送交者: apate 于 2005-1-11, 21:36:43:
回答: 人与自然，以谁为本？ 由 fagus 于 2005-1-11, 05:30:02:
I don't know why such stupid persons are always so fond of shadow boxing. I don't deny there are good points in what he said, but Prof. He's *primary* target of critique - if it is really meant to be a serious one - is simply misplaced.
First, the beginning of his article suggests that "the fear of nature" (Jingwei Ziran) is the psychological reaction to such natural catastrophes as the recent tsunami, and such psychology is supposedly in the order of ordinary feelings and reactions on part of "the person in the street." If so, the crucial question here is how scientists, policy-makers, information vendors including mass media, and teachers can cooperate in order to minimize the negative psychological impacts of naural disasters on ordinary life. Failing to do so and instead spreading misinformation on public/mass scale is a shame.
By the way, on a personal and private level, there have been reportedly religious efforts comforting and reassuring victims and others impacted. This is totally legitimate. Pseudo-scientists or their supports when singing eulogy for so-called scientific knowledge totally ignores every person's unalienable right to the exercise of conscience. People died tragic deaths in disasters; why cannot they get some comfort from religious thoughts and activities? Fake scientists and their hornblowers mistakenly think scientific knowledge is all one needs to live a happy life or die a happy death. The real issue, as so many have overlooked, is the dissemination of such religious discourses about disasters in the *public* arena in an *organized* way. This in a more general sense is the problem of institutionalized religion on the one hand, and on the other hand the problem of individual judgement. How come many people in the wake of disasters turn to religious leaders (or witches as some rightly call them) instead of scientists? Scientits, eduators, as well as pseudo-scientists and their backers need to think about it. Whose failure is this?
Second, if the above is asking too much from Prof. He, lets look at his self-imposed task in his article. In his 7th paragraph, he is right on the mark pointing out his target audience to be "some environmentalists and ecologists". This, however, is still a very vague and thus irresponsible way of making his own argument by decontextualizing the arguments of those "environmentalists and ecologists". I am too lazy to retrieve the target article Prof. He cited, but his own reinterpretation of the article's purpose is chidish. He says, "'the fear of nature' slogan is put forward to critique *scientism*" (my emphasis). Scientism has several different meanings, and I don't think Prof. He knows what he is talking about.
If he meant "scientism" to be the systematicity of scientific methods, I would be more than happy to agree with him. But (!), since his self-imposed topic is the human-nature relationships, I don't think such relationships can be totally entrusted in scientific methods. That he argues against "moralizing the human-relationships" in itself a) moralizes these relationships by centring on humanity, and b) is in the danger of committing the guilt of scientism in its second sense. In this second sense, it means the "exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation" (m-w.com), such as the very relationships between human and nature.
Prof. He hasn't even clearly presented to his general reader the basic argument of the alleged original article. He simplistically equated "fear of nature" with his own strawman argument "facing nature man does not need to do anything." Moreover, he attacks his strawman by imposing the fearsome "anti-science" cap and (citing Prez. Hu. to support his man-centered argument). How stupid and illogical is that? He is imagining a wind mill and fights it like a crazy man. On this single account, i seriously doubt his languistic competence.
Third, so, what's the problem about "fear of nature"? If the problem is not in the public arena or the personal life (as I sai earlier on this article, it is), then, what is really at stake? First, I don't want to dwell upon the fear of nature's implication for scientific methods; nor do I think this is the issue Prof. He is picking on. Then, it could be the problem of ethics. Prof. He rightly points out this ethical dimension, but unfortunately in the next immediate sentence he forgot what he is up to and switched to his beloved "method-cum-scientism" again. How could scientific methods resolve or explain moral issues of human-nature relations? Why don't you, Mr. He, pause a little and talk more about ethical issues, as is really part of the issue here. Again, this Mr. He is fighting a wind mill like a mad man.
But that is not all. The fear of nature, as Mr. He is mostly like getting and as I wish to make it clear, is also a matter of ideology - ideology not in a derogative sense but in a sense signifying a set of mentality, for better or worse. Glad that he cited Galileo, but unfortunately, he does not know or pretends not to know that Galileo was a good God-fearing Catholic and his discoveries were made in part by harmozing with his reinterpretation of the bible. (Don't take me wrong, and don't even accuse me of superstition. I am just stating the facts.)
In Chinese culture, fear of nature is probably the closest equivelance to the Christian notion of "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 9:10), In this sense, it is a metaphysical question, rather than merely a religious one. Reason has gradually eroded such as metaphysical trust in favor of science and logic, but in the Chinese context, nature is not simply the SARS virus (as Prof. He simplistically and mistakenly reduced nature to), but also the synonym of the metaphysical Being, either known, to be known, or unknown. In a sense, there is nothing morrally nor methodically wrong about *fearing* nature. Fear, here, is an inadequate name for a particular kind of moral sentiment not to be reduced to mere "dread" or "respect", as Prof. He again mistakenly did. In a least but positive sense, the fear of nature can be resisual (if not lost) sense of humility in human's relations to the unknown, and self-awareness that humans (including scientists) are not infallible or omniscient).
In short, I am not aruging either for or against fear of nature. I merely lay out an outline in which sensible debate can be made. If Prof. He is really serious about what he is talking about, he needs to do a lot of homework by making the distinctions between at least five domains of affairs: private, public (esp. policy), scientic methods, and metaphysics. It is indeed a great service to the public for scientists to speak out, but in order to speak in an informed and enlightening way, scientists mus avoid stupidity.
(I could be stupid too in this article, and am more than willing to revise or even discard my arguments. But in order to engage in civilized and intelligent conversations, I just like everyone else has the obligation to make the strongest case possible for myself, first.)