Author |
Topic: Response: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Read 55 times) |
|
TheMagicBullet
Praetor
member is offline
If you or a friend has ever been injured in a Pokemon battle, paste this in your profile.
Gender: 
Posts: 3665
|
 |
Response: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
« Thread started on: Oct 11th, 2009, 9:37pm » |
|
I was going to wait until I was totally finished with the final draft to post this for discussion, but decided that I'd like feedback before I turn it in. All of it is up for challenge: actual arguments, mechanics, style, etc.
I Don't Need The Extra Credit (But Seriously, What the Hell?!)
(Disclaimer! This paper is twice as long as you wanted it to be. I wrote it mostly for fun. If you don't have time to read it, that's totally understandable and it's not like I really need the extra credit anyway. Call me what you will, but 1.5 pages is nowhere near enough to convey my passion or ideas on this subject in any acceptable way.)
The short passage from Robert Pirsig's “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” focuses on the supposed flaws in the scientific method and reason at large. Pirsig's mouthpiece, Phaedrus, discovers a potentially major shortcoming in the way hypotheses are tested, in that many more hypotheses can be dreamed up than possibly tested. Without testing all possible hypotheses, complete and certain knowledge may never be attained, and further, the incomplete knowledge science gives us is temporary at best. Pirsig criticizes this changeability of scientific “truths” and credits it as a major cause of “social chaos”. A quick skim through the passage is compelling, but the argument it makes falls apart at even the most cursory glance.
Pirsig sets up his argument with a quote from Einstein about different motivations for entering the sciences. I have great respect for Einstein's work, but his more personal views are only peripherally related to Pirsig's argument, other than possibly lending credibility to what follows. Einstein did get his ideas in less conventional ways, and that's great, but scientists throughout history have had different ways of generating ideas to test (synthesis of old ideas, drawing connections between unrelated fields, etc.). Pirsig even remarks, “A lesser scientist than Einstein...” (Handout 6.2, 186). What a condescending way to begin an argument! He implies that the best scientists get ideas in only one way (imagination/intuition), and the rest are not as worthwhile somehow; a strange attitude for someone trying to argue that knowledge should be more inclusive of other sources.
Next, he claims “The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite” (Handout, 186). This is a bit befuddled. He seems to be confusing “hypothesis” with “theory”; the two terms indicate very different levels of certainty. Rational hypotheses that attempt to explain a phenomenon can be very numerous, but to argue that they're infinite is quite an extraordinary claim. At some point the hypotheses would start to look a lot alike and get all kinds of sloppy. Rational hypotheses that explain a phenomenon completely are very limited, and only at this point are they called theories or laws. As he says himself, most hypotheses are rejected for many reasons in order to find the explanation that most closely resembles “truth”. So the number of feasible explanations for a phenomenon is far from infinite, and I think Pirsig would be hard-pressed to prove that an infinite number of theories (or even hypotheses) could explain a single phenomenon in any more specific way.
But Pirsig insists, “If the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested” (Handout, 186). This is not a real problem. Though it is true that if hypotheses were developed that quickly, they couldn't all be tested, this is a big “if” to assume for the rest of the argument. Again, Pirsig offers nothing more than the assertion itself to support the argument. He doesn't demonstrate how this might be the case at all, aside from offering up a fictional character who can think of a lot of hypotheses, which is less than convincing. (fallacy of excluded middle? Saying we have to know everything or we know nothing)
The previous assumptions lead up to the idea that “If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive”(Handout, 186). I wonder if he means to say that knowledge resulting from experiments are inconclusive, not the result of any individual experiment. An individual experiment is always conclusive in at least some sense. Even if no new knowledge is gained, a better understanding of what we don't know and what questions to ask next time are always a result. It is true that there may be great hypotheses out there, undreamed and untested, which explain the world better, and I can understand being haunted by this thought. However, pursuing the notion is a lot like wondering how many future scientists could have cured cancer if they hadn't died as babies in tsunamis. The scientific method has never been focused on attaining pure “truth”, rather it is meant to build a working construct of reality that is beneficial to humankind and ideally the planet at large.
Finally, Pirsig gets to what he really wants to say: “The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself”(Handout, 187). I make a practice of hesitating before judging someone's argument as completely lacking in deliberation, but did he think about this statement for longer than it took to write it down? It's unbelievably simple-minded to attribute social chaos to one single cause above all else. What about religion, war, or economic systems? Why does he overlook religion or conflicts over religion as a major cause of social chaos? I doubt the Middle Eastern conflict is really about how no one is sure what they believe or value anymore. What about World War II? Were the millions of deaths (now that's social chaos if there is such a thing) produced by it caused by an uncertainty about reality or truth?
Many undeveloped countries, and some developed countries for that matter, are still in ignorance of some of the basic discoveries made by science, whether intentionally or not. I seriously doubt that some impoverished family in Zimbabwe is thinking, “Damn science! I am so uncertain about what stem cell research means for the value of existence!” I think more likely it would be, “Damn, I hope science keeps improving agricultural technologies to feed my family!” assuming they were even thinking about science at all. Pirsig is referring more to middle-class America's bland, melodramatic angst about life being caused by an inability to deal with the ambiguity science presents. Openness to change and error-correction is one of science's greatest strengths, not a flaw as so many claim. If we had decided back in the 1700's that flies do spontaneously generate from meat, made a dogma of it and not considered the errors in experiment design that caused this conclusion, where would we be now? (A smellier place, undoubtedly, but that's beside the point.) If more scientific truths are being refuted at a much faster pace (another assertion Pirsig offers without any backup), that doesn't say anything other than that we're at least figuring out what isn't probable, which is often just as important as figuring out what is. The process is a lot like adjusting rabbit ears on a television; sometimes more static will show up before you get a clearer picture.
Continuing in the same vein, Pirsig asserts, “Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are taking it further and further from that better world”(Handout, 187). Again, did he stop to think about this longer than it took to write it out? What has benefited more people, germ theory of disease or demon theory of disease? The four humors or genetics? Eyewitness testimony or DNA evidence? The most passing glance at life 400 years ago versus today reveals a great deal of improvement. No one is saying science has made a utopia, or that all the progress we've made is because of science, but it certainly has contributed its share of improvements. I find it ironic that even as he smears reason, he refers to a “genetic defect” in it, the existence of which we wouldn't even know about were it not for reason and science.
The last point I'd like to make before shutting up refers to Pirsig's condemnation of reason and its methods as “emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless, and spiritually empty” (Handout, 187). There is no logical rebuttal to this because it's a value judgment. All I can offer is my own opposing perspective: failure to see any emotional or inspirational value whatsoever in the discoveries of science represents a lack of curiosity and imagination, not a lack on the part of science. Who could look at pictures from the Hubble telescope of distant nebulae or galaxies nudging elbows and not find them breathtakingly beautiful and awe-inspiring? Who has a deeper reverence for nature, the person who admires a sunrise and sees the pretty colors, or the person who admires a sunrise and realizes it as a giant explosion happening constantly, hundreds of thousands of miles away, that sustains his own life and all other life on the planet equally? Deeper understanding of a thing does not strip away its beauty or power; it adds to those qualities immeasurably and leads to a greater respect. Science can be a profound source of spirituality, of informed worship of the universe we live in. We do ourselves a greater disservice as a species to tear down all of science because it doesn't tell us everything for certain, than we do to live with the uncertainty and work to clarify our understanding of the cosmos as best as humanly possible, one bit at a time.
|
|
 Logged
|
PS- This is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters Q and R were eliminated.
|
|
|
KeeperofManyNames
The Dark Overlord
Overlord
member is offline
I am the new Mrs. DeWinter!
