tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post8602710008717806437..comments2023-09-11T01:18:18.763-07:00Comments on Natural Right and Biology: The War Between the Humanities & ScienceKen Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-9244731527074645542013-09-18T19:28:38.646-07:002013-09-18T19:28:38.646-07:00Thank you, Ms. Flint. I have decided to reply to ...Thank you, Ms. Flint. I have decided to reply to this note in a separate post.Ken Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-26945980188672439522013-09-17T06:36:53.699-07:002013-09-17T06:36:53.699-07:00Thanks, Dr. Blanchard:
I read Wieseltier quite d...Thanks, Dr. Blanchard: <br /><br />I read Wieseltier quite differently. In my view, he was not arguing so much that science should not ask questions about certain topics, but instead that it should not smother out other disciplines. He takes issue with the scientific community trying to make every great thinker into a “scientist” and thinks that the humanities have some claim to greatness. I think that that view is fair. <br /><br />As I read Wieseltier’s article, it seems to me less like he is arguing that science should not ask questions about certain topics and more like it could not provide certain kinds of answers. His approach seems somewhat similar to the one you make in your Praying Apes post, where you say, "Understanding how our evolved inclinations make prayer possible and how they influence its expressions cannot tell us whether the object of that turning exists or what its character is." There are some things science may not answer well. Wieseltier uses the Tolstoy example as evidence of this. I think he's right - at least concerning Tolstoy. <br /><br />He does say that he is taking issue with science, but as I read through his article, it seems to me that he is criticizing scientific personalities far more than he is criticizing science itself. He is particularly objecting to the idea of scientists having authority over others. "It is not enough for them that the humanities recognize and respect the sciences; they need the humanities to submit to the sciences, and be subsumed by them."<br />He may be right to be worried if Pinker’s treatment of Tolstoy is any indication.<br />M. Flintnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-84472333096025834202013-09-16T20:46:42.038-07:002013-09-16T20:46:42.038-07:00Ms. Flint:
Wieseltier speaks not of scientists o...Ms. Flint: <br /><br />Wieseltier speaks not of scientists or the scientific community, but of science. He is clearly trying to limit the domain of topics into which science can legitimately inquire. This strikes me as wrong headed, for Aristotelian reasons. If you ask what a human being is, both a materialist scientist and a poet can offer answers: a cloud of molecules and a soul at odds with itself. These answers are not in opposition because they interpret the question in different ways. Occasionally, there will be intersections between their intellectual trajectories. What is the role of neurotransmitters in the capacity for love? Wieseltier wants to discourage such encounters. I think we should encourage them. <br /><br />I think you are onto something by bringing in the separation of Church and State. I would note however that this is a matter not of intellectual authority but of political authority, which is to say power. When climate change zealots try to use their influence over journals and institutions to silence critics, that is indeed analogous to religious zealots using political power to silence dissenters against their orthodoxy. That is indeed offensive and should be resisted. <br /><br />I just don't think that that is what Wieseltier is about. What he objects to is scientists inquiring into topics that he regards as outside their domain. I respectfully dissent. Ken Blanchardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09580209017016829598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-223797477664258632.post-44015990014404381822013-09-13T22:27:11.548-07:002013-09-13T22:27:11.548-07:00Might Wieseltier be scared of the scientific commu...Might Wieseltier be scared of the scientific community rather than science itself? His argument isn't entirely unlike the idea of the separation of church and state. Just as Jefferson seems to fear the influence of religion on politics, Wieseltier may fear the influence of overzealous members of the scientific community who make things like climate change into something like a religion on science and morality/politics/art. Jeffersons fear may have been justified. Wieseltier's may be too.M. Flintnoreply@blogger.com