o

t h e o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t a r e f u r n i s h e d b y c u r r e n t s c ie n ti fi c i n f o r m a t i o n .

A c a s e f o r c e r t a in t y w i t h r e g a r d t o a n u m b e r o f th e o r e t i c a l p r i n c ip l e s

d i d e x is t, h o w e v e r , u n t i l t h e b e g i n n in g o f o u r c e n t u r y . S o m e a s p e c t s o f

p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y a p p e a r e d t o b e a c c e s s i b l e t o t h e m i n d b y i n d u b i t a b l e

i n t u i t i o n . F o r a l o n g t i m e E u c l i d e a n g e o m e t r y w a s n o t o n l y r e g a r d e d a s

a c o n f i r m a b l e p h y s i c a l g e o m e t r y , b u t a l s o a s o n e t h a t c o u l d b e k n o w n

f r o m w i t h in . H o w e l s e w a s o n e t o e x p l a i n t h e m a n i f e s t a b il it y o f s o m e

k i d s t o r e d i s c o v e r E u c l i d e a n g e o m e t r y i n t h e e q u i v a le n t o f p r i m a r y

s c h o o l ? ( T h e s l a v e b o y i n t h e M e n o a n d t h e p r e c o c i o u s P a s c a l a r e t w o

c h o i c e e x a m p l e s ) . T h e c la s si ca l t h e o r y o f ti m e s p e l l e d o u t b y K a n t s e e m e d

jus t a s i ndu b i t ab l e , a s d id va r i ous p r i nc ip l es o f m a t e r i a l subs t an ce . 2~ Th e

d e v e l o p m e n t a n d c r i ti c al a c c e p t a n c e o f th e t h e o r y o f r e la t iv i ty a n d q u a n -

t u m m e c h a n i c s f r u s t r a t e d w h a t e v e r w a s l e f t o f t h e c l a i m s o f t h i s f o r m o f

m e t a p h y s i c a l f o u n d a t i o n a l i s m i n s ci e n c e.

T h e s e a r c h f o r a b s o l u t e v a l i d i t y a n d a b s o l u t e t r u t h p r o v e d a f a i l u r e i n

s c i e n c e , b u t t h i s d i d n o t c o m p l e t e l y q u e s t i o n t h e success of s c i ence as a

k n o w l e d g e - s e e k i n g e n t e r p r i s e , a l t h o u g h i t d i d f r u s t r a t e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

h o p e o f g u a r a n t e e i n g t h a t s u c c e s s. I t w a s s o o n a g r e e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e

l a t te r d o e s n o t d e p e n d o n c e r t a i n t y , b u t ju s t o n h a v i n g s m a s h in g p r e d i c t i v e

a n d e x p l a n a t o r y p o w e r . A s a r e s u l t , t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s

n o l o n g e r a t t e m p t t o b u i l d o n c e r t a i n t y , b u t s i m p l y o n r e l i a b le i n f o r m a t i o n .

Cer t a in ty i s no l onger a goa l .

T o d a y , p h y s i c s , b i o l o g y a n d r i g o r o u s p s y c h o l o g y a r e a f t e r n e i t h e r o b s e r -

v a t i o n s t h a t a r e n e u t r a l w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o r y a n d u n p r o b l e m a t i c w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t r u t h , n o r t h e o r i e s t h a t r e s t o n p h i l o s o p h i c a l f o u n d a t i o n s o f a n y

k i n d . W h a t t h e n a t u r a l s c i e n c e s a r e n o w a f t e r i s t h e o r i e s t h a t a r e b o t h

s u c c e s s fu l i n t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l a n d e x p e r i m e n t a l a p p l ic a t io n s , a n d c o h e r e n t

wi th t he g rowing f r amework o f r e l i ab l e f i nd ings t ha t cen tu r i e s o f s c i en t i f i c

i nves t i ga t i ons have l e f t a s a l egacy .

