Tony Benn scores big this time, attaking scientists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ty3SV26Y4M

The video at the link above contains a Sunday chat show style discussion between two presenters, both of little note, and Tony Benn and Richard Dawkins.



Immediately in the discussion, Benn shamefully brings a Socialist rant into the playing field by talking about the conflict between the 'Kings who had power' and the 'prophets who preached righteousness'. The question isn't about power, class issues, morality. Dawkins defends his love of scientific empirical discovery, and he claims that such an issue is legitimately seperate from any ethcial consideration, which is the main focus of his standpoint. Dawkins needs no God, as some of the things he has been able to grasp by way of his intellect, probably provide him with more emotional impact than some mythic deity could. The way he understands evolution most of us may never be able to relate to; but what's clear is that he has found something more powerful than faith. That thing seems ineffable.

But Benn claims that scientists do nothing to give us moral guidance. His key point is that 'scientists can build atomic bombs but don't advise [us] as to whether to use them or not'. He accuses the science community of great arrogance; he says, 'they claim that they can explain the world, but they don't tell us how to live'; according to Benn this is actually the 'weakness of the [humanist] position'.

Dawkins' point that scientists don't try to tell people how to live is followed by the explanation that how these atomic weapons are used is not up to scientists. A broader explanation was not possible because Benn kept interrupting Dawkins throughout the interview, a method of attack dog style debate he employs often. However, I can guess quite easily what his explanation would have been, indeed, what the explanation of various humanists would be: although a small group of scientists in the field of technology helped to create horrible weapons, the science community as a larger group did not have any moral responsibility for such an occurrence. The point of scientific discovery is to learn about the universe and to pass that knowledge on to be applied in the separate field of high tech industry. What happens in the political and technological spheres is irrelevant to armchair science. Moreover, it is certainly not the aim of the scientific community to get involved in telling people how to live their lives.

One of the key points Benn expressed was that Dawkins was a good man, not because of his scientific/humanist position, but just because his character was good. Benn was suggesting that somehow Dawkins' humanist point was hinged on the idea of science claiming a moral high ground. While Benn was yapping and demanding that scientists offer guidance on how to live, Dawkins was trying to explain that science doesn't tell one how to live, because moral concerns are not relevant when considering what science is for or about. Science is for discovery. Industry/technology is for making human civilisation more advanced. Politics is for human organisation and moral decisions, or lack thereof. Benn talked about how one of his constituents had once written to him requesting a better Bus Service in Bristol (when he was Technology Minister under labour gov.). This was a clear example of his contempt for human technological progress as an end in itself. He doesn't seems to care much for such technology, only the sort of stuff that can make people's lives better in the short term. Well, that's fine, but he needs to be less vitriolic about it.

What amazes me is that Benn can't have the vision to create his own commandments for living, that he has to complain about the coldness of materialist science, and that he suggests he might need guidance from a scientist even though he expresses clear repugnance toward them. Benn ought to create his own vision for a future society, rather than expecting a scientist to do it for him. Scientists are too busy understanding the material world for us, to get involved in petty moral concerns.