Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on February 08, 2018, 12:44:13 PM
-
Julian Baggini on Steven Pinker's latest book
https://literaryreview.co.uk/never-had-it-so-good
-
Julian Baggini on Steven Pinker's latest book
https://literaryreview.co.uk/never-had-it-so-good
I think climate change is fated to be the spectre at Stephen Pinkers feast.
-
I think climate change is fated to be the spectre at Stephen Pinkers feast.
You appear not to have read the review since it makes it clear that he isn't saying things can't get worse.
'Once again Pinker is ahead of his critics. Indeed, part of his purpose is to remind us that the future is not guaranteed to be good unless we continue to draw on the resources of science and reason that have taken us so far. He’s also clear that climate change poses a very serious risk indeed. '
-
You appear not to have read the review since it makes it clear that he isn't saying things can't get worse.
That's dandy however I think his problem was saying things were getting better while things were getting worse in terms of climate change.
Even if science, technology and commerce, the driver of Pinkers observed decline in violence ,managed between them to arrest climate change would they really be worthy of the titles "saviours of mankind"?
-
That's dandy however I think his problem was saying things were getting better while things were getting worse in terms of climate change.
Even if science, technology and commerce, the driver of Pinkers observed decline in violence ,managed between them to arrest climate change would they really be worthy of the titles "saviours of mankind"?
Again it's as if you haven't read the review.
'Nor does he claim that the world is wonderful as it is. Highlighting how far we have come is not to deny that we have much further still to go.'
-
Again it's as if you haven't read the review.
'Nor does he claim that the world is wonderful as it is. Highlighting how far we have come is not to deny that we have much further still to go.'
That still does not take into account that while the stats on people switching from violence to commerce were improving the stats on nature were declining.
How sound then is Pinker in the round as it were?
-
That still does not take into account that while the stats on people switching from violence to commerce were improving the stats on nature were declining.
How sound then is Pinker in the round as it were?
Yes, it does in terms if the argument that people are better off living today than at other tines. Note it's not just about violence, and the previousquote covers your question about nature even though it's not a claim that Pinker actually makes. But then you seen to be arguing against something you have made up rather than dealing with what is actually being said.
-
Yes, it does in terms if the argument that people are better off living today than at other tines. Note it's not just about violence, and the previousquote covers your question about nature even though it's not a claim that Pinker actually makes. But then you seen to be arguing against something you have made up rather than dealing with what is actually being said.
A reduction in violence has been a staple of Pinkers previous works and he was called to testify thus in one of Dawkins teleepics.
Do you know whether he has changed his mind on that?
Obviously pessimism can lead to fatalism and justification of awfulness but the woman in the street could well feel herself between doomsayers and surfers of decline and the geeky who can only see the technological developments and call them human progress.
-
A reduction in violence has been a staple of Pinkers previous works and he was called to testify thus in one of Dawkins teleepics.
Do you know whether he has changed his mind on that?
Obviously pessimism can lead to fatalism and justification of awfulness but the woman in the street could well feel herself between doomsayers and surfers of decline and the geeky who can only see the technological developments and call them human progress.
Saying something isn't the whole argument hasnothibg to do with changing his mind. You seem to be not reading what is said but again something of your own making.
-
Saying something isn't the whole argument hasnothibg to do with changing his mind. You seem to be not reading what is said but again something of your own making.
If his railback on optimism is the purpose of this book, was it worth it?
Who do you think needs or benefits from this book given that a propensity to state the obvious and expect plaudits has been noted in Pinkers close philosophical colleagues?
-
If his railback on optimism is the purpose of this book, was it worth it?
Who do you think needs or benefits from this book given that a propensity to state the obvious and expect plaudits has been noted in Pinkers close philosophical colleagues?
Your first sentence seems to be you replying to stuff not said again. BTW what is a 'railback'?
Your second sentence seems to then say that what Pinker gas said is actually true and makes a nonsense of your posting on the thread.
I am struggling to find any coherent point being made by you here.
-
Your first sentence seems to be you replying to stuff not said again. BTW what is a 'railback'?
