tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post7769870010651829728..comments2024-03-28T09:06:16.955+01:00Comments on Häggström hävdar: Akademiska gränsvakterOlle Häggströmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-54555676871628227162015-06-03T03:19:29.437+02:002015-06-03T03:19:29.437+02:00Se även
http://www.svd.se/blir-du-lonsam-lille-hum...Se även<br />http://www.svd.se/blir-du-lonsam-lille-humanist/om/kultur:under-strecketArne Söderqvistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-32652744704610766752013-09-28T16:56:59.494+02:002013-09-28T16:56:59.494+02:00Debatten mellan Pinker och Wieseltier fortsätter! ...<a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114754/steven-pinker-leon-wieseltier-debate-science-vs-humanities" rel="nofollow">Debatten mellan Pinker och Wieseltier fortsätter!</a> Pinkers nya svar förtjänar (till skillnad mot Wieseltiers) att citeras utförligt:<br /><br /><i>"In his commentary on my essay 'Science is Not your Enemy,' Leon Wieseltier writes, 'It is not for science to say whether science belongs in morality and politics and art.' I reply: It is not for Leon Wieseltier to say where science belongs. Good ideas can come from any source, and they must be evaluated on their cogency, not on the occupational clique of the people who originated them.<br /><br />Wieseltier’s insistence that science should stay inside a box he has built for it and leave the weighty questions to philosophy is based on a fallacy. Yes, certain propositions are empirical, others logical or conceptual or normative; they should not be confused. But propositions are not academic disciplines. Science is not a listing of empirical facts, nor has philosophy ever confined itself to the non-empirical.<br /><br />Why should either discipline stay inside Wieseltier’s sterile rooms? Does morality have nothing to do with the facts of human well-being, or with the source of human moral intuitions? Does political theory have nothing to learn from a better understanding of people’s inclinations to cooperate, aggress, hoard, share, work, empathize, or submit to authority? Is art really independent of language, perception, memory, emotion? If not, and if scientists have made discoveries about these faculties which go beyond received wisdom, why <b>isn’t</b> it for them to say that these ideas belong in any sophisticated discussion of these topics?"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114754/steven-pinker-leon-wieseltier-debate-science-vs-humanities" rel="nofollow">Läs mer här!</a>Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-10123096042668534322013-09-18T10:53:48.512+02:002013-09-18T10:53:48.512+02:00Very good point, Thore!
One distinction that can...Very good point, Thore! <br /><br />One distinction that can be made is guarding against people with the wrong kind of CV (bad) vs guarding against bad kinds of argument (good). I'd say that my rants against, e.g., <a href="http://haggstrom.blogspot.se/2012/10/homeopati-hor-inte-hemma-pa-chalmers.html" rel="nofollow">homopathy</a> or <a href="http://haggstrom.blogspot.se/2011/12/antivetenskaplig-irrpropaganda-i-usa.html" rel="nofollow">climate denial</a> fall in the latter category. But then Wieseltier might claim the same about his rants agians scientism. In that case, I guess I'd had to revert to a distinction between, on one hand, a scientific attitude emphasizing critical thinking and respect for empirical data, and, on the other hand, all sorts of sloppy reasoning and fake arguments. Wieseltier guards against the former; I guard against the latter. <br /><br />I believe that a deper look at comparing scientism and pseudoscience may well be worthwile, but currently I'll just have to postpone that to an unspecified future... Olle Häggströmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07965864908005378943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8131794231697217573.post-32259410532253196792013-09-17T12:19:00.451+02:002013-09-17T12:19:00.451+02:00Just to be contrary: your (commendable) activities...Just to be contrary: your (commendable) activities about pseudoscience are another example of epistemological border patrol. So that activity can not in itself be invalid.<br /><br />The battle cry of “Scientism” is perfectly echoed by the cry of “Pseudoscience!” whenever we feel that somebody infringes on our magisterial turf using invalid epistemological tools. Now, I’m sure a useful distinction between those two battle cries can be made, and I’m sure that you and I can both make the distinction in our favour. (I think such an argument would need to distinguish between objects-of-study and methods-of-study.) But border patrol is not prima facie wrong.<br /><br />On a related note, let me recommend (Danish Turing Award winner) Peter Naur’s antiphilosophical dictionary. Good fun. http://www.naur.com/new.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com