I’ve been trying to think of some new posts on philosophical issues here, and I have a few too many ideas — some (if not most) of which would be of little interest, I conjecture, to most participants here. So I turn it over to you: what topics, if any, would you like to see raised?
Here’s what I have in mind: people here make suggestions, I look them over and see which ones fall within my limited expertise, and then write up a post on that issue for framing discussion.
If that sounds good to you, then have at it!
I recently got into a discussion/disagreement with John Wilkins, over the role of convention. You can find it starting with my comment to this post. I made one more comment than is shown, but I’m not sure if I forgot to press the “submit” button, or if it is in a moderation queue. But, never mind. I intend discussing it on my own blog.
If it’s a topic you are comfortable discussing here, I’ll participate.
Cool link. Will require some time.
Neil Rickert,
I’m a bit reluctant to get into a serious discussion of convention, because I haven’t read David Lewis’ ground-breaking treatment of the subject. But I’m definitely interested in the general question of realism and anti-realism (and the related — though distinct — question of essentialism and anti-essentialism).
A few months ago, over at Uncommon Descent, I claimed that their questions about the origins of higher-order taxa (phyla being a big one with them) are pseudo-problems, because everything above the species level is merely nominal — whereas species are real, though (following Ghiselin) real qua individuals, much as teams are individuals that are aggregates of other things, rather than “kinds” (as in the Aristotelian tradition).
I have no idea if this is a view taken seriously by philosophers of biology — it’s just a claim that seemed right to me at the time.
Speaking for myself alone, this venue is somewhat philosophy-heavy these days, and is the less attractive/interesting because of that.
damitall2,
I’m glad you said that! While obviously there’s nothing I can do about that, since I’m the philosopher here, it should be brought to the attention of other contributors who are in a position to do something about it.
“philosophy-heavy” – “I’m the [lone?] philosopher here”
Actually, I find it philosophy-light. See for example KN’s ‘scientism’ thread, where denialists at TSZ were in full dresses. Maybe because the majority here are living in the USA or UK, where the ‘social environment’ doesn’t allow them to face IDEOLOGY with due diligence and depth. Maybe? Or just shut the curtains.
“Philosophy: Call for Topics” sounds kinda like “We don’t matter – Please Humour Us.” KN has not yet given a significant statement about why philosophy matters nowadays. And I doubt if he actually can do enough to convince most ‘scientists’ here…or even most non-scholars either.
Wisdom on the cheap; just semantics, no Solomon, no Solovyov, no signature, no siren, no significance. Science alone is enough. And skepticism.
Actually Gregory killed the scientism thread by never responding to calls for examples of where scientism has caused problems.
Of course I think philosophy matters a great deal! And I apologize for the suggestion that I’m the only philosopher here!
I put up the ‘call for topics’ because I conjecture that the things I’m most interested in — such as Wilfrid Sellars’ criticism of “the myth of the given,” or whether pragmatist epistemology is compatible with realism in metaphysics — are likely to be of little interest to most participants here. And I want my posts here to be about things that other people here are interested in. If I just want to be talking about my own concerns, I’d do that on my own blog, not on a group blog.
I don’t object to philosophy if the topic can be made relevant to biology.
Is there a philosophically (not theologically) consistent argument to accept a recent creation event (YEC) and reject scientific evidence to the contrary, while accepting most other scientific claims. If so, what implications would it have on science as a whole?
rhampton,
Personally, I can’t think of one. As I see it, science is a web of loosely interconnected models, and pulling on one would have really serious implications for all the others.
Consider, for example, what follows from positing a “recent creation event”. For one thing, that would conflict with the data we have about radioactive decay. So what? Well, we have a theory that explains what radioactive decay is and why it happens as it does. So insisting on a recent creation-event would entail that our theory of radioactive decay — the weak force — is radically mistaken. And that theory has been integrated with the theory of electromagnetism — the theory of electroweak interactions, which has been experimentally confirmed. So if we say that our theory of radioactive decay is wrong, what happens to our theory of electroweak interactions?
“I don’t object to philosophy if the topic can be made relevant to biology.”
For example, KN, would you be willing to face the ideology of biologism?
“I’d do that on my own blog”
Btw, what’s your blog address?
petrushka,
Duly noted! 🙂
I guess so, though I don’t know really know what you mean by “the ideology of biologism”. Something like Lewontin’s Biology as Ideology?
