well...



所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl

送交者: apate 于 2005-1-17, 18:27:36:

回答: You are still confused 由 Enlighten 于 2005-1-17, 16:58:06:

well, before i get sick and tired of this, there are a few things - and i don't care what Ms. Wang has said while i wish you could elaborate more:

1. what's the object of inquiry in environmental science?

2. does environmental science in general designate what is good about human-nature relationship?

if yes, go back to no. 1 and ask yourself if the "good" is the object of inquiry in environmental science, as it seems to be part of the concerns in moral theory. if you think the "good" is NOT the object of inquiry in environmental science, but you argue that it does have its intrinsice values, go to no 4 below.

if no, go on to the next question:

3. if environmental science does not have any normative implication for what is good about human-nature relation, can it be used to direct *actual* human action involving the natural environment and humans themselves?

if yes, go back to no. 2 (and 1 if applicable). the question is: how could environmental science direct human action if it does not have anything to say about what is good. (any human action involves some good to be desired. if you disagree with this, lets talk about it at another occasion appropriate.)

if no, then there must be a place for ethics or some other systems of principles in reflecting about human actions dealing with nature.

if you say, environmental science *partially* directs human action regarding nature. then tell me what's the other thing that the partiality of environmental science fails to cover.

4. if you argue that environmental science does have its intrinsice values regarding human-nature relationships, what are these values?

5. who decide these values or some of these values?

6. how are these values justified?

they do not need justification? Mr. Fang should either kill Ms. Wang or leave her alone or just call her idiotic.

justified by environmental science itself? ok, but for whom? for humans? how could enviromental science justify what is valuable for humans? and how could it justify the necessity to sacrifice some of the values (e.g., the eco-systematic balance in the area where the dam needs to be built)? if you can convincingly asnwer this question, you can kill Prez. Hu and all other policy makers, as well as Prof. He because he is quoting Prez. Hu to justify.

justified by something other than that which is covered by environmental science? ok. explain what is this something.

finally, a disclaimer: these questions do not mean any personal attack or praise and i don't pretend to be knowledge in any one of these questions. but as this debate has come to this point, it would be great you can spend some time asnwering these questions. i think our audience - me included - would benefit from your enlightening input.

thank you.



所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容(可选项):

URL(可选项):
URL标题(可选项):
图像(可选项):


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl