Aug 8, 2017 04:14 AM
(This post was last modified: Aug 8, 2017 04:21 AM by C C.)
Is science all you need? Massimo Pigliucci on a position that might be best forgotten - review of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions ... by Alex Rosenberg
(PDF) http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGISA.1.pdf
EXCERPT: “Scientism”, usually, is an insult. It is used in philosophy to connote an attitude of excessive infatuation with science, which leads one to discard other branches of knowledge or human experience and to care only about issues that are amenable to the scientific approach. As a former scientist and now philosopher, I have chastised some of my colleagues for their scientistic attitude, only to be told that “scientism” is simply a label that one attaches to positions one does not like. Just like using “pseudoscience” to dismiss, say, the paranormal; or “crook” to shrug off a politician.
I am therefore glad that Alex Rosenberg has written an entire book to make the case for scientism – the idea, he says, that “the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything” – as the only rational ideology one could possibly hold in the face of what science tells us about the way the world is. Thanks to him, I can no longer be accused of fighting a straw man. Rosenberg’s attempt is valiant and will give people much to think about. Except, of course, that according to Rosenberg we cannot really think such things because scientism “says” that chunks of matter cannot possibly produce thoughts about anything at all, on penalty of violating physicalism.
For Rosenberg there are simple, science-driven answers to all of life’s persistent questions, and he gives the short version right at the beginning of his book: Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? Whatever physics says it is. What is the meaning of life? Nope. Why am I here? Dumb luck. Is there free will? Not a chance. What is love? The solution to a strategic interaction problem. Does morality exist? No. And so on. In some cases I agree with Rosenberg’s answers, though I think his reasoning relies far too much on what after all are science’s provisional findings (I mean, until 15 years ago we thought the universe was slowing down; turns out it’s accelerating, maybe), while in other cases I think he is either wrong or at least does not come close to providing a satisfactory argument for his positions. Then again, that’s the problem with scientism: it starts with a kernel of truth and in "inflates it into a cosmic nihilism (Rosenberg’s word, which he uses proudly) of increasingly uncertain grounding....
MORE: https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGISA
(PDF) http://philpapers.org/archive/PIGISA.1.pdf
EXCERPT: “Scientism”, usually, is an insult. It is used in philosophy to connote an attitude of excessive infatuation with science, which leads one to discard other branches of knowledge or human experience and to care only about issues that are amenable to the scientific approach. As a former scientist and now philosopher, I have chastised some of my colleagues for their scientistic attitude, only to be told that “scientism” is simply a label that one attaches to positions one does not like. Just like using “pseudoscience” to dismiss, say, the paranormal; or “crook” to shrug off a politician.
I am therefore glad that Alex Rosenberg has written an entire book to make the case for scientism – the idea, he says, that “the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything” – as the only rational ideology one could possibly hold in the face of what science tells us about the way the world is. Thanks to him, I can no longer be accused of fighting a straw man. Rosenberg’s attempt is valiant and will give people much to think about. Except, of course, that according to Rosenberg we cannot really think such things because scientism “says” that chunks of matter cannot possibly produce thoughts about anything at all, on penalty of violating physicalism.
For Rosenberg there are simple, science-driven answers to all of life’s persistent questions, and he gives the short version right at the beginning of his book: Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? Whatever physics says it is. What is the meaning of life? Nope. Why am I here? Dumb luck. Is there free will? Not a chance. What is love? The solution to a strategic interaction problem. Does morality exist? No. And so on. In some cases I agree with Rosenberg’s answers, though I think his reasoning relies far too much on what after all are science’s provisional findings (I mean, until 15 years ago we thought the universe was slowing down; turns out it’s accelerating, maybe), while in other cases I think he is either wrong or at least does not come close to providing a satisfactory argument for his positions. Then again, that’s the problem with scientism: it starts with a kernel of truth and in "inflates it into a cosmic nihilism (Rosenberg’s word, which he uses proudly) of increasingly uncertain grounding....
MORE: https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGISA
