My first view of an ignorance cult

Well it's close. I recently listened to the podcast of cbc ideas:

Wendell Berry

In the year 2,000, Wendell Berry published a surprising book called "Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition." The superstition the book denounces is the belief that science will one day give us a complete account of things. Science is admirable, Wendell Berry says, but it can only be deployed wisely when we recognize the limits to our knowledge. In this episode, Wendell Berry unfolds his philosophy.

Right click to Download Wendell Berry

Mr Berry has some complicated ideas. His ideas are not obviously wrong and he has many good points. But fast forwarding to around 22 minutes you can here his "view" on science in which a summation by the author contends that we can't know everything. He basis this especially on his view of science but he takes agribusiness as science. That's quite a large mistake. But moreover he seems to misunderstand fundamental aspects of science. The most obvious is the use of the generalization in science. Science is reductionist mostly due to practicality (big problems are too big so you solve them as modules). That said when you put the pieces together you get a pretty good picture, even if you don't have every piece.

Now the problem he states is that generality leads to problems since people/places etc are specific not general. This is correct. This is a problem with the application since clear you can't apply the generality to individuality all the time. Of course science gets more refined and more and more the generality gets fine grained and can then be used for the individual. For instance think of all the successes it took to get to targeted antibiotics.

The most shocking part is his constant implication that we or scientists should not ask/research certain questions because of "human dignity." This argument is despicable but may sound nice if left unexamined.

People tend to like this statement because they are nostalgic for the past thinking that it was better in some way (respect for their religion, dominance for their religion/culture, appearance of safety etc...). Let's not digress to much but better is subjective and every animal is healthier when younger so of course there is a bias. So let's just define better as less harm to people who are close to use, thus better means less sickness, shorter and milder illnesses less death etc. By all these measures we are better off. FAR better off. A simple measure (and I would say the most important) is the infant mortality rate (because what is worse than losing your child). In the last century it has gone down tenfold! Before that it was much higher, estimated at 30-40%!!

So why are things better? Well there isn't more religion, natural herbs or people sticking needles into your "pressure points" so that's probably not it. It is likely science. Challenging the current views to see what is really going on lead us to the truth which then let use devise measures to cure or prevent problems. Take for instance sickness. This used to be caused by demons/spirits etc. Aside from the most fanatical religious believers, most religious people have given up this view since that view has only cured people in books were as medicine has cured the people around you.

Berry's point that it is an infringement on a person's dignity to know everything about them is ludicrous. By not looking at all the nooks and crannies we would resign future people to live in their misery or worse. Babies don't care about their dignity they want to survive. Our responsibility to them should not be set aside to let "nature" takes it course of that course is inhumane. It would be a dereliction of our duties as the capable generation, for instance, to let a child be born and suffer with a painful debilitating disease or condition because we never bothered to look at more details of genetic. The same logic thus extends to all humans and animals in our care. Not researching answers is for some people's dogmatic view is unacceptable.

First they came first for the mathematics, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't understand it;
And then they came for the physical science, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't like it;
And then they came for the scientists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a scientist;
And then... I got sick ... And by that time there was no one left who understood what to do.

His most ironic statements are about how people now use scientific term sin their everyday parlance despite not understanding them. Quite ironic for someone who's confused science for agribusiness. In my view he is the standard elder who looks back with nostalgia and criticizes anyone who does things differently. Of course I'm generalizing his nuanced points, but if he can do that about the entirety of science (and it's generalities) why can't I do it about the small set of his ideas.
decencies, and human dignity