* The latest Rationally Speaking podcast: The Great Atheist debate on the limits of science.
* Jon Stewart makes fun of the Texas Board of (mis)Education.
* Couples fight openly on Facebook, so that they can "share" their lives with friends and relatives. Are people just insane?
* Massimo reviews Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini's insane book, What Darwin Got Wrong.
* Skeptic challenges guru to kill him on live tv by just using his psychic powers. Guess what happened...
* Procrastination is not such a bad thing, at least in some respects.
* The unseen and unknowable have no place in science.
* A frank editorial about the Pope's involvement in cases of Vatican-condoned pedophilia.
* New York Times columnist David Brooks just makes up stuff as he goes to support his preconceived notions. And he is a reasonable conservative!
* Daylight "saving" is no such thing.
* Barry Lynn on the mess with Texas rewriting history books.
* What is "normal"? A philosophical take.
* Most Americans are convinced that God helps them make everyday decisions. Could it be that's why the country is in such a mess?
* Michael Ruse on What Darwin Got Wrong and why it ain't a good book.
* On April 24, make sure you don't miss the Center for Inquiry-Chicago conference on Dangerous Nonsense, I'll be there...
Massimo, read your review of What Darwin Got Wrong.
ReplyDeleteHardly scathing as promised. More like a few paragraphs of an "If I wrote this I would have done it differently" argument. Excerpts as example:
"First, they claim that biologists’ emphasis on ecological, or exogenous, factors is misplaced because endogenous genetic and developmental constraints play a crucial part in generating organic forms." (And:)
"The first claim represents a distortion of the literature. The relative importance of natural
selection and internal constraints has always
been contended by biologists: molecular and
developmental biologists tend to focus on
internal mechanisms; ecologists and evolutionary
biologists prefer to address external ones."
Scathing? More like a copout on your part. At least the Boston Review piece took a hard shot at their exogenous factors criticism, even though they missed badly. You didn't even really try.
And so the rest of your piece went as well. Disappointing to those of us Fodor fans who wanted to scathe back at you.
Well Massimo, considering your fruitless but friendly exchange with a follower of St. Kurzweil, I have a critique for you.
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether you don't care or you consider it too continental...
But I've never seen you make any statement whatsoever on the fundamental philosophy of technology. Ever.
Why?
Perhaps you're incidentally in the determinist camp where that's concerned and you haven't given it the slightest thought. That would indeed be a shame.
Artie,
ReplyDeletesorry to disappoint you, as usual...
Harry,
I'm not sure what it means to be in the "determinist" camp.
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteI am a fairly regular reader, though I seldom comment. I have been wondering about the characteristics of "normal", particularly as it plays out in the culture wars. To me, things that are within expected parameters, though they may be in the minority, for example, homosexuality or left handedness, can still be called normal. If something can be predicted, then it is hard to consider it outside of the norm.
What do you think?
How funny! Just last night I was listening to Julian Baggini's (sp?) podcast interview with this Fodor fellow, and I was thinking "mmmm I wonder what Massimo thinks of this?" Now I will soon know! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean the freewill/determinist binary.
ReplyDeleteI meant someone who sees technology as a self-propagating thing, where man is practically incidental and each technological device invented is without ambiguity.
Jimmy,
ReplyDeleteyeah, the definition of "normal" is a fishy subject. But I suppose there is a good sense in which, statistically, "the norm" is simply the most frequent type in the population, which would of course exclude homosexuals, minorities, etc. But non-normal in a statistical sense does not carry any negative moral connotation.
Harry,
I don't think that humans are incidental to technology at all. At the moment there are no examples of self-propagating technologies.
Indeed, poor choice of words.
ReplyDeleteColloquially what 'seeing technology as a self-propogating thing' means is observing technology without seeing the cultural influences or fiscal implications.
Since you're in the analytic tradition I'll have to clean up the language.
But I don't believe I'm remotely close to the boundaries of nonsense by critiquing your ignorance of the philosophy of technology.
Though admittedly I can only grasp this by your "debate" with a guardian of the new utopia. What did Kurzweil call it? The coming singularity.
Internet rapture. Can I get an amen?
Harry,
ReplyDeletenow I get what you are referring to. I really don't think that my critique of transhumanism requires a deep understanding of philosophy of technology, but I'm willing to listen.
As for observing technology w/out seeing its cultural influences or fiscal implications, if you watched the debate I don't think you can seriously accuse me of that.
Fair enough. I can't be too careful about reading or viewing the opinions I hold, or assume others have, into the philosophizing at hand.
ReplyDeleteI'll watch it again so as to give weight to that judgmental finger pointing out from my icon.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Upon reviewing, surprise surprise, I didn't have to change much of my former 'accusation' (though that term seems a little hyperbolic).
ReplyDeleteBut I do need to correct myself in this. First, you were debating within the confines of a subject previously agreed upon. So it would be unfair of me to declare any ignorance of yours about technology simply considering the framework.
Second, to your credit and I'm assuming due also to your general practice of reasoning, you briefly mentioned technology's relational aspects with other disciplines (implying its separateness of course), and in fact did mention its fiscal consequences. You also more than emphasized a need to prioritize the why, what, and when of new technologies' creation.
However, working within what you, and someone who I maintain is a disciple of a new religion, were discussing, you are ignorant of the philosophy of technology generally speaking.
I found nothing in which to say that you understand its fundamental components; you do see it mainly as an aggregate of devices through a watered down Marxist(?) view of its fiscal and social implications. Which, while "good," is still very incomplete.
So my icon's finger remains firm.
Critique aside, It would be interesting to see your take on aspects of this particular discipline of philosophy.
I also apologize for making no positive statements about technology in this response. If you have the inclination I will do so in another post.
Harry,
ReplyDeletefirst of all, gratuitous accusations of ignorance do not advance discourse. Second, you don't actually seem to disagree much with what I said during the debate. Third, where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a Marxist?? Search this blog for the entry entitled 'Surrounded by Marxists'...
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "...gratuitous accusations of ignorance do not advance discourse."
You are of course correct, but I thought my apology at the end of the last post redressed the issue at least slightly.
Apologies in advance for the proof surrogate, but you and I both know that I could agree with everything you said and still maintain it wasn't enough.
And to rid this exchange of at least one subject. I have only my norm to go by concerning how you handled an imam of transhumanism. The consistent pejoratives I've been using about him, are ultimately irrelevant concerning the main topic.
As far as Marx, the question mark was supposed to imply my ignorance on the matter, not yours. I was literally expecting you to correct me concerning that label, a shot in the dark because economics was skirted in your debate.
Marxism has indeed been proposed to ameliorate one of the so-called 'Problems of Technology.' And as far as he's concerned I have no idea where you stand, nor for right now do I care.
This is all banter.
If you would like me to start defining and "elucidating" instead of defending my position (which is only reinforcing what I believe and not enlightening anyone), just ask, if you're interested.
---
The 'Surrounded by Marxists' line was cute by the way.