|
（歡迎翻印、流通本文及網路連接：欲做其他用途，請先連絡作者易象乾博士。電郵地址：namofo@earthlink.net）
霍京的見解說明了即使才氣橫溢的科學家，對科學的暸解無懈可擊，也不免陷身於科學至上主義的羅網。科學至上主義[註17]是指將科學擴張到科學方法的應用範疇之外，並錯誤地以它作為信仰的基礎；科學至上主義，神化科學，以之作人及世界唯一的真理泉源。
多數的科學研究倚賴人為的、封閉式的系統模型，然而宇宙是個開放的系統，因此，科學數據與自然界的開放系統之間的關聯，存有先天上的限制。在實驗室裡看來是事實，在自然界裡卻不一定正確。[註17a]所以我們無法經由科學的方法論，而全面得知基因的改變，對活的生物所可能產生的後果。[註18]
附註：
17. 科學至上主義時而被稱為新人文主義，有別於文藝復興時期的人文主義。
17a.科學家在實驗室裡發現，研究對象的行為副合既有的理論，這並不稀奇，因為理論是依據實驗室的經驗而制定的。科學家、甚至許多其他的人，不僅傾向於將在這種情形之下得出的原則，用於特定的試驗系統，更認為它們在其他的環境裡同樣有效。這給人造成一種印象，以為在受控制，有條件的封閉系統中得到的知識，在開放的系統裡也是無限度的有效。這種結論不但在理論的考量上無從立足，更無法依次在實際經驗中得到印證。當我們試圖以實驗室的實驗，來預測對自然環境的干預的後果時，這一點就變得極其重要。
實驗室裡的試驗，其目的在於儘量創造恆常或可掌控的條件，而在（自然的）環境裡，是辦不到的；影響的因素（溫度、濕度、物質的流動、特定品種的變種等）時時在改變。這些改變有某些原則可循，但無法準確預測。稀有的事件（地震、龍捲風、洪水、乾旱、火山爆發等）都可能會發生。因為自然界活生物體的特性，也由它們與自然界其他活的、或是無生命份子的關係而決定，必然可以想見，它們的行為與這些環境裡的參數（parameters）有相互關係。特別在牽涉到對經基因工程改造過，在自然界前所未有的生物時，無法對它們的行為做準確的預測，因此無法預知其具體隱患。這一點完全超出了實驗室的理論與試驗的範疇。當主要的、進化的自然，與這種次要的、人造的自然衝突時，出現的變異與危機，不再是試驗性的科學理論所能理解與描述的。
……我們今天所面對的情況，是被改變了基因的生物被釋放到環境裡。目前而言，這些釋放物仍屬少數。日後，當這些產品被大規模應用時，預測它們行為的問題將更為嚴重。由於科學家時常無法明確地預測在理論與實際方面所遭遇的問題，於是，他們掩飾其所釋放的生物，尚屬試驗性質，且事實上，他們必須通過此類的試驗，才能得知及描述其中危險的知識；他們對於這一點，也加以隱瞞。然而，釋放的試驗也如同任何一種試驗，都有失敗的可能。在某些情況下，生物無法在環境中立足，而其他的情形則是它們造成大規模、不可收拾的破壞…。由於無法準確地預測將生物釋放到環境的結果，這種作法事實上是在自然環境中做試驗，也是拿自然環境來做試驗。（瑞琴‧科雷克（Regine
Kollek）著「實驗知識的極限：一個女性主義者對於基因工程的生態危機之面面觀」，收錄於玟黛娜‧施華（Vandana Shiva）與殷耿‧摩賽（IngunnMoser）所輯，一九九五年倫敦與紐澤西州禪圖書出版社出的《生物政治：針對生物科技的女性主義與生態學讀本》第一0六至一0八頁。）
18. 除了物理的影響之外，許多人也關心對於心智與精神上的影響，這些顯然是超乎科學所顧及的範疇。由於科學不涉及生命在心智及心靈層次，與物理層次之間的關係，對於基因工程將如何影響我們的心智及心靈生活，科學無可奉告。心靈智慧與解脫的自我超越，是一切有情生命的潛能，並非人類所獨有。從科學模式的觀點而言，自我超越毫無意義。
對於肉體與精神關係，根據「非笛卡兒＊」式的看法，我們身體和神經系統的狀態，影響我們的心態，反之亦然。例如，許多亞洲宗教體系的道德觀，建立在業果的觀念上，強調身與心兩者的清淨，是精神提昇的先決條件。由這個觀點來看，改變我們、或是自然環境的基因結構，可能會對我們自我超越的潛能，產生負面影響。基因工程具有改變我們身體，以及身體所處的環境的潛在可能，從而削弱它們輔助人類精神提昇的能力，而這種過程正是發揮人類自我超越潛能的多重途徑的樞紐。做再多的研究，都不足於道盡其中的危險。（＊註：笛卡兒，法國哲學家，1596-1650）
亦參考易象乾著「基因工程的道德與心靈議題」，刊載於一九九八年十月、第五冊、第四期《護生之聲：發揚宇宙價質觀的季刊》第六至七頁，公佈於http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE
Essays/Ethical and Spiritual Issues in GE.htm，以及易象乾著「佛教與生物科學」，公佈於http://Online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE%20EssaysBuddhism%20And%20Biotechnology.htm。
如果我們對科學的暸解，是依據按照科學方法所蒐集的數據，從而成立的假設，那麼霍京打著科學旗號的主張遠超過科學的實質。他不自覺地陷入了先入為主的前題，與價值觀的羅網中，深深影響了他所作的假設與他對數據的詮釋。陷入羅網的不只是霍京，也包括了你我。無論站在什麼哲學立場，科學至上主義是我們文化背景的一部份，因此很難擺脫。我們必須記住，世界之廣是遠超出我們目前發明的科學儀器所能探測的極限。
待續
|
|
[Permission is granted to reproduce this article, to distribute it without charge, and to provide links to it. Please contact the author at namofo@earthlink.net regarding other uses.]
