[MD] Social Imposition ?

[Case]

[Platt]
I didn't mean to leave the impression that I condemn or attack the validity
of science, but simply to point out its limitations. Above the biological
level it has little to offer. On the other hand, Pirsig offers an
explanation of our total experience. To believe that science has a monopoly
on truth is to make it another fundamentalist religion.   
  
[Case]
I would strongly disagree that science above the level of biology has little
to offer. The social sciences are very young. They have not really existed
for more than 150 years. Social sciences have a kind of younger sibling
rivalry with the physical sciences. They want to be treated like adults.
What Pirsig points to in his critique of anthropology is typical of early
efforts in the social sciences. There was a naïve attempt to embrace the
objective in the study of the subjective. The gradual realization of how
inappropriate this is certainly underway. But I write it off as growing
pains. 

I would add that even at their worst the social sciences provided
inspiration to Pirsig in the form of Benedict's tale of the brujo. The
application of discoveries in social sciences have radically transformed our
culture. Witness the effect of discoveries in psychology on advertising and
manipulation of public opinion. Look at their effects on behavior in the
work place, in city planning and nearly every aspect of politics and social
life. 

Science in no way claims to have a monopoly on truth. It is does provide a
framework for accessing truth. But even the framework is subject to
analysis. It is even responsive to criticism from postmoderns and others.
Scientists are in general I would say concerned with the problems of Value
Pirsig raises. How can we take what we learn about what is and apply it to
the way things ought to be. But there is nothing new in this. Witness the
Greek's failure to use reason as a foundation for ethics and setting of
moral standards. This is a failure that persists to the modern day.