I’ve recently become interested in the field of ethnobotany, and have been sort of vaguely wondering if it’s something I should involve myself in in a more serious way. I’m drawn to it because it is an intellectual discipline, for sure, but it is rooted in real things: people and plants, rather than simply abstract concepts.

It turns out that the University of Hawaii has (as far as I can tell) the only undergraduate program in ethnobotany within the United States. Interestingly, they also have a section on their site called “education modules” which seems to contain some freely available course materials from the program, including video and audio lectures. It’s been very educational going through some of these in my spare time. But I can’t say that I agree with all of the material being presented.

In particular, I have a big problem with one of the lectures they provide on the subject of ethics within science (listen to a 45 minute full-length mp3 here). The lecture is presented by Will McClatchey, Associate Professor of Botany at U of H, and it presents what I think is a very typical and very misguided notion of ethics among scientists. While I applaud the program for creating a discussion on the subject, there is one passage from the lecture which really, well, it really pissed me off. Enough that I took the time to edit down a clip of this segment so that we could maybe talk about it here on my site.

The file can be downloaded here. It is an mp3 of about 1.68 megs in size, and 1 minute 50 seconds in duration, so it should easily be accesible even to those of you with slow connections. Actually, I will drop it into a podcast enclosure so you can listen to it right on this page…

Please listen to this file before reading the rest of my commentary on it, as I don’t want to negatively impact your opinion of it. I also recommend heartily that you go back and listen to the full 45 minute lecture so you can hear what he’s saying in it’s original context. I know most people probably don’t have the time to do that though, which is why I made the excerpt.

* * *

Okay, did you listen to it? If you did, you’ll have heard the speaker make several statements about rational behavior. His premise seems to be that if you are a rational person, you operate ethically according to a principle of finding the “best” explanation for something. That is, if someone can prove or convince to you that your beliefs and ideas are wrong, then you will simply change them on the spot, no questions asked.

It is a very idealistic notion that people who claim to be rationalists seem to put forward a lot. But it is just plain goddamned wrong. Why? Because his premise starts with: “if you are a rational person.” Why is that a problem? Because it circumscribes ahead of time what types of beliefs you will accept as being better. A person who has already decided they are a rational person will only ever accept rational argumentation. They will only ever replace what they believe to be their rational beliefs which beliefs which they believe to be more rational. Thus, ideas which are considered “better” are only better because they further support a pre-conceived notion of the self, not because they actually are somehow better. Because a rationalist has no tools with which to analyze non-rational arguments or beliefs. They simply say they are not rational, and that therefore they are somehow invalid. It’s a neat little self-perpetuating circle.

It’s also interesting to hear the speaker rally round the fortress of rationality which is called “Certainty.” He suggests first of all that rational people will always gravitate towards better more “rational” beliefs and that because of this constant quest to find the ultimate goal, they are always bathed in certainty. He even goes so far as to suggest that only “complete idiots” aren’t 100% certain of themselves, their beliefs, opinions and actions at all times, and suggests that people who aren’t always sure of themselves have serious “problems” and are “quite dumb.”

What he seems not to grasp is that in order to constantly be testing and comparing the validity of different sets of belief, you must revel in a state of uncertainty. Before you can adopt a new set of beliefs, you must become uncertain towards your old set of beliefs. Hence, acquiring certainty requires embracing uncertainty.

From personal experience, this process tends to make you more and more uncertain, rather than more and more certain. The more times you try on a new set of beliefs and eventually discard them, the closer you get to realizing that there really is no perfect set of beliefs and you simply can’t be certain of any set of beliefs. Because, you have evidence from the past which shows you that ideas you once believed to be true, you eventually came to regard as false. And that this happened again and again. Therefore, a certain scientific mind might ultimately jump to the conclusion that these new ideas of which you are so certain right now, well you might eventually become uncertain of them as well. And if your experiential/experimental evidence is to be believed, then this is most certainly the case.

The other issue which he touches on here without naming it specifically has to do with what Christians are always calling moral relativism. We’ve talked about this subject in the past in various ways, but to recap, the speaker in this clip talks about how rationalists are always discarding old crappy beliefs in favor of ones which can be proven to them as being better and more valid. No wonder Christians think scientists don’t understand ethics - because they don’t (or at least some scientists). If ethics is composed of a set of rules which are constantly shifting and which can be discarded at a moment’s notice, then they’re not ethics at all and they have absolutely no value as rules whatsoever. And they offer zero guidance on the best way to live your life.

Which is not to say, of course, that we necessarily need ethics or morality at all. What? How is that possible? Well what are ethics and morality? Rule systems to govern behavior, right? Well, one of the primary things that occurs when you rely on a rule system overly much is that you become more and more dependent on it. Which is bad enough on it’s own, but which becomes far worse when you start relying on abstractions solely to govern your behavior and interactions with other real people. If you favor rules over real people, what do you get? You get increasingly complex bureaucracies, and exhaustive Dungeons & Dragons style formulas to govern behavior at all times - even when it makes no sense.

A quick personal anecdote to illustrate what I am talking about. I was once at a movie theatre in Pittsburgh, and was inside looking at show times. We realized we’d have to come back later since we missed the movie we wanted to see. But I’d been drinking and needed to pee very badly. So I walked over to the teenaged usher and asked him if I could use the bathroom which was about a foot beyond the velvety rope he was jealously guarding. He told me I couldn’t, because it was against the rules. Only customers were allowed beyond the rope. I told him it wasn’t a big deal and insisted I needed to use it, and that I would be right out and nothing would happen, that nobody would get fired. He looked around nervously to see if any supervisors were watching, and didn’t offer much of a response. I looked him in the eye, told him it would be okay and walked in took a piss, and left. Which one of us acted more ethically?

And it’s in this area especially that rationalists have a hard time making a leap forward, because we have to leap into the arms of uncertainty and trust (have faith even - gasp!) in some kind of invisible inscrutable wisdom of the heart. It’s called compassion and it’s something that moves you at the deepest levels of your being, and which routinely ignores all rule-based systems and rational explanations.

It is, of course, a far more difficult path to tread than this false one of believing yourself to be completely certain of all things at all times, when you are really not. You are a fluid and amorphous being. You are human.

 Will McClatchey on Ethics [1:51m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (3325)