tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post5626629151829041110..comments2023-09-11T01:18:18.763-07:00Comments on Natural Right and Biology: Against Domains: A Reply to Ms. FlintKen Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-74544576388600364282013-09-27T21:12:15.446-07:002013-09-27T21:12:15.446-07:00Miranda: thank you for your comments. I always en...Miranda: thank you for your comments. I always enjoy them and profit from them. <br /><br />The distinction between physical and moral sciences goes all the way back to Aristotle, who noted that the latter does not allow the same degree of precision as the former; nonetheless, they are both sciences, as Jefferson, I think, would agree. One cannot speak of the laws of nature and of nature's God without a concept of nature and that itself is the root of all science and philosophy. <br /><br />Locke was not a scientist but he was about as thorough an empiricist as one can be. All genuine knowledge comes either from sensory data or from our reflection on our own thoughts. Empiricism is the basic epistemological strategy of modern science. His theories of the mind and of perception clearly involve the physical sciences as they were advancing in his time. I know of nowhere that Locke indicates any need for a boundary between the physical and the moral sciences, let alone a boundary between philosophy and science. <br /><br />I think you read W. rightly when you say that his complaint about scientizers is that they "should not use their muddy boots to stamp out other disciplines or their voracious appetites to absorb them." I just don't have any idea who these scientizers are. Who, among the partisans of science, wants to stamp out other disciplines? <br /><br />It is true that some science-minded thinkers do regard some intellectual or cultural traditions as basically fraudulent and embarrassing. I am among them. I think that New Age mysticism and "Creation Science" are largely, if not entirely, numbskull enterprises. I think that the latter, in particular, fails embarrassingly both as science and as Biblical interpretation. On the other hand, I think that Intelligent Design theory is intellectually and scientifically serious even if it ultimately fails as science. I also think that the tradition of Christian and Judaic theology is entirely serious. <br /><br />Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens think that all religion and especially Biblical religion are basically buffoonery. I disagree; but the problem with their views is not that they are scientizing or that they have refused to recognize that the boundaries between disciplines are "final" as Wieseltier puts it. It is just that they judge wrongly in the case of religion and put the boundary between what is intellectually serious and what is not in the wrong place. Such controversies are what the history of philosophy is all about. <br /><br />Ken Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-17284539113113834992013-09-23T00:15:18.899-07:002013-09-23T00:15:18.899-07:00First, thank you for your reply.
Next, Locke an...First, thank you for your reply. <br /><br />Next, Locke and Company:<br />I cautiously disagree. By the 1780s, you have Thomas Jefferson referring to the “physical and moral sciences”, indicating that there was some distinction between the two, though I’ll admit that many were involved in both.<br />I have not seen much indication in Locke’s writings that he was, but since you certainly know Locke better than I do, you may be able to point to some examples. I suppose he must have had some dealings in the physical sciences, because he was a physician, but the theories he is known for, at least in my view, have very little to do with physical science and much more to do with moral science and philosophy. Therefore, I think it is fair for Wieseltier to object to the scientific community’s usurpation of thinkers like Locke. <br />I think I may disagree with you concerning the similarity in the world view of Locke and members of the modern scientific community as well, but I’m not sure what similarities you are referring to. <br />Regarding Science vs. Scientism: Pruett’s division makes sense to me too – and I do think that Wiesltier’s real problem is with Scientism rather than science, even if he says that it is with science. I also think his argument is less that scientists should “get their muddy boots out of the parlor” and more that they should not use their muddy boots to stamp out other disciplines or their voracious appetites to absorb them.<br />Your example is different. You confine yourself to “the scientific questions” of religion and leave room for other perspectives and answers. Some would not be so careful.<br />Miranda Flintnoreply@blogger.com