[ChrisW]

AE,
I would be interested in understanding a little more fully what you mean by the traditional (hierarchical) conceptions of reality.
If I understand what we are talking about, it seems to be the issue of "reductionism". If I say that everything is MADE OF atoms, does that commit me to the claim that everything JUST IS atoms -- that there aren't really animals and human beings and societies (or beliefs and desires or justice and injustice) but only atoms. On this reductionist view the only things that really exist are the fundamental constituents of things -- talk of human beings and all the rest is just short-hand for more complicated but more true talk of atoms.
On a non-reductionist view, to say that animals and humans are made of atoms is not to say that everything just is atoms. On this view, reality is hierarchical in a way: there is a physical level of reality, but this level does not exhaust reality. Above this level (perhaps a few rungs above) is the biological level. Organisms are just as real as the atoms which compose them, and the laws governing them cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the laws governing atoms (though organisms do depend for their powers on the atoms that make them up. This non-reductionist view is closely related to Aristotle's distinction between material cause and formal cause.

If the non-reductionist view is what you have in mind, then I think science is actually perfectly compatible with it -- in fact, (I would argue) reductionism is a very poor match for the actual results of modern science. A hierarchical view of nature, which leaves room for emergent properties and emergent entities (substances) is actually a much better fit.
Even such a less restrictive view limits us in certain ways: there is no room for a vitalism, for instance -- the view that emergence of life involves a wholly new fundamental "life force" -- nor does it leave room for an immaterial human soul. But, unlike reductionism, it does seem to leave room for organisms and even conscious organisms (and self-conscious organisms like us). I'm inclined to think it leaves enough room for ethics and even for a conception of a "meaningful life."
If Kantian positions like Rorty's are really the only way to save the human and spiritual realm, then I might join you there -- but it looks like a last resort to me. I'd much rather see whether the perceived threat from science was really such a threat before I retreated so far.

Two questions about your other remarks:
1. You say we can't make human consciousness out of matter because you can't make the greater out of the lesser. If we assume reductionism, I agree. But if not, then your argument seems to commit you to things you might not want to say. Can living organisms be made out of matter? On your principle, no -- you seem to be committed, not only to dualism, but to vitalism.
2. If science did not have knowledge of reality, what accounts for science's ability to manipulate it? If science is not learning about mind-independent reality, its ability to manipulate nature seems nothing short of miraculous. Is it such a confusion to suppose that understanding that gives us power is (a part of) the true understanding of reality?

Quick note to Brian: By 'psychology' I certainly didn't mean pop-psychology or new age psychology -- nor did I mean Freudian or Jungian psychology. I meant only to point to a particular field of study (the study of the human psyche -- emotions, intellect, sensations, beliefs, desires etc.) without making too many presuppositions about what the correct theory in psychology would be. Plato regards the virtues as "the health of the soul" -- and I agree with him. A study of virtue will then be a part of the study of the soul (psychology). That's all I had in mind. You may disagree with Plato on this, but surely he isn't a New Age thinker.



[This message has been edited by ChrisW (edited April 15, 2004).]