Actually, I don’t have a blog of my own. I keep on meaning to start one, but I find group blogs like this one much more interesting.
Go beyond the USAmerican discourse, KN. Ludwig von Bertalanffy on ‘biologism’ (1950): http://www.isnature.org/Events/2009/Summer/r/Bertalanffy1950-GST_Outline_SELECT.pdf
Of course, most biologists dismiss biologism as impossible. They are philosophical primitives who just want to ‘Cry, Cry, Cry’ as if they are being unfairly mistreated. As if they alone are unable to ideologically exaggerate their discipline/field/theories.
“… if the topic can be made relevant to biology.”
Or try here: http://www.uabgrants.org/
Gregory, this forum was created because many of us were barred from discussing evolution at UD. That has been its focus. Other topics are allowed but I see a drop off in attendance when the topic wanders completely away.
Perhaps you could offer some reason why we should be excited by your hobby horse. I didn’t see any in your pdf. It seem to be an overview leading to a discussion that never occurs. The essay just stops after what looks like an abstract.
Fair point. And I don’t have my heart set on contributing any further philosophy to this forum. I just wanted to put it to the community here what they’d like to see me discuss. If the answer turns out to be, “nothing!”, I won’t take it personally.
I don’t mind a bit of variety, but I think the ID crowd has a tendency to promise a connection between philosophy and more mundane life, I fail to see the connection.
Good joke, Gregory.
“UAB Grants” is “Use and Abuse of Bioogy grants programme and essay competition”.
Organised by The Faraday Institute? Well then, let’s see who they are.
Haha. Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, funded solely by grant from religious billionaire’s Templeton Foundation
Oh yeah, they’ll be producing completely unbiased research about the “abuse” of science in general, and “biologism” in particular, in western culture. Sure, any day now.
Meanwhile, they’ve accomplished such impeccable work as:
Wonderful sense of humor you’ve got, Gregory. You were pulling our legs with that Templeton silliness, weren’t you?
P.S. What on Earth made you babble disapprovingly about “majority here are living in the USA or UK” and then, just a few minutes later, recommend a source at Cambridge of all places? Can’t get more UK than that!
Brits are okay with you as long as they’re Cambridge scholars, is that it? Do you admit to being a bit classist? Or is it that Brits are okay as long as they’re in thrall to Templeton money and perforce must agree with you (and John T’s heirs) on “dangers” of science, or else lose their daily bread?
It’s an apology of sorts (possibly quite sincere, but totally academic) from a Austrian standing in the wreckage of WWII. No wonder he warns of the “danger” of a mechanical view of the world: much less painful to blame “biologism” for devaluing humans’ lives than to admit that your cousins/countrymen were so twisted by religion and by lies about history that they consciously murdered untold millions.
I’m sure the 1950s were full of “scholars” like von Bertalanffy – as well as politicians and religious leaders of all stripes – eager to prove they weren’t among the heartless scientists who had invented the death machinery. They were all so eager to get back to business as usual, to Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
I’m sure that Gregory’s 1950 pdf has zero importance to any human living today. What I can’t guess is why Gregory lifted a finger to post it here. Why would even Gregory himself care about that moldy old nonsense?
Suggested Topics:
1. Causation
e.g., Causation: A User’s Guide
2. Teleology
e.g., Teleology, First Principles, and Scientific Method in Aristotle’s Biology
3. The Enlightenment
e.g., The Philosophy of the Enlightenment
WTF is “biologism”?
Oh, and for the elimination of doubt, I have no animus toward philosophy or philosophers; I just don’t find philosophy particularly interesting, myself.
Biologism caused Hitler. It’s obvious.
Petrushka, Gregory, and hotshoe: please try and behave like civilized human beings towards each other. Each time I read one of your smirking, sarcastic remarks I’m tempted to leave TSZ and never return. If driving me away is one of your goals, then by all means, continue to act like teenagers.
Neil and Mung have raised interesting suggestions. I’m very interested in teleology in biology, and I’m also very interested in realism/anti-realism and essentialism/anti-essentialism. And, of course, I’m passionate about the Enlightenment, and have a recently-discovered interest in Cassirer. So those are all definite possibilities!
By all means feel free to make a case for teleology in biology. Make a case for anything you want in science in general or biology in particular. I just would like
to see the point of traction. The place where the rubber hits the road.
Gregory and Mung — more than yourself — have implied some unspecified and unsupported negative consequences for holding incorrect philosophical views. I’d like to see that defended.
petrushka,
Fair enough! Will do!
