The New Republic: 'Science Is Not Your Enemy: A plea for an intellectual truce'

I don't agree. I think that even a century and a half ago, most people would have bet anything that all that was standing as an obstancle to discovering the universe's purpose was technology and elbow grease. If we could just magnify large enough, and put in the work, things would be revealed. They have not been. Hence, we have had to at least soldier on accounting for the strong possibility of a different paradigm for understanding the universe we live in, one that may not include a divine being and, at the least, may not include a micromanaging divine being.

 

Since yesterday I've been mulling over this quote:

That is, from my admittedly biased perspective, a sentiment/argument that is dangerous as all get-out. The "greater good" argument can be used to justify all sorts of evil, evil things.

 

Well, yes. That's the argument against pure utilitarianism and always has been. But that doesn't mean that this isn't a viable first principle. It's certainly mine.

 

But his argument isn't that. It's that science has shown there is no purpose, so we've proven that these moral and political systems are false. You can say it's possible or likely all you want, but science has proven no such thing.

 

Then he'd have been some combination of him and you.

As it stands, the guy's "plea" is just a criticism of every field that doesn't blow sufficient sunshine up his rear end or chooses a course of life that doesn't get us closer to whatever actualization the guy's hoping for. And he's a boring writer. Most of science writing is boring. If it were better and more interesting, perhaps the humanities would have a greater appreciation for the all the great and wonderful human beings who are scientists.

 

If you have that as your first principle, and a scientifically informed view is, per your lights, pretty much the only logical game in town, how can you wind up anywhere else than in a purely utilitarian place? Put another way, to escape the utilitarian straitjacket, aren't you going to have to avail yourself of some non-scientific perspective?

 

Presumably, there is an evolutionary disadvantage to pure utilitarianism.

 

This is starting to remind me of that scene from Woody Allen's "Love and Death."

Sonja: "Let's say there is no God, and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. What prevents you from murdering somebody?"

Boris: "Murder's immoral."

Sonja: "Immorality is subjective."

Boris: "Yes, but subjectivity is objective."

Sonja: "Not in a rational scheme of perception."

Boris: "Perception is irrational. It implies imminence."

Sonja: "But judgment of any system of phenomena exists in any rational, metaphysical or epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself."

Boris: "Yeah, I've said that many times."

 

This author argues that there is room for purpose and science:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/15/should-creationism-be-controversial/the-science-can-be-seen-as-purposeful

It would be nice if the scientific story of our origins could be understood as purposeful, rather than as a series of accidents. ... (But e)volutionists have fought hard to make sure we understand evolution as lacking direction or purpose.

Personally, I think scientists are afraid to concede the possibility of purpose, because they think if they give an inch, creationists will take a mile. I maintain that Pinker's point would have been just as well-made if he had added the word "discernible," but I suspect that is not a compromise he feels comfortable making, for practical purposes as much as scientific.

 

Was wondering if you saw this ...

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/the-scientism-of-steven-pinker/?_r=0

 

I feel like if Douthat wants to talk about eugenics - a favored arrow of people like Douthat - he should stop mincing words and just talk about it.