← 返回目录

知识的好(上)

学校≠教育≠技能；文凭溢价=80%信号传递+20%人力资本

13 👍 / 0 💬

感谢@闫哥争口气 提供润色

目录

  1. Is knowledge "good" or "neutral"? 知识是“好的”还是“中性的”？
  2. Introduction - why bother about the difference between "good" and "neutral" knowledge 导言-为什么要为“好的”和“中性的”知识之间的区别而烦恼？
  3. Goodness of knowledge - why knowledge should be viewed as "good" 知识的好--为什么要把知识视为“好的”
  4. One truth premise - we derive goodness of knowledge from the concept of unitary truth 一个真理前提--我们从单一真理的概念中获得知识的好
  5. What is good? - can we predicate on intrinsic value? 什么是好的？-我们能根据内在价值来判断吗？
  6. Systems of value - major meta-ethical approaches to determining the intrinsic value 价值体系--确定内在价值的主要元伦理学方法
  7. Prevalence of systems of value - what do people in the street think about what is ethical? 价值体系的流行-大伙对道德是什么的看法？
  8. Hedonism and knowledge 享乐主义与知识
  9. Religion and knowledge 宗教与知识
  10. Scientific axiology and knowledge 科学价值论与知识
  11. Clash of values - the conflict of ethical systems and the impact of knowledge 价值观的冲突--伦理体系的冲突与知识的影响
  12. Biased knowledge - when knowledge does not help ethical reconciliation 有偏见的知识-当知识无助于道德和解时
  13. Can systems of value be reconciled? - even superficial reconciliation helps counteract evil 价值体系可以协调一致吗？-即使是表面的和解也有助于抵消邪恶
  14. Universal intrinsic value does not guarantee universal reconciliation - complexity of axiology 普遍内在价值不能保证普遍和解--价值论的复杂性
  15. Conclusion: knowledge and the sense of life 结语：知识与生命意识
  16. Summary 摘要
  17. Further reading 进一步阅读

Is knowledge "good" or "neutral"?

知识是“好的”还是“中性的”？

This article tries to argue that more knowledge leads to statistically more "goodness", and that this holds true to most definitions of "goodness". This implies that knowledge can be a remedy against "evil".

本文试图论证，更多的知识导致统计意义上更多的“好”，这适用于“好”的大多数定义。这意味着知识可以成为对抗“邪恶”的一种补救方法。

Even if you are the most evil of all sinners, you will cross over all evil on the raft of knowledge. Bhagavad-Gita (~2-3rd century AD, Chapter 4: Knowledge)

即使你是所有罪人中最邪恶的，你也会在知识的木筏上渡过所有的邪恶。博伽梵歌塔(公元2-3世纪，第4章：知识)

Introduction

引言

Even though I am no philosopher or religious scholar, I feel compelled to address the issue of "goodness of knowledge". My whole professional life has been spent on looking for ways towards faster and better learning. However, I heard some voices that better learning does not necessarily lead to more good or less evil. Exemplary opinions that sparked this article are: "If you help a terrorist learn faster, it will lead to more death and destruction" or "Your SuperMemo learning method only accelerates the rat race by raising the bar for students who are already on the verge of a breakdown". Comrade Joseph Stalin insisted: "Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed".

虽然我不是哲学家，也不是宗教学者，但我觉得有必要谈一谈“知识的好”这个问题。我的整个职业生涯都花在寻找更快更好的学习方法上。然而，我听到一些声音说，更好的学习并不一定会带来更多的好或更少的邪恶。引发这篇文章的典型观点是：“如果你帮助恐怖分子学得更快，就会导致更多的死亡和破坏”，或者“你的 SuperMemo 学习方法只会提高已经濒临崩溃的学生的“崩溃门槛”，从而加速了竞争的“激烈性”。斯大林同志坚信：“教育是一件武器，它的效果取决于它被谁拿着，瞄准的是谁。”

Naturally, it is true that learning can lead to better weapons of mass destruction. It is also true that methods of accelerated learning will also accelerate the negative aspects of the race for doing more in less time. It is true that education may become indoctrination. However, in this article, I would like to demonstrate that knowledge is "statistically good".

当然，学习可以带来更强大的大规模杀伤性武器，这是事实。加速学习的方法也会通过在更短的时间内做更多的事情加速竞赛的消极方面，的确，教育可以变成观念灌输。然而，在这篇文章中，我想证明知识“在统计上是好的”。

Many people believe knowledge is neutral. Its goodness or badness is determined by the way it is used. The "neutral" view of knowledge, however, does not emphasize the important fact that the more we know the more likely we are to act and do good. In other words, knowledge can be used for both good and evil, however, if we employ the tools of statistics or probability we will easily show that knowledge is overwhelmingly "good".

许多人认为知识是中性的。知识的好坏取决于它的使用方式。然而，知识的“中性”观点并没有强调一个重要的事实，即我们知道的越多，我们就越有可能采取行动并做好事。换句话说，知识既可以用来做好事，也可以用来做坏事，然而，如果我们使用统计或概率的工具，我们会很容易地发现知识的“好处”（相较于坏处）存在压倒性优势。

Goodness of knowledge

知识的好

My claim that knowledge is good originates from this simple five-step reasoning:

  1. there is one truth
  2. knowledge helps reveal the truth
  3. the truth about goodness is no different than other truths; i.e. with more knowledge, we are more likely to agree what is true and what is good
  4. knowledge must, therefore, act as a universal unifier of value systems across all philosophical and religious systems
  5. knowledge is thus increasing the chances we will act "good" to the best of our understanding of what "good" is

我所说的知识是好的，源于这个简单的五步推理：

  1. 有一个真理
  2. 知识有助于揭示真理
  3. 关于好的真理与其他真理没有什么不同；也就是说，知识越多，我们就越有可能同意什么是真的，什么是好的
  4. 因此，知识必须作为所有哲学和宗教体系的价值体系的普适统一者。
  5. 因此，知识增加了我们在理解什么是“好”的情况下践行“好”的几率。

