a proof, by definition,” said Rodriguez, “but, similarly, by definition, what is not a proof is not a proof. A pseudoproof, for example, is not a proof.”
“But what of the decisive experiments?” asked Brenner.
“Much there depends on definition, the politician’s ally,” said Rodriguez. “For example, if a need is operationally defined as, say, something which must be satisfied within two hours or the organization perishes, then one has a certain number of needs, for example, for oxygen, for blood flowing to the brain, and so on; if one operationally defines a need as something which must be satisfied within three days or the organism perishes, then one has additional needs, and so on. For example, on the first definition, one does not have a need for water or food. On the second, one does not have a need for food, and so on.”
“But the frustration of sexual needs does not lead to death!” said Brenner, triumphantly.
“Or at least not to immediate death,” said Rodriguez. “There are, of course, numerous statistics, muchly suppressed now, in the best interests of the public, of course, that the failure to satisfy sexual needs may tend to shorten life considerably, by several years, in fact. To be sure, the matter is obscure, as the failure to satisfy these needs may be merely a part of, or a consequence of, a pathological syndrome, or a defective system, tending to be linked to decreased longevity.”
“You could have your degree revoked, or be imprisoned for expressing such thoughts on the home world,” said Brenner.
“Or be remanded for “smoothing” as a physiological deviant,” said Rodriguez, smiling.
“Yes,” said Brenner.
“I have declined that offer more than once,” said Rodriguez.
“The state would have borne the expenses of the operation,” Brenner pointed out.
“Even so,” said Rodriguez.
“It is interesting how people resist their own improvement,” said Brenner.
“Doubtless that is a symptom of their deficiency, and a proof of their need of a cure,” said Rodriguez.
“And this then occasionally necessitates the action of the state, to intervene in the best interests not only of the people but of the particular individual involved.”
“Some see it so,” said Rodriguez. “But returning briefly to the questions of needs, or drives, or whatever, I think it is important that you understand how definitions enter into these supposedly scientific matters, and, indeed, that the scientific results will depend, in effect, on how the definitions are constructed. For example, there is no point whatsoever, except from a political point of view, to define a need in terms of something that must be satisfied at the expense of life itself, and promptly, or soon, as though one could have only needs for such things as oxygen, food, and drinking water. What if the failure to satisfy a need, or whatever we choose to call it, resulted not in death, or at least not in immediately ensuant death, or whatever, but in misery, in frustration, in discomfort, in pain, in unhappiness, in lack of fulfillment, in psychic disarrangements, and such? I would be willing to call that sort of thing a need. Would a plant, for example, not have a need for a certain mineral, simply because it could drag out a pathetic, stunted existence without it? No, needs, at least as I would choose to understand them, are not simply connected with, say, the basic essentials for some level of metabolism and oxidation, and such, but with what is required for the plant to be fully healthy, and, indeed, to flourish.”
“But health, too, and such things, may be variously defined,” said Brenner.
“Of course,” said Rodriguez, “and doubtless will be defined in various ways, to accomplish various purposes. Some words are good words, so to speak. They are prizes to be fought over. An excellent example is the word ‘health’. That is a good word. That word is a prize. It will be fought over. It has favorable connotations, you see. People have been verbally conditioned to believe that health is good, that they should be healthy, and so on. Thus, the political trick is to take the old word, evacuate it of its customary meanings, replace those meanings with the new political meanings, and then count on the favorable connotations of the word to win over the public to your cause. Naturally this is never made clear to the public. Rather it is presented as a new cognitive discovery, as to what, say, “health” really is.”
“That is meretricious and deceitful,” said Brenner.
“It is done with many words. Excellent examples are ‘good’, ‘right’,