Gender: 
Posts: 6463
|
|
Re: Response: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintena
« Reply #1 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 4:47pm » |
|
on Oct 11th, 2009, 9:37pm, TheMagicBullet wrote: The short passage from Robert Pirsig's “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” focuses on the supposed flaws in the scientific method and reason at large. Pirsig's mouthpiece, Phaedrus, discovers a potentially major shortcoming in the way hypotheses are tested, in that many more hypotheses can be dreamed up than possibly tested. Without testing all possible hypotheses, complete and certain knowledge may never be attained, and further, the incomplete knowledge science gives us is temporary at best. Pirsig criticizes this changeability of scientific “truths” and credits it as a major cause of “social chaos”. A quick skim through the passage is compelling, but the argument it makes falls apart at even the most cursory glance.
Pirsig sets up his argument with a quote from Einstein about different motivations for entering the sciences. I have great respect for Einstein's work, but his more personal views are only peripherally related to Pirsig's argument, other than possibly lending credibility to what follows. this is an excellent point--Einstein's personal methods are not necessarily superior or even relevant. Einstein did get his ideas in less conventional ways, and that's great, but scientists throughout history have had different ways of generating ideas to test (synthesis of old ideas, drawing connections between unrelated fields, etc.). Pirsig even remarks, “A lesser scientist than Einstein...” (Handout 6.2, 186). What a condescending way to begin an argument! Might want to rephrase. Overly irate tone might not be suitable He implies that the best scientists get ideas in only one way (imagination/intuition), and the rest are not as worthwhile somehow; a strange attitude for someone trying to argue that knowledge should be more inclusive of other sources. Very good.
Next, he claims “The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite” (Handout, 186). This is a bit befuddled. He seems to be confusing “hypothesis” with “theory”; the two terms indicate very different levels of certainty. Rational hypotheses that attempt to explain a phenomenon can be very numerous, but to argue that they're infinite is quite an extraordinary claim. At some point the hypotheses would start to look a lot alike and get all kinds of sloppy. great point, but maybe a little too slangy in delivery here Rational hypotheses that explain a phenomenon completely are very limited, and only at this point are they called theories or laws. As he says himself, most hypotheses are rejected for many reasons in order to find the explanation that most closely resembles “truth”. So the number of feasible explanations for a phenomenon is far from infinite, and I think Pirsig would be hard-pressed to prove that an infinite number of theories (or even hypotheses) could explain a single phenomenon in any more specific way. As he is clearly writing for narrative purposes, is it fair to critique him on what might be a stylistic exaggeration?
But Pirsig insists, “If the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested” (Handout, 186). This is not a real problem. Though it is true that if hypotheses were developed that quickly, they couldn't all be tested, this is a big “if” to assume for the rest of the argument. Again, Pirsig offers nothing more than the assertion itself to support the argument. good. He doesn't demonstrate how this might be the case at all, aside from offering up a fictional character who can think of a lot of hypotheses, which is less than convincing.good (fallacy of excluded middle? Saying we have to know everything or we know nothing this might be a bit of a stretch)
The previous assumptions lead up to the idea that “If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive”(Handout, 186). I wonder if he means to say that knowledge resulting from experiments are inconclusive, not the result of any individual experiment. An individual experiment is always conclusive in at least some sense. Even if no new knowledge is gained, a better understanding of what we don't know and what questions to ask next time are always a result."always" is a strong word It is true that there may be great hypotheses out there, undreamed and untested, which explain the world better, and I can understand being haunted by this thought. However, pursuing the notion is a lot like wondering how many future scientists could have cured cancer if they hadn't died as babies in tsunamis. The scientific method has never been focused on attaining pure “truth”, rather it is meant to build a working construct of reality that is beneficial to humankind and ideally the planet at large. very good
Finally, Pirsig gets to what he really wants to say: “The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself”(Handout, 187). I make a practice of hesitating before judging someone's argument as completely lacking in deliberation, but did he think about this statement for longer than it took to write it down? It's unbelievably simple-minded to attribute social chaos to one single cause above all else. What about religion, war, or economic systems? Why does he overlook religion or conflicts over religion as a major cause of social chaos? I doubt the Middle Eastern conflict is really about how no one is sure what they believe or value anymore. What about World War II? Were the millions of deaths (now that's social chaos if there is such a thing) produced by it caused by an uncertainty about reality or truth? careful here, this is a very emotional rather than analytical reaction... and is he talking about your examples, or ONLY about Western 1900s civ.? |
|
:stfu:
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
KeeperofManyNames
The Dark Overlord
Overlord
member is offline
I am the new Mrs. DeWinter!
Gender:
Posts: 6463
|
|
Re: Response: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintena
« Reply #2 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 5:00pm » |
|
on Oct 11th, 2009, 9:37pm, TheMagicBullet wrote: Many undeveloped countries, and some developed countries for that matter, are still in ignorance of some of the basic discoveries made by science, whether intentionally or not. I seriously doubt that some impoverished family in Zimbabwe is thinking, “Damn science! I am so uncertain about what stem cell research means for the value of existence!” I think more likely it would be, “Damn, I hope science keeps improving agricultural technologies to feed my family!” assuming they were even thinking about science at all. Pirsig is referring more to middle-class America's bland, melodramatic angst about life being caused by an inability to deal with the ambiguity science presents. Openness to change and error-correction is one of science's greatest strengths, not a flaw as so many claim. If we had decided back in the 1700's that flies do spontaneously generate from meat, made a dogma of it and not considered the errors in experiment design that caused this conclusion, where would we be now? (A smellier place, undoubtedly, but that's beside the point.) If more scientific truths are being refuted at a much faster pace (another assertion Pirsig offers without any backup), that doesn't say anything other than that we're at least figuring out what isn't probable, which is often just as important as figuring out what is. The process is a lot like adjusting rabbit ears on a television; sometimes more static will show up before you get a clearer picture. Again, are you sure you're arguing against his actual argument here?
Continuing in the same vein, Pirsig asserts, “Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world. They are taking it further and further from that better world”(Handout, 187). Again, did he stop to think about this longer than it took to write it out? What has benefited more people, germ theory of disease or demon theory of disease? The four humors or genetics? Eyewitness testimony or DNA evidence? The most passing glance at life 400 years ago versus today reveals a great deal of improvement. No one is saying science has made a utopia, or that all the progress we've made is because of science, but it certainly has contributed its share of improvements. I find it ironic that even as he smears reason, he refers to a “genetic defect” in it, the existence of which we wouldn't even know about were it not for reason and science. Unfortunately this passage, if I recall, does not include a description of his ideal. Still, I think you're again arguing against something that he isn't actually saying. He isn't arguing about four humors or demon theory of disease as beneficial to mankind, he analyzing the failings of modern science. These ideas are probably not relevant, and make it seem more like you're arguing against the Straw Anti-Scientist rather than Pirsig's own argument.
The last point I'd like to make before shutting up refers to Pirsig's condemnation of reason and its methods as “emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless, and spiritually empty” (Handout, 187). There is no logical rebuttal to this because it's a value judgment. All I can offer is my own opposing perspective: failure to see any emotional or inspirational value whatsoever in the discoveries of science represents a lack of curiosity and imagination, not a lack on the part of science. Who could look at pictures from the Hubble telescope of distant nebulae or galaxies nudging elbows and not find them breathtakingly beautiful and awe-inspiring? Who has a deeper reverence for nature, the person who admires a sunrise and sees the pretty colors, or the person who admires a sunrise and realizes it as a giant explosion happening constantly, hundreds of thousands of miles away, that sustains his own life and all other life on the planet equally? Deeper understanding of a thing does not strip away its beauty or power; it adds to those qualities immeasurably and leads to a greater respect. This is an excellent point, but be careful, you may be slipping into an either-or fallacy here. Can't both ways of enjoying and interacting with the world be equally valid for different individuals? After all, you do point out above that this is a value judgment. Science can be a profound source of spirituality, of informed worship of the universe we live in. We do ourselves a greater disservice as a species to tear down all of science because it doesn't tell us everything for certain, than we do to live with the uncertainty and work to clarify our understanding of the cosmos as best as humanly possible, one bit at a time. [color]Strong conclusion.[/color] |
|
Man, now I kind of know how Creed and Sponsler feel... damn.
If you have any questions about my notes, feel free to ask.