Your second sentence seems to then say that what Pinker gas said is actually true and makes a nonsense of your posting on the thread.
I am struggling to find any coherent point being made by you here.
What's new?
Regards ippy
-
Your second sentence seems to then say that what Pinker gas said is actually true and makes a nonsense of your posting on the thread.
Can you agree with someone you think got it over half wrong? Not sure you can.
-
Can you agree with someone you think got it over half wrong? Not sure you can.
No idea what point you are making.
-
No idea what point you are making.
......and that my friends is how to keep your audience in rapt attention.
-
......and that my friends is how to keep your audience in rapt attention.
What? Telling the truth?
-
What? Telling the truth?
I was referring to my own powers of keeping an audience gripped.
-
The beef with Pinker includes what meaningful statistics can there be for some of the time periods he deals with. The same goes for specific topics such as his recent pronouncements on loneliness.
Then there is his use of the term Enlightenment which for him seems to be a going concern but historians see as a "was".
-
And John Gray on the book
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon
-
And John Gray on the book
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon
Wow, Where does a New Atheist go after something like the above?
Takeaway point Darwinian processes do not account for 'progress'.
How did Hume become popular with New atheists.
New Atheism which now seems to have Pinker as it's number one spokesman seems counter to both Hume and Darwin at the moment.
Your mission Jim Atheist....is to examine dawkins contradiction that he is both a Pinker supporter and Darwin's bulldog.
-
Wow, Where does a New Atheist go after something like the above?
Takeaway point Darwinian processes do not account for 'progress'.
How did Hume become popular with New atheists.
New Atheism which now seems to have Pinker as it's number one spokesman seems counter to both Hume and Darwin at the moment.
Your mission Jim Atheist....is to examine dawkins contradiction that he is both a Pinker supporter and Darwin's bulldog.
Thought you might like it, Whatever you think of Gray, he's a great polemicist. I think to come to any reasonable conclusion on the book you would have to read it, as I don't think we can accept that Gray is speaking from an unbiased position. Indeed based on my readings up to now of both Gray and Pinker, they have similar faults, in that they use cherry picking to demonstrate their own view of the world, but then after all we all do that. The difference being I think they have to struggle to break out of the set positions because that's where the money comes from - it's hard to go for nuance when you and your theory are part of the whole deal. I should of course apologise to Gray - his position on almost everything has changed 180 degrees over the years, but it's always been held with fervent certainty.
I'm not really sure what a New Atheists is, it's another simplistic approach which I don't think has any real validity. I don't think then that Pinker is a number one spokesman of something I'm not convinced exists. I also don't think that on the basis of a review from Gray we can say that this ill defined cohort do reject Hume. And to link to SteveH's post on philosophical cojones, I think the vast majority of atheists haven't read much Hume, but a lot of what is spouted in the selection of philosophers from the four horsemen, if they might be thought to have much to do with something called New Atheism, includes lines and tropes from Hume.
-
And John Gray on the book
https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon
If I had my way, use of the expression "by definition" would be punishable by a fine or imprisonment.
-
Thought you might like it, Whatever you think of Gray, he's a great polemicist. I think to come to any reasonable conclusion on the book you would have to read it, as I don't think we can accept that Gray is speaking from an unbiased position. Indeed based on my readings up to now of both Gray and Pinker, they have similar faults, in that they use cherry picking to demonstrate their own view of the world, but then after all we all do that. The difference being I think they have to struggle to break out of the set positions because that's where the money comes from - it's hard to go for nuance when you and your theory are part of the whole deal. I should of course apologise to Gray - his position on almost everything has changed 180 degrees over the years, but it's always been held with fervent certainty.
I'm not really sure what a New Atheists is, it's another simplistic approach which I don't think has any real validity. I don't think then that Pinker is a number one spokesman of something I'm not convinced exists. I also don't think that on the basis of a review from Gray we can say that this ill defined cohort do reject Hume. And to link to SteveH's post on philosophical cojones, I think the vast majority of atheists haven't read much Hume, but a lot of what is spouted in the selection of philosophers from the four horsemen, if they might be thought to have much to do with something called New Atheism, includes lines and tropes from Hume.