KN, are you at all familiar with ‘Systems Theory’? To dismiss von Bertalanffy as an “Austrian standing in the wreckage of WWII” is of course absurd. Next to dismiss Isabelle Stengers and Ilya Prigogine too? http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/generalsystemstheory.htm
I asked you about biologism, KN, offering that as an interesting ‘philosophical topic.’ You said, “I guess so, though I don’t know really know what you mean by “the ideology of biologism”.” So I provided a link, to an excerpt from a highly significant paper from the 20th century (from the founder of General Systems Theory, following the Tektology of Bogdanov), which briefly addresses it. If you’d like to follow-up on it and discuss it, be welcome. Or would you rather choose to dismiss it from relevance too?
Would it be too much to ask you to use your imagination, KN, in the hope of reasoning together about what exaggerating biology into biologism *might* mean (in case you are willing to entertain that possibility)? I find this to be a highly relevant and current (though underexplored, unlike ‘scientism,’ which is now a hot topic, especially after Pinker’s recent spiel) philosophical conversation, especially in the aftermath of socio-biology and D.W. Wilson’s ‘evolution for everyone.’ The notion of biologism of course directly relates to ‘evolution’ and ‘evolutionism’ as petrushka should realise, but it comes at the topic from a philosophical way by exploring the ideological exaggeration that many biologists seemingly don’t wish to acknowledge exists. Shouldn’t that be right up your philosophical alley, KN?
Systems thinking is elevationist, not reductionist. You are anti-reductionism, if I understand you correctly, KN, are you not? And there is also room for supra-materialism in systems philosophy, even if you wish to carry on a feud with Abrahamic religion mainly for political reasons. Much evolutionistic thought is reductionistic, even synonymous with biologism. I had thought perhaps discussing that might interest you.
As I said above, “KN has not yet given a significant statement about why philosophy matters nowadays.” Why not try that? For those who “don’t find philosophy particularly interesting,” why not show them something interesting? As for me, I find philosophy wonderful, so there’s no need to convince me.
As a non-American who has studied with European philosophers, I find the topic of ideology fascinating and see it at work regularly in the American evolutionism, creationism & Intelligent Design Theory conversation. Those who refuse to acknowledge even their own (rather obvious) ideologies as they continue to defend one position or another are not helping the communicative clarity (as Habermas promotes). At least you, KN, unlike some here, are openly willing to discuss your ideologies and explore their meanings, which is refreshing.
Kantian Naturalist:
Real Essentialism
Two birds with one stone?
I read the von Bertalanffy article and found it quite interesting. I was drawn to Prigogine’s writings with Stengers because she was a student of Deleuze, from what I understand, and I went through a substantial Deleuze phase while in grad school. A friend of mine who is an old, old friend of Prigogine related to me once the following story:
I’m fascinated by all these attempts to put the Romantic criticism of mechanism, materialism, reductionism (etc.) into a mathematically precise language. Even though my own grasp of mathematics is exceedingly slight, I find it really interesting that those attempts are out there! I remember reading Oyama’s “The Ontogeny of Information” while in college, and it had a massive impact on me.
So, von Bertalanffy has a meaning for “biologism” that he gives as follows:
In these terms, ‘reducing’ psychology or sociology to biology would be an instance of ‘biologism’. Now, von Bertalanffy does not tell us just why biologism is mistaken, and the reader is expected to understand what the fatal practical consequences are. (Presumably, something about the Holocaust and/or eugenics.)
However, one can, I think, find the philosophical heart of von Bertalanffy’s worries about biologism by noticing two things. Firstly, that “mental, cultural, and sociological phenomena” are constituted by the notion of normativity, of “ought-ness”. Secondly, that (following Hume, etc.) normative facts are irreducible to natural facts.
(I think, however, that the irreducibility of normative facts to natural facts is a different kind of irreducibility than the irreducibility of one kind of natural facts — e.g. the biological kind — to another kind of natural fact — e.g. the physical kind.)
So, if normative facts are irreducible to natural facts, and mental, cultural, and sociological phenomena are essentially normative phenomena, so that facts about them are normative facts, and if biology is not a normative science — that is, if we think of the biological world as being “disenchanted” — then we have a very powerful argument against “biologism”.
And a similar argument could be maintained even if we put some distance between us and the disenchanted conception of nature and allowed for a certain kind of normativity as a biological phenomenon, as long as the distinction is maintained between biological normativity and distinctively rational — or, as I prefer, discursive — normativity.