You do an excellent job of analyzing his argument and the problems and misconceptions that it is built on, but then you seem to slip into almost a frenzy of rebuttal. I think that in the process you slip into an argument against this sort of Ur-anti-intellectual rather than analyzing the argument on it's own strengths and merits. Your essay might be strengthened by incorporating a rebuttal more closely aligned with what I suspect his actual focus is, analyzing the effects of science upon the society he seems to limit his critique to.
Otherwise, though, this is a great analysis of the work. I tried to stay as neutral as possible, simply looking at your essay for the structural strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I think it's a very strong work.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheMagicBullet
Praetor
member is offline
If you or a friend has ever been injured in a Pokemon battle, paste this in your profile.
Gender:
Posts: 3665
|
|
Re: Response: Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintena
« Reply #3 on: Oct 14th, 2009, 6:24pm » |
|
Alright, thanks for the analysis. You're probably coming from a spot closer to my philosophy teacher than me or garrett are so it's very useful. As far as the stylistic things with my writing, I was intentionally including the more colloquial bits as it's only an extra credit paper and I really like mixing academic tone with less formal, especially without the gun to my head so to speak.
Also, wow, I'm glad I didn't print this out yet because I totally forgot that I included that little note about the fallacy of the excluded middle to think about elaborating on. 
I changed a few things around...
Changed "So the number of feasible explanations for a phenomenon is far from infinite, and I think Pirsig would be hard-pressed to prove that an infinite number of theories (or even hypotheses) could explain a single phenomenon in any more specific way."
to
"So the number of feasible explanations for a phenomenon is far from infinite (if infinite is what he really means; it's not clear from his writing whether he's using a stylistic exaggeration or not), and..."
Changed "a better understanding of what we don't know and what questions to ask next time are always a result."
to
"a better understanding of what we don't know and what questions to ask next time generally result"
Changed "What about World War II? Were the millions of deaths (now that's social chaos if there is such a thing) produced by it caused by an uncertainty about reality or truth?"
to
"Does Pirsig actually mean to imply that the millions of deaths caused by large conflicts and wars (surely an important form of social chaos) can ultimately be traced to an uncertainty about reality or truth?"
I also added to the part about demon theory of disease vs germ theory etc, sort of covering my butt by adding "Again, did he stop to think about this longer than it took to write it out? If science and reason are unsuitable methods for gaining knowledge, what does Pirsig promote in its place? Reversion to older methods? What benefits more people..." Although he's not explicitly talking about demon theory or the 4 humors or anything, they are relevant concepts because what the guy is saying is that science is taking us backwards and hurting us. He doesn't ever mention what a better alternative would be, at least not in the passage we were given. Ultimately, if he's going to critique modern science, he should be including a balanced analysis of the pros of science and then its cons, not just having these generalized, unsupported statements condemning entire fields of study without even trying to anticipate objections. It's just shoddy writing, and even shoddier thinking.
"If more scientific truths are being refuted at a much faster pace (another assertion Pirsig offers without any backup), that doesn't say anything other than that we're at least figuring out what isn't probable, which is often just as important as figuring out what is. The process is a lot like adjusting rabbit ears on a television; sometimes more static will show up before you get a clearer picture. Again, are you sure you're arguing against his actual argument here?"
Pretty damn sure. What he's saying is that with so many hypotheses being thought up, tested, and refuted at much faster rates than ever before (which I think has more to do with the vastly increased speed of communication in the 20th century than anything else, which funnily enough is a result of science, but that's a tangent), we can't really know what's true because we haven't considered all possible options, and for that matter when the truth is changing constantly, it makes shit all crazy. He kinda blathers on about this point for awhile in the actual passage which I obviously can't quote all of, so I can see how some confusion would arise on your part.
As far as this: "Can't both ways of enjoying and interacting with the world be equally valid for different individuals?"
Possibly. I personally have found the latter worldview to be way more interesting and worthwhile, and like I said earlier in the paragraph, it is just my own perspective.
Thanks bunches, though, seriously.
|
|
Logged
|
PS- This is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters Q and R were eliminated.
|
|
|
|