Naturally, without a formal proof, the above thinking will easily be undermined by a misconceived use of Gödel's proof, contradictory quotes from the scriptures, arguments of relativistic goodness, Moore's open question, non-cognitivistic theories of value, etc. Some people abhor globalization and homogenization of the mankind; however, the convergence of educated minds towards the only truth, including the truth about value, is inevitable (as shown formally by information theory). This convergence is a welcome way of minimizing social and national conflict. Reconciliation of the systems of value is good news for democracy and helps overcome its weaknesses. By getting into more explanations and examples, I run the risk of being compared to Hitler, Satan, Stalin or Osama. That risk comes along the sensitive nature of the subject where views differ drastically, and minor nuances of terminology lead to major outbursts of adrenaline. Philosophy of ethics is like political philosophy. For one person, communism is "murder everywhere always", and for another is the highest ideal of utilitarian attitude. One can see communism as an immoral way of the inept living off the competent. Another one can see it as the brain-like central control system optimizing redistribution of resources using the same criteria as the human body: more for those organs that need it more. When they hear the word "communism", some people visualize dead corpses of the Stalinist regime, others see their own family where parents and kids all share and work for the common good. In this short text, I can only hope to convey my thinking without ever convincing those who take a hard-line opposite skeptical view. Below I will elaborate in some detail on the concept of one truth, one goodness, and the convergence of the systems of values.

当然，如果没有正式的证明，上述思维很容易被误用哥德尔的证明、自相矛盾的要义、相对好论的争论、摩尔的开放问题、非认知主义的价值论等所破坏。一些人憎恶人类的全球化和同质化；然而，受过教育的人向唯一的真理趋同，关于价值的真理，亦是如此。(信息论正式表明了这一点)。这种趋同是将社会和国家冲突降至最低的一种受欢迎的方式。价值体系的协调对民主来说是个好消息，有助于克服其弱点。通过更多的解释和例子，我冒着被拿来与希特勒、撒旦、斯大林或奥萨马相提并论的风险。这种风险源于这个主题的敏感性，关于这个主题的各种观点截然不同，术语上的细微差别会导致肾上腺素的大量释放（惹人冲动）。伦理哲学就像政治哲学。对一个人来说，共产主义是“无处不在的杀戮”；对另一个人来说，共产主义是功利主义的最高理想。人们可以认为共产主义是无能的人靠能者为生的不道德的方式。另一个人可以将其视为类似大脑的中央控制系统，使用与人体相同的标准来优化资源的重新分配：更多的资源分配给那些更需要资源的器官。当人们听到“共产主义”这个词时，一些人会想到斯大林政权下的死尸，另一些人会看到他们自己的家庭，父母和孩子都在那里分享公共利益并为公共利益工作。在这短短的文本中，我只能希望传达我的想法，而不能说服那些持强硬相反怀疑观点的人。下面我将详细阐述一个真理、一个好的，以及价值体系趋同的概念。

One truth premise

一个真理前提

Instinctively we go through life by the premise that there is only one truth. If we see an elephant and someone else denies it, we assume he or she is confused, misinformed, or lying. The one truth premise is wired into the inductive powers of our neural networks who daily generalize experience and build a consistent model of the surrounding world. From birth, we build a set of theorems about the reality deriving it all from the hard-wired neural axiom that what we get on the input of our senses is more or less true. Naturally, our model of reality can be false if our correct input axiom is false. Here are some examples where "our reality" might appear to be a "false reality":

本能地，我们生活在只有一个真理的前提下。如果我们看到一头大象，而其他人否认了，我们就认为他或她是被迷惑了、误导了或撒谎了。一个真理前提与我们的神经网络的归纳能力相连，这些神经网络每天总结经验并建立一个关于周围世界的一致模型。从出生起，我们就建立了一套关于现实的定理，这些定理都来自于硬连线的神经公理，即我们从感官输入中得到的东西或多或少是真实的。当然，如果我们自以为正确的输入内容实际上是错误的，那么我们的现实模型可能是错误的。以下是一些“我们的现实”可能看起来是“虚假现实”的例子：

Whatever the true reality is, we have currently no way of escaping the present one. In other words, we have no choice but to accept the correct input axiom and live as if our reality model was the correct one.

无论真实的现实是什么，我们目前没有办法逃避当前的现实。换句话说，我们别无选择，只能接受看似正确的输入公理，假设我们的现实模型是正确的然后生活。

"Our reality" presents itself as roughly the same reality to all of us. In other words, we (rational) all believe we live on the planet Earth that makes part of the Solar System in Milky Way. We are made of organs, tissues, and cells. We feel and reason similarly. We preponderantly use the same rules of logic. Our logic tells us that if the Earth is closer to the Sun than Mars then the Earth cannot, at the same time, be further from the Sun. One correctly formulated statement on truth cannot be true and false at the same time. Liar's paradox is not "correctly formulated" and hence proves nothing against one truth premise. "This sentence cannot be proven correct" is self-referential and does not contribute to the set of true theorems about reality. "This sweater is red" might appear true or false if we consider daltonism or a simple matter of taste, however, the true spectrum of light reflected by the sweater can be measured. It is the spectrum that makes the truth not the perception of redness.

“我们的现实”以大致相同的现实呈现给我们所有人。换句话说，我们(理性的)都相信我们生活在构成银河系太阳系一部分的地球上。我们是由器官、组织和细胞组成的。我们的感受和推理都是一样的。我们主要使用相同的逻辑规则。我们的逻辑告诉我们，如果地球比火星更接近太阳，那么在这种情况下地球不可能离太阳更远。一个正确表述的真理不能同时是真的和假的。说谎者悖论不是“正确表述的”，因此不能证明任何一个与真理前提相反的东西。"这句话不能证明是正确的 "是自说自话，无助于现实的真定理集。如果我们考虑道尔顿主义或简单的品味问题，“这件毛衣是红色的”可能看起来是真的或假的，然而，毛衣反射的真实光谱是可以测量的。是光谱让事实变得真实，而不是对红色的感知。

If you disagree with the one truth principle, you may now stop reading. The rest of reasoning in this article is based on the inescapable premise that we all live in the same reality where things cannot be true and false at the same time. We are able to acquire knowledge through our senses and predicate on the truth using the acquired knowledge.

如果你不同意一个真理原则，你现在可以停止阅读。本文中的睡觉推理是建立在一个无法回避的前提之上的，那就是我们都生活在同一个现实中，在这个现实中，事情不可能同时是真的和假的。我们能够通过我们的感官获得知识，并利用所获得的知识来断言真理。

In terms of hermeneutics or algorithmic information theory, we are looking for reducing the distance between the two bodies of knowledge that might exist in the mind of two different people, social groups or philosophical systems. In plain language, we are looking for contradictions and logical basis of contradictory statements. For example, Jews and Muslims are forbidden to eat pork (i.e. the flesh of the filthiest animal). Christians, on the other hand, enjoy eating pork (with not so good an impact on their coronary arteries). It is easy to see that rationally carried pork debate will sooner or later be reduced down to the scriptures where the core contradiction must be found. Naturally, the debate will often rage as to which books or their translations make the word of God or even the ultimate word of God. Then a quote from Septuagint : Leviticus : Chapter 11 may surface and a Christian may question his or her own dietary habits.

从解释学或算法信息论的角度来看，我们正在寻求缩小可能存在于两个不同的人、社会团体或哲学系统头脑中的两个知识体系之间的距离。在通俗易懂的语言中，我们在寻找矛盾和矛盾陈述的逻辑基础。例如，犹太人和穆斯林被禁止吃猪肉(因其是最脏动物的肉)。另一方面，基督徒喜欢吃猪肉(因其对冠状动脉的影响很小)。不难看出，理性地进行猪肉辩论，迟早会归结到必须找到核心矛盾的要义上。当然，关于哪些书或它们的译本构成了上帝的话语，甚至是上帝的终极话语的争论经常会非常激烈。然后引述Septuagint : Leviticus : 第11章 ，基督徒可能会质疑他或她自己的饮食习惯。

In other words, resolving hermeneutic debates will never be easy, but formally speaking, it is always possible. It is only the question of the debate discipline and time allocated. Incidentally, here comes the learning imperative: you cannot predicate on the superiority of your own religion or philosophy without understanding the position of the others.

换句话说，解决阐释学的争论从来都不是一件容易的事，但从形式上讲，它总是有可能的。这只是辩论纪律和分配的时间的问题。顺便说一句，学习是极其迫切的:你不能在不了解他人立场的情况下，就断言自己的宗教或哲学优越。

Most people agree with the one truth concept; however, they often see one truth from quite a special angle:

One Truth in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (13th century)

Truth is One - One Supreme Reality website

大多数人同意一个真理的概念，但他们往往从一个相当特殊的角度来看待一个真理：

托马斯·阿奎那的一个真理，“总结神学”(13世纪)

真相是一个 -一个最高现实网站

What is good?

什么是好？

Interpretation of what is good and what is bad depends on an individual. Some people believe GMOs are a threat to biological survival of the planet, others see it as a way of eliminating poverty. Genetic engineering will then be perceived as good or as evil depending on the point of view. However, we can extract some common underlying values. Human life and welfare are the core priority for a vast majority of both opponents and supporters of transgenics. The divide is bridgeable with knowledge via education and communication. However, humans also often differ as far as their core beliefs are concerned. Although well-established core beliefs are rarely subject to negotiation, they are also based on knowledge and experience. Here too, differences and contradictions can be alleviated by knowledge and communication. Even if an individual is impervious to arguments against his or her beliefs, the same beliefs may be molded over generations and incorporate influences from other belief systems.

什么是好的，什么是坏的取决于个人。一些人认为转基因生物是对地球生物的生存有威胁，另一些人则认为它是消除贫困的一种方式。然后，基因工程将根据不同的观点被认为是好的或是坏的。然而，我们可以提取一些共同的潜在价值。对于绝大多数转基因的反对者和支持者来说，人类的生命和福利都是核心优先事项。通过教育和交流，知识可以弥合这一鸿沟。然而，就核心信仰而言，人类也经常存在差异。虽然既定的核心信念很少受到谈判的影响，但它们也是建立在知识和经验的基础上的。在这里，分歧和矛盾也可以通过知识和交流来缓解。即使一个人对反对他或她的信仰的论点不感兴趣，同样的信仰也可能经过几代人的塑造，受到其他信仰体系的影响。

It is helpful here to differentiate between instrumental good and intrinsic good. Instrumental good is a good that serves another good (e.g. learning chemistry is good as far as it helps pass exams to the university). Intrinsic good is a good that is good on its own without serving as a way towards another good. Depending on the belief system intrinsic good may be undefined, elected axiomatically, or elected on the basis of faith. Examples of intrinsic good in various belief systems: God, love, nirvana, human life, pleasure, reaching the paradise, economic growth, etc. (for more about the instrumental-intrinsic value distinction and an easy-to-read introduction to the value theory see: Value theory).

在这里，区分工具好和内在好是很有帮助的。工具性的好是一种服务于另一种好的东西(例如，学习化学就是好的，因为它有助于通过大学的考试)。内在好是一种本质上的好，而不是通向另一好的途径。根据信仰体系的不同，内在好可能是未定义的，可能是公理推选的，也可能是基于信仰推选的。不同信仰体系中内在好的例子：上帝、爱、涅槃、人的生活、快乐、到达天堂、经济增长等(更多关于工具与内在价值的区别和价值理论的简单介绍见：价值理论)。

It does not take long to realize that there is no scientific method or instrument that can measure or certify intrinsic value. Recent stem cell research plans of Dr Ian Wilmut (father of Dolly the sheep) have been attacked on ethical grounds. However, where there is no consensus on intrinsic value, there is no definition of what is really ethical and what is not. Wilmut's opponents have to resort to emotions saying: "these are Dr Mengele experiments", "this is Frankenstein science", "Wilmut resorts to cannibalism" or simply "this is wrong". Dr Wilmut can strike back with emotional depiction of someone suffering from a heart or Parkinson's disease. He can then add that banning his work "is wrong". Only democratic, legislative and/or judicial mechanism can resolve the deadlock on "preponderance of ethical intuition". It is not possible to resolve the difference of opinion in a methodical manner.

用不了多久就会意识到，没有科学的方法或仪器可以衡量或证明内在价值。伊恩·威尔穆特博士(绵羊多利的父亲)最近的干细胞研究计划受到了伦理上的攻击。然而，在对内在价值没有达成共识的情况下，什么是真正的道德，什么是不道德，就根本没有定义。威尔穆特的反对者不得不诉诸情绪，说：“这是门格勒博士的实验”，“这是科学怪人的科学”，“威尔穆特诉诸于吃人”，或者干脆说“这是错误的”。威尔穆特博士可以用对患有心脏病或帕金森氏症的人的情感描述进行反击。然后他可以补充说，禁止他的工作“是错误的”。只有民主、立法和/或司法机制才能解决“伦理直觉占优势”的僵局。以有条不紊的方式解决意见分歧是不可能的。

The purpose of life and the question of value occupied philosophers for centuries without much progress in finding scientifically valid and non-circular definition of intrinsic good. The distinction between intrinsic and instrumental good certifiably dates back to Aristotle (see: Nicomachean Ethics). It forms the basis of David Hume's insistence that we can study "what is", but not "what should be". It is analogous to Kantian hypothetical and categorical imperative. This distinction is as old as human self-awareness. After all, we all must ask a question about the ultimate purpose of our existence.

生命的目的和价值的问题占据了哲学家们几个世纪，但在寻找科学上有效的、非循环的内在好的定义方面没有取得太大进展。内在好和工具性好之间的区别可以肯定地追溯到亚里士多德(参见：尼科马基伦理学)。它构成了大卫·休谟坚持认为我们可以研究“是什么”而不是“应该是什么”的基础。它类似于康德的假设和绝对命令。这种区别和人类的自我意识一样古老。毕竟，我们都必须问一个关于我们存在的最终目的的问题。

Systems of value

价值体系

As soon as humans became capable of self-analysis, they must have pondered the ultimate purpose of their daily pursuits. Over millennia, three major systems of value developed. Each provides its own answer to the question of what makes the intrinsic value. I would like to go through these systems of value and see if knowledge promotes goodness within each system. Later we will also try to see if knowledge helps unify the concept of goodness between each of these systems.

一旦人类有了自我分析的能力，他们一定会思考他们日常追求的最终目的。几千年来，形成了三大价值体系。对于什么构成内在价值这一问题，每个人都提供了自己的答案。我想仔细看看这些价值体系，看看知识是否促进了每个体系中的好。稍后，我们还将尝试看看知识是否有助于统一这些系统之间的好的概念。

The three major systems of value:

三大价值体系：

It is easy to show formally that these three classes cover all systems of value. We can either accept drives begotten by the evolution or reject them as an invalid guidance of conduct. This distinction is as old as the contraposition of Epicurus' ethic of pleasure and the Stoic's ethic of duty. Once we elect to use the reasoning capacity of the brain to look for goals, we can either accept faith, intuition, and revelation, or exclude them as scientifically invalid. In other words, we can only follow our natural instincts (hedonism), use faith and reason (religion) or resort solely to the scientific method (scientific axiology). There are no other options. Note that the terms used above need to be stretched to provide this all-encompassing quality. Hedonism may need to, paradoxically, include a sadomasochist who inflicts pain on himself or an altruist who greatly enjoys making others happy. Religion may need to extend beyond the usual understanding of the word and embrace spiritual philosophies, intuitionism (goodness defined through "moral intuition"), and the like. Even though Louis Cassels claims that everyone is religious and has some hypothesis of God, his concept of religion would roughly correspond to the presented term of the system of value. This choice of words would avoid labeling confirmed atheists as being religious. Scientific axiology is my favored term for a conglomerate of a number of non-metaphysical ethical theories that pepper centuries of philosophy books, where the same concept often crops up under different names in different epochs over and over again.

形式上很容易表明，这三个类别涵盖了所有的价值体系。我们可以接受进化产生的驱动力，也可以拒绝它们，认为它们是一种无效的行为指导。这种区别与伊壁鸠鲁的享乐伦理和斯多葛学派的责任伦理的对立一样古老。一旦我们选择使用大脑的推理能力来寻找目标，我们可以接受信仰、直觉和启示，也可以将它们排除在外，认为它们在科学上是无效的。换句话说，我们只能遵循我们的自然本能(享乐主义)，使用信仰和理性(宗教)，或者仅仅求助于科学方法(科学价值论)。没有其他选择。请注意，上面使用的术语需要扩展以提供这种包罗万象的性质。自相矛盾的是，享乐主义可能需要包括一个给自己带来痛苦的施虐受虐狂，或者一个非常喜欢让他人快乐的利他主义者。宗教可能需要超越对这个词的通常理解，拥抱精神哲学、直觉主义(通过“道德直觉”定义的好)等等。尽管路易斯·卡塞尔声称每个人都是宗教的，对上帝都有一些假设，但他的宗教概念大致与价值体系的现有术语相对应。这样的措辞可以避免给被确认的无神论者贴上宗教标签。科学价值论是我最喜欢的术语，指的是一些非形而上学的伦理理论的集合体，这些理论充斥着几个世纪的哲学书籍，在不同的时代，相同的概念经常以不同的名字反复出现。

Although the conceptual division between the three value systems is rather crisp, we all make up a conglomerate of ethical beliefs that make it hard to pigeonhole anyone into a single category.

