'Enlightenment Now'

[Nearly Sane]

Julian Baggini on Steven Pinker's  latest book


https://literaryreview.co.uk/never-had-it-so-good

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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. '

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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"?

[Nearly Sane]

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.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ippy]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Can you agree with someone you think got it over half wrong? Not sure you can.

No idea what point you are making.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what point you are making.

......and that my friends is how to keep your audience in rapt attention.

[Nearly Sane]

......and that my friends is how to keep your audience in rapt attention.

What? Telling the truth?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What? Telling the truth?

I was referring to my own powers of keeping an audience gripped.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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".

[Nearly Sane]

And John Gray on the book




https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2018/02/unenlightened-thinking-steven-pinker-s-embarrassing-new-book-feeble-sermon

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walter]

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