T h e e m i s e o f T e l e ol o g y

T h e d e v a l u a t i o n o f c e r t a in t y a s a m a r k e r o f re l ia b i li ty i s j u s t o n e o f

t h e m a n y e x a m p l e s o f v a l u a t i o n a l c h a n g e i n s c ie n c e . T h e d e v a l u a t i o n o f

t e l eo log i ca l connec t i ons i s ano the r .

T e l e o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n s w e r e o n c e v a l u e d a s m a r k e r s o f r e l i a b i l i t y .


14/22

62 ALBERTO CORDERO

Before the days of Darwin, it was customary to

confirm

biological accounts

by the intelligence and purposeful connections they revealed in nature.

That is what physiology was originally about. As many historians of

science have pointed out, the structure of living things was not only a

mystery; it was an awe-inspiring mystery. Overwhelmed by it, the early

biologists tended to by-pass questions about the origin of living structures

and saw anatomical connections as products of an intelligent plan. 21 In

every portion of nature there appeared to be superb design which attested

to the existence of purpose in even the minutest organism or part. The

progressive succession of species was equally obvious to most thinkers.

I have already commented on Agassiz s conviction that the zoological

scale exhibits a tendency toward an objective end, his acceptance tha t the

growing similarity to man of the creatures along the succession of verte-

brate animals makes the final purpose of life obvious. Darwin s theory

put a big question mark on teleological considerations such as this in

biology, but the devaluation of teleology as a marker of reliability was far

from instantaneous and did not run its course until well after Darwin s

death.

The best early arguments against the

rigin

were designed to show that

Darwin s anti-teleological account could not explain, in its own terms, the

diversity and complexity of present-day life. Many of those arguments

were extremely compelling from the perspective of late nineteenth century

science. Intelligent people - Lord Kelvin (W. Thomson) was one of

them - wondered how the superb design one finds in even the dirtiest

aspects of life could be the result of fortuitous variation in less than an

inconceivably huge amount of time.

Kelvin used the best physics of his day to demonstrate, from consider-

ations of heat loss, that Darwinian theory could not be correct. 22 From

such reasonable notions as that the Sun is an incandescent liquid mass

which is dissipating its energy in a purely physical way, and that the Earth

is just a massive rock that was once completely molten, Kelvin concluded

that in the recent past the Earth s heat must have been too hot to permit

life. From measurements of the temperature gradient in mines and a

calculation of the dissipation of the Earth s heat from an original molten

condition into the space around it, he estimated the age of the Earth at

about 20 million years. That, Darwin agreed, was too little time for his

mechanism to do the required job, which is one of the reasons why

subsequent editions of the

rigin

show a retreat toward Lamarckian ac-

commodations.

Another major objection to Darwin s theory concerned the transmission

of variations, an objection that was not satisfactorily answered until the

re-discovery of Mendelian genetics in the early years of this century.23 As

a result, Darwin s mechanism of fortuitous variation was for a long time

more

suspect to many than the notion of teleologically directed change.

The problem of geological time was not resolved until the discovery of


15/22


radioactivity and nuclear fusion; only then it became clear that the Earth

is continuously heated by the former, and that the Sun s fuel is not

chemical but nuclear. Only then was the anti-teleologist able to show that

his theory is actually able to accomplish what traditional biologists had

claimed it could never do.

So, the epistemic values of science have changed over the last few

hundred years. Many thinkers, however, emphatically deny that facts can

ever lead to changes in values or goals in a justified way.

Anti Naturalist Dogma

Just as Weber claimed that value judgements have to be radically distin-

guished from factual judgements, Moore argued that a fallacy, the so-

called naturalistic fallacy , is committed whenever ethical terms are de-

fined in terms of something non-ethical. One cannot derive an ought

from an is , thought Moore. In his view, the factual terms of the natural

sciences were strictly non-ethical. Since only a brief reply to the naturalistic

fallacy is possible here, I will concentrate on one aspect: the conception

of the fallacy.