Like I do with Gray, New Atheists draw what they can from Hume. Gray merely underlines that Modern Atheist ownership of stuff like reason and logic is pious guff.
New atheism has left itself seemingly with massive contradictions which only what I would call old atheists and theists are able to spot. Paradoxically Gray, an atheist is my go to man on the contradictions inherent in the New Atheist project.
Therefore the very same people who promote Darwinism as a kind of overarching universal force are the same people who promote 'progress' as some kind of overarching force.
The true ultra Darwinian should be saying 'Told you so' rather than promoting Pinker.
Science has no moral content whatsoever. I told you that when it discusses moral behaviour it slips the word moral in for decoration. You didn't believe me.
-
Like I do with Gray, New Atheists draw what they can from Hume. Gray merely underlines that Modern Atheist ownership of stuff like reason and logic is pious guff.
New atheism has left itself seemingly with massive contradictions which only what I would call old atheists and theists are able to spot. Paradoxically Gray, an atheist is my go to man on the contradictions inherent in the New Atheist project.
Therefore the very same people who promote Darwinism as a kind of overarching universal force are the same people who promote 'progress' as some kind of overarching force.
The true ultra Darwinian should be saying 'Told you so' rather than promoting Pinker.
Science has no moral content whatsoever. I told you that when it discusses moral behaviour it slips the word moral in for decoration. You didn't believe me.
Can you cite where I didn't believe on that? Rather I would suggest I would suggest that my answer is more like to be that Science doesn't slip words in, it's a methodology. Further you can use words such as moral if you are commenting on the 'is' e.g. if someone describes something they do as a moral act then they may have observable brain states that can be observed. It does not have a way of jumping the ought is gap and I would think that of any poster on here I've made that comment more than anyone else.
I think the idea that someone is a 'true Ultra Darwinian' is incredibly simplistic as already covered. And since I've already stated that I don't think New Atheism is actually a real thing in the way you view it, ignoring that point and saying that people should call it out progresses the discussion not a whit.
-
Can you cite where I didn't believe on that? Rather I would suggest I would suggest that my answer is more like to be that Science doesn't slip words in, it's a methodology. Further you can use words such as moral if you are commenting on the 'is' e.g. if someone describes something they do as a moral act then they may have observable brain states that can be observed. It does not have a way of jumping the ought is gap and I would think that of any poster on here I've made that comment more than anyone else.
I think the idea that someone is a 'true Ultra Darwinian' is incredibly simplistic as already covered. And since I've already stated that I don't think New Atheism is actually a real thing in the way you view it, ignoring that point and saying that people should call it out progresses the discussion not a whit.
for total clarification please view the following video on the subject
https://youtu.be/oTJGrGAa_wg
-
for total clarification please view the following video on the subject
https://youtu.be/oTJGrGAa_wg
Ah, the darling Philomena, a sage for our times, cutting through the loaf of obfuscation with the big sharp knife of clarity.
-
Can you cite where I didn't believe on that? Rather I would suggest I would suggest that my answer is more like to be that Science doesn't slip words in, it's a methodology. Further you can use words such as moral if you are commenting on the 'is' e.g. if someone describes something they do as a moral act then they may have observable brain states that can be observed. It does not have a way of jumping the ought is gap and I would think that of any poster on here I've made that comment more than anyone else.
I think the idea that someone is a 'true Ultra Darwinian' is incredibly simplistic as already covered. And since I've already stated that I don't think New Atheism is actually a real thing in the way you view it, ignoring that point and saying that people should call it out progresses the discussion not a whit.
I believe you questioned my belief that science doesn't make observations of moral behaviour.
If it is you that was right then science indeed would be inserting the word moral in. Would it therefore be doing so for any good reason?
If you really do and can agree with me then you have my apologies.
-
Ah, the darling Philomena, a sage for our times, cutting through the loaf of obfuscation with the big sharp knife of clarity.
saying what people think because they cant say it themselves 8)
-
Spelt Cunk wrong.
-
I believe you questioned my belief that science doesn't make observations of moral behaviour.