I’m not sure what is or isn’t obvious to you.
What is obvious to me, is that KN is only likely to start a topic of particular philosophic interest to him.
What is therefore also obvious to me, is that if there is going to be a discussion of biologism then it would have to be you, not KN, who initiated that discussion. Given the interests of the people who post here, I doubt that you would find many who are eager to participate in such a thread.
I’d be happy to read a thread on biologism if it explained what is meant by the term and how it leads to negative consequenses. How it has led to incorrect scientific conclusions of how it has stifled research? I’d like to see an outline of research or the outline of a research proposal that has been neglected due to scientism or biologism.
Yes, exactly. That is why I responded as I did above, because neither Gregory nor xis sources suggest any reason to beware of “biologism” – except as per PTSD-fueled von Bertalanffy ‘s implication that “biologism” was somehow seen in the Holocaust. Where? When? How, specifically?
Indeed, they both fail to operationally define “biologism”. Fine and dandy to define it conceptually in such a way that it probably does exist somewhere in the minds of some academics – but what does “biologism” look like in action and how can we recognize it if/when we see it in the real world?
And then I was scolded by you for “act[ing] like [a] teenager”. You might want to reconsider your inappropriate scolding behavior. Given that you have just agreed with what I wrote earlier, you have no grounds for objecting to the sarcastic tone in which I wrote it. You should know that a tone argument is no argument at all.
Since this forum is entitled “skeptical” why don’t we have a voluntary rule that technical terms (including philosophical terms) need operational definitions?
I accept that, and I apologize; I over-reacted, due to a lot of Internet forums I’ve been on where sarcasm and sniping take over from respectful discourse.
The fact is, yes, I agree with hotshoe that a lot of the grousing about “biologism” that one sees in post-WW II German thinkers is a bit of misdirection from their complicity with the Third Reich. I don’t know enough about von Bertalanffy per se to accuse him of this , but I would level that charge against Heidegger, where it comes out in a lot of his post-war writings, esp. on Nietzsche.
Be that as it may — there are some good arguments for why “biologism” (in the sense that I would assign to it) is mistaken, but I would be very reluctant to tie those arguments to an analysis of the causes of the Holocaust. It just looks like apples and oranges to me.
As for “scientism,” I keep going in circles on this one, and haven’t found a fully satisfying place to get off the carousel. On the one hand, I’m deeply sympathetic to claim there are forms of understanding, or of intelligibility, other than scientific explanations. But, on the other hand, I see a profound lack of respect for scientific explanations as an immediate and dire threat, particularly with respect to climate change and other imminent environmental catastrophes. And in general, I tend to see talk about “scientism” as blaming science for the ills produced by capitalism. (Curtis White, in his recent The Science Delusion, tries to own up to this; as a result he ends up endorsing romantic anti-capitalism. It’s not a pretty sight.)
It’s fairly easy to blame isms for the acts of bad people.
And it is just as easy to rationalize bad acts with isms.
I don’t know of an ism that hasn’t been misused one way or another.
Ia it too much to ask that we simply talk about actions that hurt people and assume that the motives are almost always mundane things like money, power, revenge, mental illness, and that isms are generally rationalizations rather than primary motives?
As I understand it, operationalization of a term is necessary only when we need to be able to perform the measurements necessary to ensure the correct application of a term. That’s perfectly appropriate for scientific concepts but I don’t see why philosophical concepts should be held to the same standard. Philosophy is neither a science nor a para-science. (Although sometimes epistemology and metaphysics comes close to being a pseudo-science.) The standard of intelligibility for philosophical concepts isn’t whether they are operationalizable or not, but the overall pattern of compatibility and incompatibility relations between judgments that use those concepts and other judgments.
No, it’s not too much to ask at all — I agree insofar as we need to look outside of the world of ideas per se in order to understand why some ideas become ideologies (post hoc rationalizations) and others don’t.
“if we think of the biological world as being “disenchanted” — then we have a very powerful argument against “biologism”.” – KN
Yeah, that fits well with Weber’s theory redux. But I’d be surprised, KN, if many or any of the skeptics here would be willing to discourse about disenchantment, enchantment and re-enchantment here on this channel of doubts.
“there are some good arguments for why “biologism” (in the sense that I would assign to it) is mistaken, but I would be very reluctant to tie those arguments to an analysis of the causes of the Holocaust.” – KN
I agree and also that we don’t need to bring the Holocaust into the conversation.