尽管这三种价值体系之间的概念划分相当清晰，但我们都是由一系列道德信念组成的，很难将任何人划归为单一类别。

Hedonism

享乐主义

Hedonism is based on the oldest and the most natural system of value. It is as old as the nervous system in most primitive multicellular organisms which date back several hundred million years ago. A dog does not ponder the meaning of life, it enjoys it; from low level fun of eating and copulation to chasing a ball or being stroked by "the master". Humans, as all animals, tend to behave along the program imprinted in their brain. This program is based on reward and punishment. Behaviors that served the survival of the species were usually reinforced through the reward system. Today, representatives of all systems of value are subject to the same reward and punishment mechanism in their brain. We (healthy) all are able to experience satisfaction of a good meal or good sleep. We all fear painful injury. Even the truest God-fearing believer will experience temptations of the flesh. Even the most methodical philosopher will scale down her mental soaring when deprived of food and water for long enough. In other words, hedonistic system of value will introduce a degree of interference even among those who scoff the pursuit of pleasure. Our brain reward centers make this world go around. When they fail, we may resort to suicide. Whatever the power of the ethical mind, when in doubt or in a moment of weakness, hedonistic impulse makes individuals go on with their lives. Mother Teresa included.

享乐主义是基于最古老、最自然的价值体系。它和最原始的多细胞生物体的神经系统一样古老，可以追溯到几亿年前。狗不思考生活的意义，它享受生活；从吃和交配的低级乐趣，到追皮球或被“主人”抚摸。人类，就像所有的动物一样，倾向于按照印在他们大脑中的程序行事。这个项目是以奖惩为基础的。服务于物种生存的行为通常通过奖励系统得到加强。今天，所有价值体系的代表在他们的大脑中都受到的同样的奖惩机制。我们(健康的个体)都能体验到一顿美餐或美美的睡眠带来的满足感。我们都害怕痛苦的伤害。即使是最虔诚的敬畏上帝的信徒也会经历肉体的诱惑。即使是最有条理的哲学家，在长时间没有食物和水的情况下，她的精神飞涨也会降低。换句话说，享乐主义的价值体系将引入一定程度的干预，即使是在那些嘲笑追打快乐的人中间也是如此。我们的大脑奖励中心让这个世界运转。当他们失败时，我们可能会求助于自杀。无论伦理头脑的力量有多大，无论是在怀疑中还是在软弱的时刻，享乐主义的冲动都会促使个人继续生活。包括特蕾莎修女。

Religion

宗教

Religion was the next stage of the development of value systems. Religious beliefs are as old as the human civilization. We might even claim that the birth of humanity dates to the establishment of the first religious explanation of human existence and purpose. Religion provided guidance and comfort to millions for millennia. Some 90-96% of people walking the planet today admit to being religious, worshiping or acknowledging one or more gods. In reality, we should rather admit that the vast majority of human population today represents sort of religious hedonism. Religiously hedonistic people claim to be religious but frequently deviate from their elected system of values to satisfy their needs, dreams and desires.

宗教是价值体系发展的下一个阶段。宗教信仰与人类文明一样古老。我们甚至可以说，人类的诞生可以追溯到对人类存在和目的的第一个宗教解释的确立。几千年来，宗教为数百万人提供了指导和安慰。今天在地球上行走的人中约有90%-96%承认自己信教，崇拜或承认一个或多个神。事实上，我们应该承认，今天的绝大多数人口代表着某种宗教享乐主义。信奉宗教享乐主义的人声称自己有宗教信仰，但为了满足自己的需求、梦想和欲望，他们经常背离自己选择的价值体系。

Scientific axiology

科学价值论

Scientific axiology is the youngest approach to determining value. The term scientific axiology or formal axiology is best defined as used by Robert S. Hartman. In this article, the term scientific axiology is used in the widest sense as the scientific attempt to predicate on value. As such, scientific axiology cannot be older that the scientific method itself. Nyaya school, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Galileo, Leibniz, Pascal, Kant, and countless others made the best use of their reason and knowledge to look for intrinsic value. Aquinas's attempt to reconcile religion with Aristotelian logic might be seen as a vigorous pursuit of scientific axiology limited by the scientific methodology available at his time. Descartes's amazement with the mind and his deductive proof of the existence of a benevolent God also fall into this category (even though his reasoning might proceed along quite different lines had he been informed about the role of the brain and the amazing detail of neuronal structure and function that we uncovered some three centuries later). Scientific axiology overlaps with the concept of consequentialism in which one should do action A if A maximizes good. An effort to prove the existence of God with the help of science also overlaps with this category. Although scoffed at by atheists (see: "Unbeautiful mind"), Dr Polkinhorne's reasoning is a recent example: Religion in the Age of Science

科学价值论是确定价值的最年轻的方法。术语科学价值论或形式价值论的最佳定义是罗伯特·S·哈特曼(Robert S.Hartman)所使用的。在这篇文章中，术语科学价值论被用在最广泛的意义上，作为对价值进行预测的科学尝试。因此，科学价值论不可能比科学方法本身更古老。尼亚亚学派、亚里士多德学派、阿奎那学派、笛卡尔学派、伽利略学派、莱布尼茨学派、帕斯卡学派、康德学派和无数其他学派都充分利用他们的理性和知识来寻找内在价值。阿奎那试图调和宗教和亚里士多德的逻辑，可以被看作是对科学价值论的一种强烈追求，这种追求受到了当时可用的科学方法论的限制。笛卡尔对思想的惊讶和他对仁慈上帝存在的演绎证明也属于这一类(尽管如果他被告知大脑的作用以及大约三个世纪后我们发现的令人惊叹的神经元结构和功能的细节，他的推理可能会沿着完全不同的路线进行)。科学价值论与后果主义的概念有重叠之处，在后果主义中，如果A最大化了好，就应该做A行动。在科学的帮助下证明上帝存在的努力也与这一范畴重叠。尽管受到无神论者的嘲笑(参见：“不美丽的心灵”)，波尔金霍恩博士的推理是最近的一个例子：科学时代的宗教

Prevalence of systems of value

价值体系的普及性

In today's world, a vast majority of individuals, independent of what they claim or even believe, follow the essentially hedonistic system of value. This system of value incorporates elements of religion (e.g. in tempering desires of the flesh) and pure game theoretical reasoning (e.g. where being nice pays better than being nasty).

在当今世界，绝大多数人，无论他们声称或甚至相信什么，都遵循本质上享乐主义的价值体系。这种价值体系融合了宗教元素(例如，在缓和肉体欲望方面)和纯粹的博弈论推理(例如，在哪里做好人比做坏人付出更多)。

A truly religious system of value is reserved to a small proportion of the religious elite. Far smaller than what statistics on the prevalence of religious beliefs show. The reason is very simple, religious system of value requires extensive knowledge and dedication that are able to override the powerful drives imprinted in the brain. If we could construct Religious IQ for the population to reflect the individual's predisposition and ability to faithfully follow a system of value based on religion, we might discover that people with rIQ below 120-130 are actually better pigeonholed as hedonists, and to reach the heights of John Paul II one would need an rIQ of well above 200-220.

真正的宗教价值体系是留给一小部分宗教精英的。远比宗教信仰普及率的统计数字所显示的要小得多。原因很简单，宗教的价值体系需要广泛的知识和奉献精神，能够凌驾于印在大脑中的强大驱动力之上。如果我们能够构建人群的宗教智商，以反映个人对基于宗教的价值体系的倾向性和忠诚度，我们可能会发现，rIQ在120-130以下的人其实更适合被归为享乐主义者，而要达到约翰-保罗二世的高度，则需要rIQ远高于200-220。

Scientific axiology is probably the least popular overall. People who reject God and claim to use pure reason to guide their actions are in vast majority strongly influenced by the hedonistic system of value. The group of hedonists who claim pure reason motivations still includes many brilliant individuals who laid the foundation for today's civilization. This comes from the fact that hedonistic reasoning can be driven to quite sophisticated levels where the highest gratification comes from the top level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs: self-actualization. As science does not provide tools for measuring intrinsic value, many people believe that it is impossible to strictly follow scientific axiology without falling into contradiction or losing our "humanity". This is why scientific axiology is so little known or understood.

科学价值论可能是整体上最不受欢迎的。那些拒绝上帝并声称用纯粹的理性来指导他们的行为的人，绝大多数都受到享乐主义价值体系的强烈影响。声称纯粹理性动机的享乐主义者群体中仍然包括许多为今天的文明奠定基础的才华横溢的人。这来自于这样一个事实，即享乐主义推理可以被驱动到相当复杂的层次，其中最高的满足感来自马斯洛需求层次的顶层：自我实现。由于科学不提供衡量内在价值的工具，许多人认为，严格遵循科学价值论而不陷入矛盾或丧失我们的“人性”是不可能的。这就是为什么科学价值论如此鲜为人知或鲜为人知的原因。

One of my favorite questions in getting to know people is "What is your ultimate goal? What is the purpose of human life?". From my non-scientific survey, I come to believe that the distribution of the systems of value is roughly as follows: pure hedonists (30-60%), religious hedonists (40%-70%), truly religious people (1-5%), and followers of scientific axiology (less than 1%). I need to insist again that we are all a conglomeration of belief and value systems and cannot be easily pigeonholed into a single category.

在认识人的过程中，我最喜欢问的一个问题是“你的终极目标是什么？人生的目的是什么？”从我的非科学调查中，我开始相信价值体系的分布大致如下：纯粹的享乐主义者(30%-60%)，宗教享乐主义者(40%-70%)，真正的宗教人士(1%-5%)，以及科学价值论的追随者(不到1%)。我需要再次强调，我们都是各种价值体系的集合体，不能轻易地归入单一类别。

Let us now see how knowledge affects goodness in each of the categories of value systems.

现在让我们看看知识是如何影响每一类价值体系中的好的。

Hedonism and knowledge

享乐主义和知识

Knowledge is able to make us less happy. A sated dog taking a nap may be happier than a sated human aware of the brevity of life. Some hedonist argue that a return to nature would make humans most happy (see: Primitivism for a comprehensive example). Return to nature would expose humans to deadly diseases and vagaries of nature, but we might remains blissfully unaware of the dangers, relish the beauty of the natural world, and experience more joy until death or disease struck. However, humans will also naturally tend to look for remedies against disease, for better tools, for better hunting methods, etc. Global trends work against the primitivists or neo-luddites. Someone noticed "You can't have a violin without civilization". It seems that the mankind leaves a hedonist little choice but to make the best use of knowledge to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, while adapting to the inevitable goldrush of progress. Today, illiteracy and poverty are strongly correlated with unhappiness. Unless the present trends of development are reverted, knowledge will play an increasingly important role in making us happy. Very few hedonists will intentionally want to dumb themselves down for the sake of a blind bliss. Many will pursue happiness without a major effort to improve their intellectual strengths. However, a sophisticated hedonist will seek a sophisticated and lasting state of happiness: eudaimonia. The happiest hedonist today is the one that is able to transcend lower level needs and find happiness in self-actualization, and contributing to the happiness of others. Statistically, knowledge should help a hedonist achieve happiness.

