|
|
|
|
Evolutionary Theory Conclusion: The Who, What, Where, Why, and When of Value
In today’s sometimes contentious climate of conversation between scientists and post-modernists, Suckiel reminded the participants that all theories are relative to the theorizer’s values and purposes. Suckiel suggested that good theories incorporate or acknowledge up front the initial values of the scholar in some reflective manner that discloses the scholar’s orientation. She further suggested that the explanatory paradigms each of us proffer usually meet some of our own needs and questions ("Is the universe friendly?" Einstein once said was the most important scientific question to ask.) Likewise, Suckeil said that choosing the criteria by which to decide what paradigm or theory is better or more accurate is also inescapably value-based. Jay Ogilvy responded to Suckiel’s presentation with a challenge to what he perceived as a potentially false dichotomy between facts and values. Ogilvy said that values can be grounded in naturalistic facts. Facts can constrain theory choice too. Ogilvy said this helps stop the slippery slope down into the easy post-modern relativism of "anything goes" and "all values are just as valuable as others." It is not necessary to value values above facts. Terrence Deacon added that what we call value at one point did evolve from non-value (meaning from matter). So, there must be an account of how value came into the world. Deacon said that if we understand better the evolutionary origins of value, then we can better understand and engage in the who, what, where, why, and when of value. Further Question for Conclusion on Value Was it valuable for you to read this conference summary?
|
|
|