Steven Pinker / Evolutionary Psychology

[Calva dosser]

On a demo?

 

[Jonti]

It's not without meaning though. This is what pisses me off about how Gorski and Dwyer are treated on this forum. ...

And their style of posting (insulting and abrasive) does not piss you off? You certainly never seem to suggest they can make their points as if talking to intelligent adults.

It may be more effective, if you want their contributions to be heard, to address your advise about how to behave on a bulletin board to people who adopt a snobbish, insulting and abrasive style, rather than those they pick on!

 

[Jonti]

More over I think the philosophical reconstruction of the scientific method works against the social interests of science. As I said earlier on in the thread, the revelatory tone you’ll see in some critics of science when they observe that evolution is just a theory is largely a product of the metaphysical certainty scientific realism tries to underwrite. If you take actually existing scientific practice on its own merits, as opposed to philosophical reflection on its relationship to Truth, much of the case the critics make vanishes. It’s actually not that hard to walk the line between scientism and obfuscation.

Reading this, I can understand why people just laugh at the pretensions of most philosophers

What you seem to be saying is that the "revelatory tone" observed in some critics of science is due to the critics' own ideas of science, rather than on actually existing scientific practice.

Well, I agree. But the remedy isn't so much for physicists to read Kant, as it is for the scientifically illiterate critics (mostly from an arts/humanities background) to get a clue about how science works.

 

[agentred]

Truth bwhahaha.

 

[phildwyer]

Good to see such an interesting debate on posting styles, with such a wide range of opinions too. It gets a bit nasty at the end, but hey that's tiniternet:

And their style of posting (insulting and abrasive) does not piss you off? You certainly never seem to suggest they can make their points as if talking to intelligent adults.

What an unpleasantly patronising man

What laughably ignorant toss! Wake up and smell the coffee folks! There is a real world and it is OK to be right! And, no, it is not arrogant to say so, and vigorously to assert scientific truth.

Grades:

JC2 - Glib unpleasantries A+

(get a clue JC2, as it is, you're a waste of brain tissue)

 

[nosos]

That would be why he's been on my ignore list for ages.

 

[phildwyer]

But the remedy isn't so much for physicists to read Kant, as it is for the scientifically illiterate critics (mostly from an arts/humanities background) to get a clue about how science works.

So what you're saying is philosphers should read science, but scientists don't have to read philosophy. Well obviously no-one's going to take that seriously.

Personally I think we should each read each other's disciplines, for the mutual incomprehension between scientists and philosophers is costing the world dearly. But I find many more philosophers reading science than the other way round.

 

[Calva dosser]

Scientists dont really need to read a great deal of philosophy.

They have scientific philosophers to do that for them.

A bit like electric monks of Douglas Adams fame.

Those boys can believe anything, briefly.

 

[Jonti]

Six impossible things before breakfast is my limit!

 

[editor]

Good to see such an interesting debate on posting styles, with such a wide range of opinions too. It gets a bit nasty at the end, but hey that's tiniternet:

And you're helping how, exactly?

 

[gorski]

Are you asking of him to be a bland, bollockless Christian and simply turn the other cheek, then? Shouldn't it be one's right and duty to push back and defend oneself?