知识会让我们不那么快乐。一只吃饱了的狗打个盹，可能比一个意识到生命短暂的吃饱了的人更快乐。一些享乐主义者争辩说，回归自然会让人类最幸福(参见：原始主义的综合案例)。回归自然将使人类暴露在致命的疾病和变幻莫测的自然中，但我们可能仍然幸福地没有意识到危险，享受自然世界的美丽，体验更多的快乐，直到死亡或疾病来袭。然而，人类也会自然而然地倾向于寻找治疗疾病的药物，寻找更好的工具，寻找更好的狩猎方法，等等。全球趋势对原始人或新卢德人不利。有人注意到“没有文明就没有小提琴”。人类似乎别无选择，只能最大限度地利用知识，最大限度地增加快乐，最大限度地减少痛苦，同时适应不可避免的进步。今天，文盲和贫困与不幸福密切相关。除非扭转目前的发展趋势，否则知识将在使我们幸福方面发挥越来越重要的作用。极少有享乐主义者会为了盲目的幸福而故意让自己变得愚蠢。许多人会追求幸福，而不会花大力气提高自己的智力优势。然而，一个老练的享乐主义者会寻求一种复杂而持久的幸福状态：幸福。今天最幸福的享乐主义者是那些能够超越底层需求，在自我实现中找到幸福，并为他人的幸福做出贡献的人。从统计学上讲，知识应该能帮助享乐主义者获得幸福。

Religion and knowledge

宗教和知识

Mythology, religion, and science come all from the same source: humans looking for answers. There isn't much methodological difference between the religious distinction of jiva and ajiva in Jainism, or Hippocratic humors: bile, phlegm, and sanguine. When Aristotle groped in darkness trying to define the soul, he was actually writing about life. He was not equipped with today's knowledge nor methodology. His explanations might seem metaphysical from today's perspective, but he was as methodical and precise in his thought as his contemporary means.

神话，宗教，科学都源自同一处，那就是人类寻求答案的过程。从方法论角度来说，灵魂与非灵魂在耆那教中并没有很大的区别，就像在希波克拉底的笑话中，胆汁，痰和血污没有什么区别。当亚里士多德在黑暗中摸索着，试图定义人类的灵魂，他其实是在书写人类的生活。即使他不懂今天的知识或是方法论，甚至从今天的角度来看，他的分析太过形而上学，但他的思想却和当代的手段一样精确而有条理。

At times religion stood at odds with science and knowledge. Many deeply religious people refute selected facts of science. For example, knowledge of evolution is considered by many as "just a theory". Many see evolution stand in direct conflict with the scriptures. They believe that teaching evolution drives people away from God. To a degree this is true: awareness of evolution is able to undermine religious feelings in some cases. However, the same people will still consider learning and knowledge as paths towards higher wisdom. In other words, they do not consider knowledge as bad. All they consider bad is knowledge which is "false". Not surprisingly, followers of one religion will often consider other religions as "false religions". Yet they will rarely deny the value and importance of learning. All major religions imply a learning imperative. This imperative is also an important factor of religion's survival through self-perpetuation. It may largely begin with studying the scriptures. However, knowledge and wisdom are a common denominator of all major religions. Religions survive by answering pressures, reconciling contradictions, and improving their "goodness". Pope John Paul II's call for the reversal of the condemnation of Galileo (a devout Catholic himself) is just one of many recent examples. As it is the case with the hedonistic point of view, many religious people make a minimum effort to enhance their religious knowledge, and their general knowledge. However, a true believer will always look for ways to better understand God, humanity, and the surrounding universe. From the religious perspective, the search for the truth is among the highest objectives.

宗教有时与科学知识格格不入。许多虔诚的宗教人士驳斥了某些科学事实。例如，进化论的知识被许多人认为“仅仅是一种理论”。许多人认为进化论与经文直接冲突。他们相信教授进化论会让人远离上帝。在某种程度上，这是正确的：在某些情况下，对进化的认识能够破坏宗教感情。然而，同样的人仍然会认为学习和知识是通向更高智慧的途径。换句话说，他们并不认为知识是不好的。他们认为不好的就是“虚假”的知识。不足为奇的是，一种宗教的追随者往往会认为其他宗教是“假宗教”。然而，他们很少会否认学习的价值和重要性。所有主要宗教都隐含着学习的必然性。这种势在必行也是宗教通过自我延续而生存的一个重要因素。这在很大程度上可以从研读经文开始。然而，知识和智慧是所有主要宗教的共同点。宗教通过应对压力、调和矛盾、提升“好”来生存。教皇约翰·保罗二世呼吁撤销对伽利略(他自己也是一名虔诚的天主教徒)的谴责，这只是最近许多例子中的一个。就像享乐主义的观点一样，许多信教的人只做了最少的努力来提高他们的宗教知识和常识。然而，一个真正的信徒总是会想办法更好地理解上帝、人类和周围的宇宙。从宗教的角度来看，寻求真理是最高目标之一。

Scientific axiology and knowledge

科学价值论与知识

By definition, scientific axiology determines value through knowledge. As such, it is inherently knowledge-friendly. Scientific axiology can be traced under different names to innumerous philosophers and thinkers. For that reason, some reshuffle of terminology may be unavoidable. Some predecessors of scientific axiology can be found in ancient philosophies rooted in anti-clerical sentiment (e.g. nastika school of Carvaka from ancient India, around 6 century BC, was a reaction against brahmins advancing their own livelihood). However, these all predominantly gravitated towards using reason to justify hedonism (e.g. in Carvaka: "if there are no unseen forces and world is without a cause, we can only live by the inherent nature of things"). The effort to explain value with reason intensified from century to century, and culminated in the 20th century with the crystallization of the formal approach to axiology.