The thesis I want to suggest is that Moore s position is definitely not

theory-neutral and, further, that the theory on which it rests amounts to

mere dogma. The naturalistic fallacy presupposes that values have a life

that can be divorced from all facts, that there are principles and valuations

to be had which are terminally final with respect to any facts. This simply

flies in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. We have con-

sidered the case of science. Scientific theories are no more inferred from

theory-neutral da ta than scientific values are inferred from value-neutral

descriptions. The case of scientific creationism shows what happens when

a value is placed too high above the facts. Not only does human reason

have no clear access to absolute values and principles, but all the non-

rational methods claimed to lead to them have long become suspect.

Further, the pretension that there are values which cannot be traced to

facts has led to all kinds of intolerance and abuse to those who do not

share them.

The discovery that values are not absolute need not, however, lead to

cynicism, just as the discovery that knowledge is not absolute need not

lead to skepticism. Cynicism becomes a plausible position only if we

choose to blind ourselves to the valuational contrasts and distinctions that

are made available to us in the practical life. The way in which the critique

of epistemic values proceeds in science ought to give pause to anyone

wishing to deny the significance of the fact-value connections of science

by subjecting that critique to philosophical conditions of adequacy which

it does not satisfy.


16/22


Arguing about Values

T h e a b o v e e x a m p l e s o f r a ti o n a l v a l u e c h a n g e i n s c ie n c e p r o v i d e , I t h i n k ,

a d e e p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h o w a r g u m e n t s a b o u t v a l u e s ar e

possible

E a c h

o n e o f t h e t h r e e v a l u e s I h a v e r e v i e w e d ( f a i t h i n li te r a l r e v e l a t i o n , p h i lo -

s o p h i c a l c e r t a i n t y , a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t e n d s o f t h i n g s )

e m p h a s i z e s a d i f f e re n t m o d a l i t y o f a r g u m e n t a t i o n .

T h e d i s c u ss i o n o f t h e c r e a t i o n i s t s r h e t o r i c s h o w s h o w i t is p o s s ib l e t o

a r g u e a g a i n s t t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f a v a l u e , i n t h i s c a s e f a i t h , i n t e r m s o f s u c h

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a s t h e c o h e r e n c e o f th e c o n c e p t s o n w h i c h it d e p e n d s , t h e

a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s , a n d t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m

w h i c h i t d e r i v e s i t s f o r c e .

T h e d e v a l u a t i o n o f c e r t a i n t y a s a m a r k e r o f s c ie n ti fi c r e l ia b i l it y a tt e s t s

t o t h e p o v e r t y o f v a l u e s t h a t f a il t o m a r k p r a c t ic a l c o n t r a s t s. I f t h e r e a r e

c o n t r a s t s o f re l ia b i li ty t o b e m a r k e d , b u t n o p i e c e o f s c ie n ti fi c k n o w l e d g e

i s c e r t a i n , t h e n c e r t a i n t y i s s i m p l y o f n o v a l u e i n t h e c o n t e x t o f s c i e n c e a s

a k n o w l e d g e - s e e k i n g e n t e r p r i s e . A v a l u e m a y t h u s b e c h a l l e n g e d i f i t

p r o v e s t o o d i f fi c u l t ( o r t o o e a s y ) t o s a t i s f y , o r i f i ts p o w e r t o g u i d e u s i n

t h e i n t e n d e d w a y b e c o m e s s i g n i fi c a nt ly r e d u c e d . C a r t e s i a n c e r t a i n t y h a s

b e e n f o u n d t o b e o f l i t t l e v a l u e t o c o g n i t i v e e n d e a v o r s i n e x a c t l y t h i s

s en s e .

F i n a l l y , t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t e l e o l o g y a s a n e p i s t e m i c m a r k e r i n s c i e n c e

s h o w s a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e l e g i t im a c y o f a v a l u e i s q u e s t i o n e d w h e n i t

b e c o m e s c l e a r t h a t t h e g o a l s w i t h w h i c h i t i s c o n n e c t e d , i n t h i s c a s e t h e

e x p l a n a t i o n o f d e t a i l e d b i o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , c a n b e b e t t e r f u l f i l l e d

w i t h o u t it . I n t h e l o n g r u n , D a r w i n i a n t h e o r y w a s a b l e t o e x p l a i n a ll t h e

a w e - i n s p ir i n g s t r u c t u r e s a n d p r o c e s s e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d e r s o f te l e o l o g y h a d

c l a i m e d a n o n - t e l e o l o g i c a l b io l o g y c o u l d n e v e r e x p l a i n .

T h e c o n c l u s i o n is t w o - f o l d , F i rs t , a c t u a l v a l u e s d o n o t s e e m t o b e m o r e

u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e o r a b s o l u t e l y o b j e c t i v e t h a n s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s a n d

s c i e n t i f i c c l a i m s i n g e n e r a l , b u t t h e y c a n b e a r g u e d a b o u t i n l i g h t o f t h e

f a c ts j u s t a s w e l l. S e c o n d , i f m y p r e v i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e c o r r e c t , v a l u e s

c a n b e a s o b j e c t iv e a s t h e b e s t s c i e n t if i c d e s c r i p t i o n s - - a s o b j e c t i v e , f o r

e x a m p l e , a s t h e s t a n d a r d o p t ic a l la w s o f r e f l e c ti o n a n d r e f r a c t i o n . W h a t

m o r e o b j e c t iv i t y c a n o n e r e a s o n a b l y a s k f o r ?

T h e v i e w f o r w h i c h I a m a r g u i n g i s , I h o p e , s u f f i c i e n t ly c l e a r : e p i s t e m i c

v a l u e s a re n o t k n o w n b y m e r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l i n t u i t io n , b u t a r e d i s c o v e r e d

i n e x p e r i e n c e . T h e v a l u e s e m b o d i e d b y c o n t e m p o r a r y s c i e n c e h a v e b e e n

i n t r o d u c e d , t e s t e d a n d m o d i f i e d i n t h e s a m e w a y t h a t o t h e r a s p e c t s o f

s c ie n ti fi c d i s c o u rs e h a v e . C e r t a i n f e a t u r e s a r e v a l u e d b e c a u s e t h e y h a v e

b e e n f o u n d u s e f u l t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a r e l i a b l e p i c t u r e o f t h e w o r l d .

W h y i s t h is o f a n y i m p o r t a n c e ? B e c a u s e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e w o r l d e x c l u si v e ly

i n t e r m s o f r e l i a b l e t h e o r i e s a n d r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i s c e n t r a l t o o u r

c o n t e m p o r a r y i d e a o f r a t io n a l f u l fi l lm e n t , a n i d e a w h i c h , i n t u r n , h a s b e e n

b u il t u p o n a p i c tu r e o f t h e w o r l d a n d h u m a n i t y g r o u n d e d i n p r e v io u s

r e l i a b l e f i n d i n g s . T h i s b r i n g s u s t o m y f i n a l a r g u m e n t .


17/22


5. SCIENCE AND WISDOM

The discovery and development of values within the natural sciences does

more for us, I think, than providing an example of how facts and epistemic

values can be profitably coupled together.

M orality without bsolutes

The way in which science has forged the objectivity of its values is, I

suggest, of particular interest to a certain type of person in the contempor-

ary world. I have in mind a person who agrees that science is acceptably

objective, and who cannot honestly take as legitimate any absolute truths

or values, let alone ones that are imposed by mere authority. I am referring

to a person that has outlived the quest for absolutes, yet one who is aware

of his needs and who has managed to develop a sense of reliable access

to the world through scientific thought, however limited this kind of access

might look relative to previous philosophical or religious standards. I

will call this person the humane naturalist .

Having moved away from the traditional search for metascientific foun-

dations, the humane naturalist does not take the so-called naturalistic

fallacy more seriously than he does the old logical problem of induction

or Quinean relativism. To this person, the successful way in which science

has changed its own cognitive values and valuations is of interest because

it shows how one can move from feelings, prejudice, error and received

goals into autonomous and objective valuations by bringing the best infor-

mation to bear on the conception of values and goals. This interest of the

humane naturalist becomes increasingly intense as more and more aspects

of human life are illuminated by science.

n Ideal of Integrity

Science has learned to keep thought and action coupled together by sub-

jecting its own values to a continuous process of pragmatic critique. It is

a process in which the search for a reliable set of values and views by

which to live the life of science has moved knowledge to its present state

by making those values coherent with the reliable information available.

The question for the humane naturalist is, to what extent can such a

critique be generalized to cover other values?

I realize, of course, that there exists a broad range of philosophical

opinion on this matter, but the position I want to explore seems to have

credibility for the type of person I have already specified. Two points are

central to the humane naturalist.

(1) It is disastrous to isolate one s values from either one s conduct, or

one s best picture of the world. To do so would amount to trusting raw

feelings and uncul tivated nature in an age that no longer discerns absolute

intelligence in the wild. Ordinary nature has adaptatively efficient taboos


18/22

66 ALBERTO CORDERO

and spells to offer, and these must be taken seriously (some of them have

propelled us a long way), but never as absolutes.

(2) It is desirable to reflect on one s values. Three old reasons stand

out for this. First, because reflecting in this way fulfills the humane natural-

ist s idea of autonomy. Reflection about values allows one to stand back

from received responses and to think. It is a first step away from being

manipulated. Second, because spontaneous valuations easily involve in-

consistencies, as the case of the creationists reveals. Third, because if

values are to guide the actions of the humane naturalist, those values must

be critically reviewed and shaped up for the task, for intuitive valuations

are

known

to be usually myopic and limited.

The position of the humane naturalist is thus harmonious with the

facts of science. He challenges, in fact, the defenders of metascientific

conceptions of human interests, from Weber to Habermas. 24 In the hu-

mane naturalist s view values originate in human interests, but human

interests are increasingly illuminated by scientific scrutiny, and are open

to change in light of scientific results as much as the epistemic values of

science are. These considerations can be elaborated indefinitely, but talk-

ing in the abstract about morality is dangerous. It is best to bring the

matter home with the help of a particular case.

Socratic Questions

Chimpanzees are used in various kinds of medical experimentation. What

makes them ideal laboratory animals is their considerable physiological

similarity with humans. The experiments in question, however, are gen-

erally painful to the chimpanzees, often fatal. Chimpanzees are also fun

to watch, with the result that many end up in zoos and circuses all over

the world. Others, less fortunate, are killed by poachers, their stuffed

bodies or parts sold to collectors.

Is it right to treat chimpanzees this way? Should we be kinder to them?

If so, why? My final purpose in this paper is to explore how our knowledge

of the facts can influence our answer to these sorts of questions.

himpanzee L ife

Chimpanzees have been found to have a tendency to develop cultures, in

particular dietary cultures, e5 The chimpanzees of Mahale, for example,

feed on spiny leaves and like

amponotus

ants. Although these delicacies

are also available in Gombe, chimpanzees from that region never touch

them and have a definite preference for

rematogaster

ants. Chimpanzees

also differ in their processing of the same food items. In opening hard-

shelled fruits, the chimpanzees of Gombe throw them against tree trunks

or rocks, while in Mahale the same kind of fruits are bitten open. Only

West African Chimpanzees use stones in opening nuts. Cultural differ-

ences mark many other aspects of ape life. For example, the Chimpanzees


19/22

SCIENCE OBJECTI VITY AND MORAL VALUES

67

of Mahale display patterns of mutual grooming and courtship that are

completely different from those observed at Gombe.

Another interesting trait is the chimpanzees ability for communication

by means of complex gestural dialects. 26 In addition, recent studies reveal

that chimpanzees possess rudiments of linguistic abilities that were thought

to be distinctly human. They have been found to have a capacity for sign

language involving a vocabulary of 130 signs (that is actually a full one-

tenth the size of the vocabulary employed by most college students in a

25 page paper).

