Saturday, May 21, 2011

note taking. Synthese again, at scienceblogs/pharyngula.
Philosophers still argue among themselves whether or not what they do is "garbage", so perhaps they should be more cautious throwing accusations of "non-epistemology" at outsiders.
And empiricists should be cautious taking sides in arguments that are fundamentally theological.
update: a reply that misses my point completely, and a rejoinder.
And empiricists should be cautious taking sides in arguments that are fundamentally theological.
"When theologists stop making claims about what is real I will stop engaging them for empirical evidence."
---
A smart defender of ID can point to debates among philosophers as evidence that their own arguments should be taken seriously. Defenders of evolution should not be defending philosophic pretension to science.
That last should not be understated.
Myers himself is a model of scientist as anti-political, therefore anti-intellectual.

Previously
Leiter
New Apps etc.

5/21: And again at New APPS
I'll repeat and expand on what I said elsewhere:
A smart defender of ID could -and probably should- point to debates among philosophers as evidence that their own arguments should be taken seriously. Those wanting to defend the teaching of evolution should therefore not become trapped into defending philosophic pretension to science. Evolution should be defended in the most vulgar terms foundational to common understanding. The arguments of philosophers, as opposed to scientists, should be avoided like the plague.

It's obvious the EIC's of Synthese had no idea of the politics involved in what I can only imagine they saw as another special issue on a specific question of epistemology, and therefore of no consequence in the wider political and intellectual world. When they found out that some people took the underlying issues seriously enough to be angry, they freaked. This is not to their credit. At the same time, given all I've read over the past years, including the discussion linked above, accusations of "non-epistemology" hurled by academic philosophers make me laugh. I write this as someone whose mother was attacked in writing as evil incarnate for her work at the ACLU, and as a vile representative of the perversities of liberalism. I shudder to think of the abuse if any of her critics had ever found out she'd never been to law school or that her Ph.D. (strictly speaking AbD) was in English Literature.

No comments: