Zen and the Art of Science
by Jonathan Marder (© 1998)
Like many students of the 1970s, I read Robert M Pirsig's novel "Zen and the
Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I have since reread it several times, and
also Pirsig's second novel "Lila" which appeared in 1992. Each novel
describes a journey. In the first novel, the vehicle is a motorbike which
takes the narrator and his son across America. In the second novel, a yacht
carries the narrator and his female companion down America's Hudson river to
the ocean. But both novels are primarily vehicles for Pirsig's analysis of
the metaphysical foundations of our society.
ZMM is primarily concerned with establishing Quality as the source of
Subjects and Objects thus placing Values beyond both.
Lila is primarily concerned with Moral order of reality as derived from
Quality.
The analysis of society in ZMM becomes an enquiry into the source of value
divisions.
The analysis of society in Lila becomes an enquiry into the level of society
in a moral order generated by Quality.
Pirsig is highly critical of what he calls our "Subject-Object" metaphysics,
mainly because it tries to be a "value-free" thought system.
SOM does not try to be value free. In a SOM values are subjective or
objective.
It is the scientific method which asserts value free observation.
This, Pirsig blames for the gulf between science and the arts, and the common
alienation between humans and technology.
Instead, Pirsig presents an alternative metaphysics which he calls the
"Metaphysics of Quality" in which value is given prime place of honour. In
short, all things owe their existence to their inherent value.
Pirsig identifies undefined Quality.
He then constructs a metaphysics by semi-defining Quality into a Dynamic
aspect and a Static aspect.
If we agree that Quality and Value and Moral are equivalent terms, then to
paraphrase:
"In short, all things are stable patterns of value.'
It seems to me that Pirsig sees himself as a rebel out to shake the very
foundations of human thought.
This is irrelevant surely?
Either a thinkers' ideas are Good or Not good?
If we consider human reason as our ability to objectively analyse reality, it
comes as a great shock to see that Pirsig mounts a concerted attack against
objectivity itself. And yet his discussions on academic topics still seem to
be reasonable. He discusses aspects of several academic disciplines including
philosophy, anthropology, psychology, biology, chemistry, and quantum
physics. It seems fairly obvious that philosophical arguments should feature
in the first three disciplines, but many would state that philosophical
argument has no place at all in the natural sciences.
On the contrary.
Aristotle's Ethics examines the natural state of living organisms and their
societies, including Man.
Aristotle was a philosopher by the way.
Moreover, one has to ask exactly who this Pirsig is, and why he might
possibly have anything useful to say on the subject.
One may presumably ask the same of Aristotle?
Answers to these questions can be derived from autobiographical elements in
his novels. He obviously has a conventional academic background which
includes scientific study, and he has experience as a university teacher.
Furthermore, he has career experience as a technical writer for computer
hardware and software. These are not the qualifications of an impostor.
Indeed, Pirsig's descriptions of motorcycle maintenance (used as a metaphor
for philosophical ideas) make it clear that he is an engineer and a
pragmatist, characteristics which most scientists respect. Thus we may ask,
does Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality have anything useful to say about human
thought, and science in particular? Scientific method as we know it derives
in large part from the empirical approach of Aristotle.
The scientific method began with Baconian induction.
The ideal Baconian observer does not taint observation with speculation.
Thus the objective nature of scientific endeavour began with Bacon.
Knowledge derives from observed phenomena which provide a true representation
of "reality." Reality can be perceived if we experience enough of it, that
is, if we collect enough data. This fully explains the intensive data
gathering projects of science. This is the reason for building enormous
telescopes. It is the justification for the massive project to sequence the
human genome. But data collection is only a part of science. The other part
is organising and summarising the data. Scientific theories are the
summaries. They provide generalised descriptions of an infinite amount of
data. Once the pattern is known, we can predict the nature of any future
data. Sometimes, new data defy the pattern, the theory is falsified and it
has to be abandoned. What Pirsig builds on is that we can never collect all
the data. This is why data collection is a highly selective process.
Scientists carefully plan experiments so that they can derive maximum meaning
from the minimum amount of data. They avoid collecting meaningless data which
has no value. Value - Meaning - Selection; those are interesting words to
bring into a discussion on scientific method. They undermine the whole
concept of value-free objectivity which is so central to scientific method.
>From a practical point of view, objectivity in science is "reproducibility."
That means that the conditions under which the data were collected can be
defined and reproduced to collect similar data. Scientific disagreements
based on differing data are usually resolved when it becomes clear that the
data were collected under different conditions. The conflict then becomes one
of which set of experimental conditions is better, or better representative
of reality. This is much harder to settle since nobody has an absolute way to
determine what reality actually is, or what is "unreal" about a particular
observation. The reality, or rather relevance, of scientific observation is
of enormous importance. On this, the reputation of science and scientists
depends. The layman sometimes feels that the scientist is isolated from
reality in his ivory tower. The data collected in the laboratory seem to
exclude the observations of everyday experience outside. Thus, science and
scientists are often mistrusted, ignored or even ridiculed.
This highlights the social nature of science?
When the leaders of society react in this way, scientists find themselves
without funding and without influence. Robert Pirsig would say that this is a
problem of metaphysics. Our current modes of thinking satisfy scientific
method and produce good science and technology, but they fail to charm.
Technology is experienced in a relationship, and the relationship itself is
generated by quality.
If quality is lacking in the relationship between those who make technology
and the technology itself it is likely to be found wanting in its subsequent
relationships with users?
You may be using the word 'Charm' as a substitute for quality in this
relationship?
But there is a more pragmatic message too. First, we must dissolve the myth
of absolute objectivity and advertise that good science depends on the
experience and intuition of scientists to recognise and select valuable data.
Then we must explain that the laboratory is science's recording studio. It is
isolated to block out disturbances so we can clearly hear and see the
patterns of nature. Once the patterns are clear, we are better equipped to
identify them and enjoy them outside.
The notion of an observer isolating a section of the universe and then poking
about with it is pure Subject/Object metaphysics, for within the scenario is
an explicit observer and an explicit apparently isolated phenomena?
You suggest there are patterns to be seen and heard clearly without recogn
ising the imposition of the patterns themselves by the scientist and his/her
community of scientists.
On the same breath you wish to dissolve this myth?
Shome confusion shurely?
1. Baconian induction was rejected soon after its inception by scientists
themselves.
2. Aristotle analysed living organisms and their societies over 2000 years
ago.
3. There is little about Zen and Science in this essay.
Your confusion appears to be in intellectually valuing substance based
metaphysics and failing to value Quality based metaphysics?
If one is going to commit oneself to a MOQ then one must be prepared to use
the language of a MOQ?
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:24 BST