If it is you that was right then science indeed would be inserting the word moral in. Would it therefore be doing so for any good reason?
If you really do and can agree with me then you have my apologies.
I thought this was covered in my previous post to which you are replying. We can scientifically make observations around what we call moral behaviour, just as we could scientifically make observations about brain states when someone eats Marmite. That could tell us what it looks like to think an act right/wrong or a taste good/bad, t cannot give an objective indication of what right/wrong and good/bad are as these are subjective. There is no insertion in here of a word by the observation, it's using the concept as we think of it elsewhere - the same for morality as for taste.
Again science doesn't do anything, it's a methodology.
-
Therefore the very same people who promote Darwinism as a kind of overarching universal force are the same people who promote 'progress' as some kind of overarching force.
Who is it that promotes Darwinism as a kind of overarching universal force?
The true ultra Darwinian should be saying 'Told you so' rather than promoting Pinker.
Perhaps they are. Can you name any ultra Darwinians?
-
I liked the video, Walter.
-
Who is it that promotes Darwinism as a kind of overarching universal force?
Perhaps they are. Can you name any ultra Darwinians?
Basically anyone who thinks Darwins theory works outside biology up to and including Dawkins advocacy of Smolins theory of naturally selected universe idea which Dawkins does in TGD. If Dawkins still claims that Darwin made it respectable to be an atheist then that is definitely ultra Darwinian.
-
Basically anyone who thinks Darwins theory works outside biology
It's important to realise that Darwin's theory doesn't work inside biology. What works inside biology is called the modern synthesis which is Darwin's theory in combination with Mendelian genetics.
There is empirical evidence that analogous ideas to the Theory of Evolution do work in areas outside of biology. For example, genetic algorithms can be used to optimise designs of various things.
up to and including Dawkins advocacy of Smolins theory of naturally selected universe idea which Dawkins does in TGD. If Dawkins still claims that Darwin made it respectable to be an atheist then that is definitely ultra Darwinian.
You keep talking about Dawkins but he does not fit the description. If you hd read any of his work you'd understand that he specifically denies that everything is based on Darwinian evolution. He argues that one of the wonders of evolution is that it gave us the equipment to ignore it in human affairs.
-
It's important to realise that Darwin's theory doesn't work inside biology. What works inside biology is called the modern synthesis which is Darwin's theory in combination with Mendelian genetics.
There is empirical evidence that analogous ideas to the Theory of Evolution do work in areas outside of biology. For example, genetic algorithms can be used to optimise designs of various things.
You keep talking about Dawkins but he does not fit the description. If you hd read any of his work you'd understand that he specifically denies that everything is based on Darwinian evolution. He argues that one of the wonders of evolution is that it gave us the equipment to ignore it in human affairs.
Just a further example of contradiction and confusion within New atheism
-
Just a further example of contradiction and confusion within New atheism
Don't blame new atheism for your contradiction and confusion.
-
Spelt Cunk wrong.
takes one to know one ::)
-
Harris on Pinker
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/26/have-nots-denigration-brexit-trump
-
You might like this, Vlad.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/09/if-you-ever-doubted-that-steven-pinkers-sympathies-lie-with-the-alt-right/
And an alternative take
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/social-media-dumber-steven-pinker.html
-
Pinker given a going over here
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/ours-best-world-ever
-
A gentler filleting of Pinker and in its gentleness, it does better at laying out what I think will be many people's issue with the thesis.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554054/
-
A gentler filleting of Pinker and in its gentleness, it does better at laying out what I think will be many people's issue with the thesis.
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554054/
Hard on pinker
Softer on pinker
Hard on pinker
Soft on Pinker
Are you giving a massage?
-
Hard on pinker
Softer on pinker
Hard on pinker
Soft on Pinker
Are you giving a massage?
I think the different takes are interesting. Given as the Atlantic review says most atheists of this isn't a new idea, it seems to have created a bigger reaction than one might expect.
-
I think the different takes are interesting. Given as the Atlantic review says most atheists of this isn't a new idea, it seems to have created a bigger reaction than one might expect.
I'd like to think of Pinker as some kind of quaint bobbymcferrinist. But he is an antitheist obviously working under the aegis of " religion, toot of all evil?.....and the inherent goodness of reason and scientism, something presently being thrashed out in the atheist and skeptic organisations.
-
I'd like to think of Pinker as some kind of quaint bobbymcferrinist. But he is an antitheist obviously working under the aegis of " religion, toot of all evil?.....and the inherent goodness of reason and scientism, something presently being thrashed out in the atheist and skeptic organisations.
is your post some sort of free poetry?
It seems to me that the reaction to the book is a bit wider than the normal preoccupations. Hans Rosling in putting forward essentially the same idea didn't create this sort of fuss. Now, in part, that's because he didn't attribute it to such a basic idea but I think that Pinker's book seems to be being pucked up because there is a turn in feeling about progress. I know we always hark back to golden ages but it feels like the uncertainty that we always hold about the future is growing amongst those who might once have been the vanguard. Alternatively tar may just be that extra portion of chilli cheese fries acting on my mood.
-
is your post some sort of free poetry?
It seems to me that the reaction to the book is a bit wider than the normal preoccupations. Hans Rosling in putting forward essentially the same idea didn't create this sort of fuss. Now, in part, that's because he didn't attribute it to such a basic idea but I think that Pinker's book seems to be being pucked up because there is a turn in feeling about progress. I know we always hark back to golden ages but it feels like the uncertainty that we always hold about the future is growing amongst those who might once have been the vanguard. Alternatively tar may just be that extra portion of chilli cheese fries acting on my mood.
Are you making an "If you disagree with Pinker then you disagree with progress" type argument.
My own view is probably the Gray view where certain indicators are missing from Pinker's account
And that fatally weakens the argument and renders Pinker an invitation to don the rose tinted spectacles.
-
Are you making an "If you disagree with Pinker then you disagree with progress" type argument.
My own view is probably the Gray view where certain indicators are missing from Pinker's account
And that fatally weakens the argument and renders Pinker an invitation to don the rose tinted spectacles.
Not making any such argument. As stated, I'm interested in the reaction here. It seems to be about more than just the thesis, given the entangling of it with ideas of whether he is alt right, and the idea that thinking about progress being made is somehow about being neo liberal. Indeed I suppose my fascination with it relates back to the split between Hume and Rousseau.
-
I should of course apologise to Gray - his position on almost everything has changed 180 degrees over the years, but it's always been held with fervent certainty.
According to his contribution to Desert Island Discs, he still thinks anaesthetic dentistry is one of the very few ways humans have improved on the past. This would seem to suggest that he doesn't hold the idea of progress with any particular fervour.
-
According to his contribution to Desert Island Discs, he still thinks anaesthetic dentistry is one of the very few ways humans have improved on the past. This would seem to suggest that he doesn't hold the idea of progress with any particular fervour.
Oh yes, he's against it now. A time machine could bring the younger Gray face to face with his current self and put the universe in danger by having the matter anti matter of certainty on his positions.
-
Oh yes, he's against it now. A time machine could bring the younger Gray face to face with his current self and put the universe in danger by having the matter anti matter of certainty on his positions.
I don't doubt he's wobbled all over the place during his career. The only books of his I've read are Straw Dogs and The Black Mass. In SD - which I think is a pretty early work - he seemed to be very down on the progress idea.
-
Are you making an "If you disagree with Pinker then you disagree with progress" type argument.
My own view is probably the Gray view where certain indicators are missing from Pinker's account
And that fatally weakens the argument and renders Pinker an invitation to don the rose tinted spectacles.
Have you read Enlightenment Now? What other Pinker books have you read?
-
Have you read Enlightenment Now? What the rPinker books have you read?
Everything must look fucking great from the quad at Harvard.
-
Everything must look fucking great from the quad at Harvard.
Don't be shy. Have you read this book that you are criticising freely?
-
Don't be shy. Have you read this book that you are criticising freely?
One doesn't have to have studied leprochology to dismiss leprechauns
-
One doesn't have to have studied leprochology to dismiss leprechauns
That would be the wrong subject: silly you, it's 'Leprechaunology', Vlad (it's serious stuff mind - it even starts with a capital letter!).
