[MD] for Ham,

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


> Davis Bohm was a nuclear physicist involved in the Manhattan project
> His book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"  in which he arrives
> At a scientific theory much like Essentialism only it refers to
> Physical particles. I thought it might interest you.
>
> In this view, parts may be entities normally regarded as
> physical, such as atoms or subatomic particles, but they may also be
> abstract entities, such as quantum states. Whatever their nature and
> character, according to Bohm, these parts are considered in terms of the
> whole, and in such terms, they constitute relatively autonomous and
> independent "sub-totalities". The implication of the view is, therefore,
> that nothing is entirely separate or autonomous."
>
> But he then alludes to the notion that what makes distinctions is human
> perception of this undivided whole.
>
> Value sensibility ?

David Bohm was also a communist of pacifist persuasion whose loyalty to the 
U.S. is  questionable.  Judging by the Wikipedia article, I would say that 
his philosophy is more pantheist than essentialist, his emphasis on a 
'holistic' reality system, of course, ruling out a supra-human source. 
Unfortunately, my 'Finder' located neither "value" nor "sensibility anywhere 
in this article, and the word "sense" was used only once, in the sentence: 
"Society is a system in some sense."

I found Bohm's complaint about scientific technology interesting in that it 
parallels Nicolas Maxwell's in many ways.  (I believe it was you who 
recommended Maxwell's book to me some time ago, and I am now wading through 
it.)

"What is the source of all this trouble?  I'm saying that the source is 
basically in thought. Many people would think that such a statement is 
crazy, because thought is the one thing we have with which to solve our 
problems.  That's part of our tradition. Yet it looks as if the thing we use 
to solve our problems with is the source of our problems.  It's like going 
to the doctor and having him make you ill.  In fact, in 20% of medical cases 
we do apparently have that going on. But in the case of thought, it's far 
over 20%."

Compare this with Maxwell's statement in "From Knowledge to Wisdom":

"The fierce resistance of the scientific community to consider the need to 
improve standard empiricism has spilled over into the philosophy of science. 
An outsider might well suppose that philosophers of science spend their 
working hours cooking up new philosophies of science, new views about what 
the aims and methods of science ought to be.  Nothing could be further from 
the truth.  Since the heyday of logical positivism in the 1930's, 
philosophers of science, like scientists, have taken for granted without 
question one or other versions of standard empiricism and the philosophy of 
knowledge; the task for philosophy of science is to solve the problems that 
immediately arise once these presuppositions are made."

My personal reaction to these complaints about the methodology and tradition 
of science is to ask, why didn't these complainers become philosophers 
instead of scientists in the first place?  Science is a useful tool 
employing a logical, unbiased approach to the acquisition of objective 
knowledge and has proved itself to be the most reliable source of 
information for solving practical problems.  In  view of its successful 
achievements over the past several centuries, why should anyone want to 
change it?

Maxwell, for example, argues for a "philosophy of wisdom" and a revolution 
to "aim-oriented rationalism".  But this is not the province of scientific 
investigation or technology.  If we bias objective research with moral 
precepts and demand that scientists "justify" intellectual values, we shall 
lose the objectivity that gives science credibility as a problem-solver. 
We're already watering down education in our schools by mandating 
multicultural instruction and a liberal revision of history.  Must we now 
take the same approach in science in the name of political correctness?   I 
am as much of a proponent as anyone for a radical metaphysics with universal 
appeal, but I'm opposed to tinkering with what works.

Understand that my criticisms are not aimed at you, Ron, but at the 
revolutionists who would equate philosophy with science in order to 
influence man's value perspective.

Thanks for the link to this source.

Best regards,
Ham