For the definition demanders, I like this one perhaps the best among several others:
Biologism = “The extension of biological concepts, models, and theories to other fields, for example, the explanation of social phenomena in humans using biological templates.” – Franz M. Wuketits (“Evolutionary Epistemology and its implications for humankind.” Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990: 218)
Of course, NOBODY actually does this, right folks? It’s just a figment of Wuketits’ imagination. E.O. Wilson certainly doesn’t – no, that’s not possible. It’s just ‘creationists’ who are erecting a straw man. ; – ) Oops, I’m not a creationist, neither is Wuketits, neither is Raymond Tallis, neither was von Bertalanffy.
Philosophy is fine/neat/nice “…if the topic can be made relevant to biology.”
p.s. my co-review/reply of/to White’s “The Science Delusion” – “not a pretty sight” – will be out soon. I’ll send the link when it’s ready, KN, perhaps there’s some ‘philosophical’ common ground to tread.
Thanks, KN.
My bias is that all the anti-“scientism” writings I have come across are, as you say, actually anti-capitalism in disguise (and although I think corporate capitalism deserves to be attacked, let’s do it honestly) or else mere religious drivel. I am sufficiently biased at this time that I can’t pretend I remain open-minded or that I could be convinced by, say, Gregory that there really is such a problem as “scientism” in the world at large.
False accusations of “scientism”, similar to the typical accusations of “materialism” from UD posters, always appear as tools to divert attention when the poster doesn’t want to admit the validity of scientific consensus because said consensus overturns, or at least seriously disturbs, their biblical worldview. Well, tough, too bad for them.
Science works; no other “method of understanding” the world has ever been demonstrated to work repeatedly and non-subjectively. Is that sentence an example of “scientism” in action? Fine, then “scientism” is not a problem; it’s just a statement of fact about our mutual reality. Anti-science attitudes and a reliance on faith in god are definitely problems, though.
Gregory, did you forget how to blockkquote? Or did you decide to be rude and make us struggle to read your posts just because you don’t want to expend the tiny effort to C+P the blockquote html? Do you have an inadequate theory of mind which prevents you from noticing that everyone else does their readers the courtesy of blockquoting? Do you have a disability which I should take into account in forming my opinion of your otherwise unexplainably anti-social behavior?
Sandbox – rude. (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=3477#comment-33625)
Yes, this whole discourse about “disenchantment” is tricky to parse through — not just Weber but also — to name just the two philosophers I’m writing about now — John McDowell and Theodor Adorno’s theory of “the domination of nature”. But I doubt it would be of much interest to other participants here, and I’m fine with that.
And I don’t doubt that there is “biologism” in the history of philosophy and of science. (Nietzsche, for example, stands out in my mind as someone who extends “biological concepts, models, and theories to other fields, for example, the explanation of social phenomena in humans”.) On the other hand, though, since human beings are animals, albeit animals of a very interesting sort, the extension of biological concepts and theories to human psychological and social behavior is not always inappropriate or illegitimate.
One remark I keep coming back, in my thinking about all these issues, is a quip from Dobzhansky: “all species are unique, but humans are the uniquest”. I think that there’s a deep insight there which can’t be accommodated (at least, not easily or obviously) by empirical science.
Yes, nicely said. With respect to explaining the world, there’s no alternative to science. If that is “scientism,” then I’ll happily sign off on it.
I agree on both points.
Although, in principle, I disagree with scientism (see the first sentence quoted above), in practice most complaints about scientism seem to be strawman arguments.
Perhaps you are thinking of EP (evolutionary psychology). Most of the biologists I have come across seem to be critics of EP (as am I).
How about philosophism, reducing everything to philosophy?
There are other thing in heaven and the earth.
I would be interested in discussing some of kairosfocus’s. boilerplate philosophical claims, such as Royce’s argument from error also the claim by John Wilkins and few others that it’s misleading to think of information as a property of the genome at all.
SeverskyP35,
Checking the membership list, I find “Seversky”, “Seversky1” and “SeverskyP35”.
Are those all you? It looks as if “Seversky1” has contributor status, which I think means that new posts can be created but require approval by an adminstrator. I could also promote one of those to author status if you want to start a post.
I mostly agree with John Wilkins on information. And I disagree with a lot of KF’s philosophical positions.
I think we should display skepticism about that idea.
I’d be interested in that, sure.