根据定义，科学价值论通过知识决定价值。因此，它天生就是知识友好型的。科学价值论可以用不同的名字追溯到无数的哲学家和思想家。因此，对术语进行一些调整可能是不可避免的。科学价值论的一些前身可以在植根于反教情绪的古代哲学中找到答案(大约公元前6世纪，古印度的卡瓦卡纳斯提卡学派(nastika school of Carvaka)反对婆罗门提升自己的生计)。然而，所有这些都主要倾向于用理性来为享乐主义辩护(例如，在卡瓦卡：“如果没有看不见的力量，世界没有缘由，我们只能靠事物的内在本质生存”)。用理性解释价值的努力从一个世纪到另一个世纪不断加强，并在20世纪随着科学价值论形式方法的结晶而达到顶峰。

Three ways of the scientific determination of value

科学确定价值的三条途径

When science is applied to determining intrinsic value, the following statements are possible as the outcome: (1) "Intrinsic value cannot be determined", (2) "Value can be derived only from value axioms", or (3) "We do not know if we will ever be able to determine intrinsic value". Here are the corresponding branches of scientific axiology:

当科学被应用于确定内在价值时，可能的结果是：(1)“内在价值不能确定”，(2)“价值只能从价值公理中导出”，或(3)“我们不知道我们是否能够确定内在价值”。以下是科学价值论的相应分支：

Source of valuation

价值的来源

At another angle, dogmatic and agnostic scientific axiology will distinguish between these two forms of intrinsic value:

从另一个角度来看，教条主义和不可知论的科学价值论将区分这两种形式的内在价值：

Dogmatic system of value may arbitrarily choose relative or absolute intrinsic value (e.g. Ayn Rand's objectivism elects axiomatic relative intrinsic value: own life). Axiological agnostics will claim that nothing is known about intrinsic values. As such, intrinsic value cannot be determined as to be absolute or relative.

教条主义的价值体系可以任意选择相对或绝对的内在价值(例如，安·兰德的客观主义选择公理化的相对内在价值：个体生命)。价值论不可知论者会声称对内在价值一无所知。因此，内在价值不能被确定为绝对的或相对的。

Impact of knowledge on valuations

知识对估值的影响

The effects of knowledge on various branches of formal axiology will be different:

知识对形式价值论的各个分支的影响将是不同的：

Existential thinking may be the most impervious to knowledge. If nothing has value, knowledge does not make value either. At the same time, existential thinking might be most flexible and tolerant. If nothing has value, it does not matter whose system value comes top. Nothing matters. Existential thinking is logically equivalent to ethical non-naturalism. G. E. Moore (1873-1958; no relationship to the father of Moore's Law) in Principia Ethica claims that the good cannot be defined due to the open question problem (i.e. the problem of infinite derivation of instrumental values in the absence of intrinsic value).

存在主义思维可能是最不受知识影响的。如果没有东西有价值，知识也不会有价值。同时，存在主义思维可能是最灵活、最宽容的。如果任何东西都没有价值，那么谁的系统值排在首位都无关紧要。什么都不重要。存在主义思维在逻辑上等同于伦理非自然主义。G·E·摩尔(1873-1958；与摩尔定律之父无关)在“伦理学原理”一书中声称，由于这是一个开放的问题(即在缺乏内在价值的情况下工具价值的来源是无穷的)，好不能被定义。
Dogmatic approach to electing intrinsic value will be affected by knowledge. After all, dogmatic values will always be questioned as to why they have been elected axiomatically, and not others. Formally, assuming axiomatically that pleasure is of intrinsic value would reduce dogmatic axiology to hedonistic approach, while assuming that God makes the absolute value will equate axiology with a religion.

选择内在价值的教条主义方法会受到知识的影响。毕竟，教条主义的价值观总是会受到质疑，为什么他们是被选中的公理，而不是其他的。形式上，从公理上假设快乐具有内在价值将使教条价值论沦为享乐主义，而假设上帝创造绝对价值，则价值论将等同于宗教。
Agnostic approach seems most knowledge-friendly. Probabilistically, the search for new knowledge is valuable. This comes from the fact that it cannot be stated with certainty that intrinsic value does not exist. Formally, the value can be defined with the help of the concept of infinitely knowledgeable machine. Such an automaton should consistently show the preference for selected choices if these choices were to be determined as more valuable than others. From decision theory, we know that the value of choice equals the value of the goal multiplied by the probability of achieving the goal. Consequently, the choice of searching for value is always tagged with value greater than zero. The probability of achieving the goal will never be zero (as nothing in science is certain). Achieving value, by definition is valuable (as negative values can easily be normalized). In agnostic axiology, value is determined by the search for value and the seemingly perpetual inability to certify that value does not exist. In simple terms, if we do not know what makes value, the only thing we can do is to do our best to find out.

不可知论的方法似乎对知识最友好。从概率上讲，寻找新知识是有价值的。这源于这样一个事实，即不能肯定地说内在价值不存在。在形式上，可以借助无限知识机的概念来定义价值。如果要确定所选的选择比其他选择更有价值，那么这样的自动机应该一致地显示出对这些选择的偏好。从决策理论中，我们知道选择的价值等于目标价值乘以实现目标的概率。因此，搜索值的选择始终标记为大于零的值。实现目标的概率永远不会为零(因为科学上没有什么是确定的)。根据定义，实现价值是有价值的(因为负值很容易被标准化)。在不可知论的价值论中，价值是由对价值的追求和似乎永远无法证明价值不存在而决定的。简单地说，如果我们不知道什么是价值，我们唯一能做的就是尽力找出答案。

In scientific axiology, knowledge is a direct path towards understanding goodness and acting good (even though we may not be able to determine intrinsic value today). In the light of scientific axiology, knowledge is good.

在科学价值论中，知识是理解好和行动好的直接途径(即使我们今天可能无法确定内在价值)。从科学价值论的角度看，知识是好的。

专栏：学校教育问题

← 返回目录