Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute
Scientism and Values.pdf - Ludwig von Mises Institute
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
40 <strong>Scientism</strong> <strong>and</strong>. <strong>Values</strong><br />
nature would be looked on indifferently. But there are some facts<br />
that if allowed to exist might threaten the existence of a rational<br />
social order. Could a rational social order exist if no one was willing<br />
to risk his life to keep such facts from coming into existence?<br />
It is necessary in any reasonable examination of the problem of<br />
objectivity to consider the possibility that both Antigone <strong>and</strong><br />
Creon were trying to discover the m.eanings of the facts that they<br />
had before them <strong>and</strong> struggling to do what they felt necessary to<br />
establish <strong>and</strong> maintain a rational social order.<br />
But, it might be said, this is an ancient example <strong>and</strong> we have<br />
not faced in it the question of the, meaning of fact. We have to<br />
face this problem, so let us take a few samples of what has been<br />
said in the last fifty years or so on the question what facts are. We<br />
shall start with William James. James does not give us a definition,<br />
but he speaks of facts as hard, stubborn, irreducible. "The toughminded,"<br />
he says,<br />
are the men whose Alpha <strong>and</strong> Omega are facts. Behind the bare<br />
phenomenal facts ... there is nothing. When a rationalist insists that<br />
behind the facts there is the ground of facts, the possibility of facts,<br />
the tougher empiricists accuse him of taking the mere name <strong>and</strong><br />
nature of a fact <strong>and</strong> clapping it behind the fact as duplicate entity<br />
to make it possible ...19<br />
If we examine this statement seriously, we see that James refuses<br />
to try to account for facts before their appearance <strong>and</strong> after<br />
their appearance. James was doing essentially the same thing that<br />
men do now when they repeat the proposition of Descartes,20 "I<br />
think; therefore, I am," without considering that this formula,<br />
when used as an article of faith today, cries for expansion into the<br />
question: There was a time when I did not think; therefore if I<br />
believe what I am told about myself <strong>and</strong> the world, I was not.<br />
Now, I think; therefore, I am. I am approaching a state when<br />
again, if I believe what I am told, I shall not think; therefore I<br />
shall not be. But this is something coming from nothing <strong>and</strong> going<br />
into nothing. This is a miracle. And I am told not to believe in<br />
miracles. Is there anything that I can believe that makes sense?