More astonishing still is the capacity of chimpanzees for intelligent

deceit. They seem able to determine whether or not a certain person is

to be trusted. In one experiment, 27 a chimpanzee was shown the insides

of two locked opaque containers, one of which had food. The chimpanzee

was then introduced to two trainers, neither of whom knew the location

of the food. One was a fair trainer who would never take advantage of

the information given to him by the chimpanzee. The other trainer played

the role of mean character and would always eat all the food in the

container. The chimpanzee learned to withhold information from the

mean trainer, but not from the cooperative one.

The question is, are these findings sufficient to convince someone like

the humane naturalist that chimpanzees have something like a right to

live ? I think not, if what is meant by the term right is that it can be

n e v e r justifiable to kill a chimpanzee, and that the wrongness of killing

him is independent of the undesirability of the consequences that would

follow from that act. But then, such a conception of the right to live is

bankrupt even in the context of human life.

T h e o o d L i f e

A more promising line for the humane naturalist is suggested by the

relative instrumentality of values encountered in our exploration of sci-

ence. The simplest hint is that chimpanzees are capable of enjoying some-

thing of what we are willing to call good life . A plausible line of reasoning

for the humane naturalist is, thus, as follows. Because we do have a

conception of the life worth living, and because we now have sufficiently

clear indications that normal chimpanzees have a life comparable to that

of a two year old human being, we seem compelled to granting some

worth to the life of chimpanzees, at least if it is accepted that the life of

a human baby is worth living.

The humane naturalist has yet another relevant set of beliefs. First, like

most of us, he agrees that, except in extreme circumstances, it is wrong

to kill someone who seems to be enjoying life. Second, he is satisfied that

the studies mentioned also reveal that killing a chimpanzee can have

painful effects on its offspring and family. Finally, there is the humane

belief that killing chimpanzees in less than extreme circumstances could

encourage us to take human life lightly.


20/22

68 ALBERTO CORDERO

This is not to say that the humane naturalist is bound to claim that all

chimps have lives that are worth living. None of the above considerations

is terminal. Every one of the reasons just given is open to discussion. The

interesting point, however, is that any scientifically informed answer the

humane naturalist might care to give to the questions with which I began

has implications beyond the world of chimpanzees.

Morally Loaded Descriptions

What makes the study of chimpanzees interesting for present purposes is

that the reports involved are

morally loaded

Consider the following two

points.

(1) Given the present state of our knowledge about both chimpanzees

and humans, it is difficult to defend a radically differential treatment for

the two species on the basis of any one feature purported to be essentially

or exclusively human . Take, for example, the proper ty of intelligence.

Every bit of evidence indicates that the cleverest chimps are in fact cleverer

than the least clever human beings.

(2) Evolutionary biology, cognitive studies, psychology, and the philos-

ophy of science, strongly encourage us to abandon the traditional essen-

tialist conception of humanity and to replace it by a view that affirms the

existence of gradual ensoulment in nature, both within each species as

well as across different species, with some overlapping here and there,

conspicuously in the case of apes and humans.

The most important lesson for us is, I suggest, that those who maintain

that the life of chimpanzees cannot be worthy of any respect have to

explain why, in spite of the compelling scientific findings now at our

disposal, their reasons do not apply to babies and mental ly feeble people.

The conclusions invited by the above paragraphs are not necessarily

comfortable . If we agree to apply our current conception of the good

life to the life of normal chimpanzees, then it seems that we must agree,

for example, that right and wrong admit of degree and, further, that it

is wronger to kill a mature chimpanzee than a newborn baby, and wronger

still to kill a four year old human than a chimpanzee. Also, to use chimpan-

zees in clinical experiments would seem as wrong as to use seriously

handicapped babies or mentally feeble humans, and as wrong to hunt and

stuff chimpanzees as to do so with human beings in the specified categor-

ies. None of this is unproblematic, of course, let alone neutral. But it is

all very scientific, and that is exactly the gist of my story.