Hawking's views illustrate that even brilliant scientists, whose understanding
of science should be impeccable, can get caught in the web
of scientism. "Scientism"17 refers to the extending of
science beyond the use of the scientific method and wrongly
attempting to use it as the foundation for belief systems.
Scientism promotes the myth that science is the sole source
of truth about ourselves and the world we live in.
Most
scientific research is dependent on artificial closed system
models, yet the cosmos is an open system. Therefore, there
are a priori limitations to the relevance of scientific data
to the open system of the natural world. What seems to be
the case in the laboratory may or may not be valid in the
natural world17a. There we cannot know through scientific
methodology the full extent of the possible effects of
genetic alterations in living creatures.18
NOTES:
17. Scientism is sometimes called New Humanism to distinguish it from the Humanism of the Renaissance.
17a. Scientists learn in a laboratory that their objects of study behave according to existing theories. This is not surprising since theories have been formulated on the basis of laboratory experience. Scientists, but also many other people, tend not only to apply the principles found under such conditions to a specific experimental system, but also to consider them to be valid in other contexts. The impression is thus created that knowledge developed in closed systems under controlled conditions has unlimited validity in open systems as well. This conclusion is neither founded in theoretical considerations, nor always confirmed by practical experience. It becomes particularly significant when we attempt to predict the result of interventions in the natural environment on the basis of laboratory experiments.
The aim of laboratory experiments is to create conditions which are as constant or controllable as possible. In the environment, this is not feasible; the factors of influence (temperature, humidity, the flow of substances, the variety of specific species, etc.) change constantly. These changes follow certain regular principles, but can hardly be predicted exactly. Rare occurrences (earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, droughts, volcanic eruptions, etc.) are always possible. Since the characteristics of living organisms in the environment are also defined by their relationships to other living and non-living elements in the environment, it must be expected that they will behave in relation to these environmental parameters. In particular, in the case of genetically engineered organisms not previously found in the environment, exact predictions about their behavior and thus about specific risk potential cannot be made. This is beyond the theoretical and experimental borders of the laboratory. In the confrontation between primary, evolutionary nature and this secondary, synthetic nature, uncertainties and risks emerge which can no longer be grasped and described with the theories of experimental science.
...we are confronted today with a situation in which genetically modified organisms are being released into the environment. At present the numbers of different modified organisms which are to be released will be relatively small. The problem of predictability of their behavior in the environment will become even more significant when large-scale application of such products takes place in the future. By often failing to explicitly point out the theoretical and practical problems of predictability, scientists mask the experimental nature of such releases and the fact that the knowledge necessary to understand and describe risks can only be won through such experiments. However, release experiments, like any other, can fail. In some cases, the organisms will not be able to establish themselves in the environment; in others they may cause irreversible and large-scale damage.... Since the outcomes of such releases into the environment cannot be exactly predicted, they are in fact experiments in the environment and with the environment. (Regine Kollek, "The Limits of Experimental Knowledge: A Feminist Perspective on the Ecological Risks of Genetic Engineering"
Biopotitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology, Vandana Shiva and Ingunn Moser, eds. (London and New Jersey: Zed Books, 1995) 106-108.)
18. In addition to the physical effects, many are also concerned with mental and spiritual effects, areas clearly beyond the boundaries of scientific concern. Since science does not deal with the relations between the mental and spiritual dimensions and the physical dimension of life, science cannot tell us anything about how genetic engineering will affect our mental and spiritual life. Transcendence is the potential of all sentient life, not just human, for spiritual wisdom and liberation. Transcendence is meaningless from the perspective of scientific models.
According to non-Cartesian views of the relation between the physical and the spiritual, the condition of our bodies and nervous systems affects our minds and vice versa. For example, the karma-based ethics of many Asian religious systems insists on purity of both mind and body as a prerequisite for spiritual progress. This perspective leaves open the possibility that changing our genetic structures or those of the natural environment may adversely influence our potential for transcendence. Genetic engineering has the potential for altering both our bodies and their environments in ways that lessen their ability to support the process of personal spiritual transformation that is at the core of most paths to realization of the human potential for transcendence. No amount of scientific research can tell us anything about this danger.
See also Ron Epstein "Ethical and Spiritual Issues in Genetic Engineering"
Ahirrsa Voices: a Quarterly Journal for the Promotion of Universal Values, 5(4), Oct. 1998, pp. 6-7
<http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE Essays/Ethical and Spiritual
Issues in GE.htm>, and Ron Epstein, "Buddhism and Biotechnology"
<http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/GE Essays/Buddhism and Biotechnology.htm>.
If science is understood in terms of hypotheses from data collected according to scientific method, then the claims of Hawking in the name of science extend far beyond what science actually is. He is caught in an unconscious web of presuppositions and values that deeply affect both his hypotheses and his interpretation of data. It is not only Hawking who is caught in this web but all of us, regardless of our philosophical positions, because scientism is part of our cultural background that is very hard to shake. We all have to keep in mind that there is more to the world than what our current crop of scientific instruments can detect.
To be continued
|