No wonder you don't take the wee fellas seriously.
-
One doesn't have to have studied leprochology to dismiss leprechauns
That's a fine argument if you are claiming the book doesn't exist.
But you are not claiming that, you are claiming things based on its content and even that certain critics are right about the content and you are doing that with no knowledge of its content.
By the way, I haven't read any of Pinker's books either.
-
That's a fine argument if you are claiming the book doesn't exist.
But you are not claiming that, you are claiming things based on its content and even that certain critics are right about the content and you are doing that with no knowledge of its content.
By the way, I haven't read any of Pinker's books either.
One could be charitable to Pinker. He is romantically infatuated with the enlightenment as both a golden age and a force of Good.
He has finally come round though to the fact that adherence to forces for Good and the all emcompassing is not universal and all people need is a wee nudge and a bit of a revival.
Unfortunately People don't do worthy these days.....and then Stephen has the extra baggage of other competing worthy beliefa which he deals with in the time honored way by damning them as the very devil.
-
One could be charitable to Pinker. He is romantically infatuated with the enlightenment as both a golden age and a force of Good.
How do you know: you haven't read the book?
He has finally come round though to the fact that adherence to forces for Good and the all emcompassing is not universal and all people need is a wee nudge and a bit of a revival.
How do you know: you haven't read the book?
-
How do you know: you haven't read the book?
How do you know: you haven't read the book?
Jeremy, In todays media age, celebrity authors tend to leave a large media footprint particularly if they are on a mission beyond earning a bit of cash from what they write.
There are the podcasts, the interviews, youtube, book reviews, amazon description, bookshop recommendations and not forgetting the abstract.
It is impossible for anyone interested not to know what Pinker's position is.
Also i'm afraid I cannot read everybook and there are certain books which I will wait for until they pitch up in the local library.
Unless you are seriously suggesting that I might find a recanting from his Dawkinism and a date for a future baptism by total immersion I shall not be rushing out and buying it.
-
Jeremy, In todays media age, celebrity authors tend to leave a large media footprint particularly if they are on a mission beyond earning a bit of cash from what they write.
There are the podcasts, the interviews, youtube, book reviews, amazon description, bookshop recommendations and not forgetting the abstract.
How do you know any of these things are accurate if you haven't read the book?
The reviews of Pinker's book are pretty varied. It has had both good and bad reviews, so some people all least, have got the wrong idea about it.
Also i'm afraid I cannot read everybook and there are certain books which I will wait for until they pitch up in the local library.
But nothing compels you to comment here on books you haven't read.
-
How do you know any of these things are accurate if you haven't read the book?
The reviews of Pinker's book are pretty varied. It has had both good and bad reviews, so some people all least, have got the wrong idea about it.
But nothing compels you to comment here on books you haven't read.
1: I trust the sources and the abstract. I know what Pinker stands for.
2: But they kind of agree of what they are about and there is a lot of information about this book.
3: I feel I have enough information to comment and certainly on Pinker's views in general. Enlightenment now is his mission Jeremy. It is his War Cry, his cri de Coeur, his cause celebre, his first poo in the potty, his bag.
-
1: I trust the sources and the abstract. I know what Pinker stands for.
The source is the book. You can't trust the book if you haven't read it.
2: But they kind of agree of what they are about and there is a lot of information about this book.
3: I feel I have enough information to comment and certainly on Pinker's views in general. Enlightenment now is his mission Jeremy. It is his War Cry, his cri de Coeur, his cause celebre, his first poo in the potty, his bag.
But this is all based on your assumptions which you arrived at without reading the book. It's worthless.
-
But this is all based on your assumptions which you arrived at without reading the book. It's worthless.
No it is based amongst other things on reviews presumably based on people who have read it, including leading atheists. If the word of people who have read it is thus worthless how would my reading of it be anymore worthy?
-
Pinker must experience huge problems squaring science and reason with scientism and he throws economics into this mix and a belief in progress.
IMHO he can only produce an unstable emulsion of elements which have, at the end and through the history of the enlightenment, no reliable predictive power.