There is no neutral point of view from which to assess ei ther values or

facts. There is always the possibility of ultimate disagreement. Neverthe-

less, the type of rational person for whom the explorations attempted in

this paper are meant, being a person oriented toward the integration of

thought and action, cannot fail to check his moral views against the most

reliable information at his disposal.

The question of the moral status of chimpanzees is forbiddingly com-


21/22

S C I E N C E , O B J E C T I V I T Y A N D M O R A L V A L U E S

9

p l e x b u t h a p p il y w e d o n o t h a v e t o f u r t h e r a d d r e ss i t h e r e i n o r d e r to

a p p rec ia t e t h e re l ev a n ce o f s c i en t i f i c t h o u g h t t o t h e s ea rch f o r b e t t er

v a l u e s a n d g o a l s b y t h o s e w h o h a v e b r o k e n a w a y f r o m a b s o l u t e v a l u e s

a n d f o u n d a t i o n a li s t p h i l o s o p h i e s .

N O T E S

1 . R e s e a r c h f o r t h i s p a p e r w a s m a d e p o s s i b l e i n p a r t b y R F - C U N Y ( g r a n t P S C - C U N Y

669106) . A pre l i mi na ry ve rs i on of t h i s pape r was g i ven a t Uni ve rs i t e de Fr i bourg ,

Swi t ze r l and , M ay 1990 .

2 . The va l ue - l adeness t he s i s r e l evant t o t h i s e s say i s addre ssed wi t h pa r t i cu l a r c l a r i t y i n

G rah am (1981), Pu t nam (1981), an d M cM ul l i n (1983).

3 . Webe r (1917) .

4 . See , in pa r t i cu l a r , Han son (1958), H esse (1974), B row n (1977), Shap e re (1982) , Gr een-

wood (1990) , and Shape re (1991) .

5. B ow ler (1983).

6. Quine (1953) , p . 43.

7 . T a k e , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e c o n c e p t o f o b s e r v a t i o n i n c o n t e m p o r a r y p h y s i c s, a s a n a ly z e d b y

Shap e re (1982). Hi s s t ud i e s show ho w (a ) t he be s t cur ren t t heo r i e s o f t he work i ngs of

an o b j ec t t ha t i s be i ng o bse rv ed , (b ) t he b e s t s c i en t if i c conce pt i on of t he t r ansm i ss ion

of i n forma t i on or i g i na t i ng i n t ha t ob j ec t , and (c ) t he be s t unde rs t andi ng of t he sc i en t i f i c

recep t ors by means of whi ch t ha t i n forma t i on i s ga t he red , a l l p l ay a c ruc i a l ro l e i n

mak i ng sci en ti fi c o bse rv a t i on o b j ec t i ve .

8 . Th e l og i ca l s t a tus o f Qui n e ' s r ad i ca l c l a ims is exami ne d mo s t dea r l y i n S hape re (1987).

For an i l l umi na t i ng d i scuss i on of ad-hoc auxi l i a ry hypot hese s , s ee Grunbaum (1976b) .

Th e d egen e ra t i ng e f fec t o f r eca l c i t ran t conse rva t i sm is com pe l l i ng l y ana l yzed i n Gree n-

wood (1990) ,

9. The offer i s made in Pr ice (1906) .

10. Ri le y (1922) .

11. Numbers (1982) .

12. See , in par t icular , Morr i s (1984) .

13. Roth (1977) .

14. Ruse (1977).

15 . See , fo r exam pl e , Feye ra ben d (1975) and Gru nba um (1976a) .

16. Ki tcher (1982) .

17. Cordero (1990) .

18. M el lars St r ing er (1989).

19. Gosse (1928).

2 0 . D e f e n d e r s o f t h e indubitable c h a r a c t e r o f a g o o d d e a l o f t h e c la s si c al th e o r y o f t i m e a r e

foun d ac t i ve a s l a t e a s 1970 . See , fo r exam pl e Sw i nburne (1968). A n i l l umi na t i ng account

Documents

[Cordero] Science Objectivity and Moral Values