In the comments thread, you’ll find some people wondering at what science can and can’t do. As to the why questions, science asks them all the time but seems to assert a certain kind of knowledge. Beyond that…Metaphysics? Religion?
You’ve probably seen the Templeton Conversations around, where some interesting thinkers are asked if science makes a belief in God obsolete.
A bit of what evolutionary theory can offer and what problems it faces with regard to moral thinking.
From Roger Scruton’s book:
“How can I view the world in its totality? And yet, how can there be explanation if I cannot? How can I explain the existence of anything if I cannot explain the existence of everything? If I am confined for ever within my own point of view, how can I penetrate the mystery of nature?”
Ch 4, pg 66.
It’s not a literary theory, nor one of being, nor a psychological theory, nor one of mind, so how is it we come to know a world beyond ourselves, and what can Kant’s metaphysics (beyond physics) offer in this quest?
I’ve Been Asked To Provide A Literary Reference: Okay. The Aleph?
From Christopher Want’s Introducing Kant:
“In the case of the pyramids:
‘the eye needs some time to complete the apprehension from the base to the peak, but during that time some of the earlier parts are invariably extinguished in the Imagination before it has apprehended the later ones, and hence the comprehension is never complete..’ “
What about this video of a surfer on Maui’s north shore?:
Say what you want about people insisting we go green: They’re watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), they’re busy constructing the new secular religion…they’re do-gooders more interested in being right then in thinking the ideas through…
…but how can you distinguish the science and doubt from all the ideology and certainty?
Freeman Dyson in his review of two books in the NY Times Sunday (covering the politics, science and economics of GW), would seem to wonder at the same questions, and stresses:
“The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism”
Which doesn’t help public discussion of the science nor protect reasonable skepticism…
…of course there is much truth there as well. In Dyson’s work and in the data that leads some to say global warming is happening.
See Also: From The Literary Review–An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, The National Geographic-Marching To The Eco-Drumbeat,
Al Gore: Confusing Science With Politics Since 2006!
With so many deadly tornadoes in the news lately, I thought I’d post a few links:
-Here’s a link to the How Stuff Works tornado page.
-The Tornado Project Online. (Affiliated with How Stuff Works, lots of top-ten lists etc…)
-How to make a tornado box for a science fair.
-Is it a vortex of rising, warm and moist air or cool air dropping downward? Does anyone really know what’s going on in there? Good models here.
-The Red Cross Tornado Preparedness Page.
-You’ve got to check out Tornadovideos.net.
Some really cool Youtube videos here and here. A dust-devil here. If you have time and are a real weather geek, the formation of a supercell here.
See Also: The Greensburg Tornado on Doppler Radar
“Both relativism and fundamentalism threaten the basic moral order without which no society, least of all a liberal democracy, can exist: relativism because it makes morality a capricious game, fundamentalism because it balkanizes society into mutually hostile camps that cannot communicate with each other…”
…from Peter Berger..who is a practicing Lutheran…apparently in search of pragmatic religious middle ground.
Well, Nietzsche argued that morality doesn’t exist…and his influence is everywhere. For a philosophical project that has a tough time acknowledging there may be an object to our knowledge…there’s Richard Rorty.
Berger’s critique could serve Sullivan’s purposes very well…but organized religion? They will likely throw Sullivan under the bus.
Also…just what is that “basic moral order” Berger’s talking about?
See Also: From The Volokh Conspiracy: Multiculturalism As A Traditional American Value, and Chris Hedges seems to be where humanities/liberalism meet politics and religion: Christopher Hedges Criticizes The New Atheists.
Addition: The Evangelical Manifesto here.
It’s tough to provide a sceptical, yet non-scientific take on global warming in such a political and social “climate.”
Does Nigel Lawson’s book pull it off?
Quite apart from the science (which is clearly the best place to start), it’s so often the interpretation of the science and the media presentation of global warming as an inevitability…which is not always reasonable.
See Also: The Weather Channel’s Green Blog: A Little Too Green? The National Geographic-Marching To The Eco-Drumbeat
by Juampe López
An Inconvenient Truth: Where science is used to serve a genuine moral concern, but largely to unify people around a moral concern which happens to correspond nicely with a set of political ideas…er…which could eventually serve Al Gore’s political career.
See Also: The Spiked Review Of Books has more.
Diamond focuses on a young man who’s a member of the Handa clan in Papua New-Guinea. The clan, like many others, devotes a lot of time and energy to fighting, and specifically, getting revenge.
Daniel, the young man in Diamond’s portrayal, clearly likely feels honor and a sense of pride when acting on his desire for revenge…and gets satisfaction from it as well. Diamond argues the lack of organized religious and moral codes (largely in service of the state here in the West) don’t exist in Papua-New Guinea.
In other words, most of the reasons we don’t go revenge killing here in the States and defer (usually) to the police, the courts, or to God aren’t really in effect.
This is one of Diamond’s conclusions:
“My conversations with Daniel made me understand what we have given up by leaving justice to the state. In order to induce us to do so, state societies and their associated religions and moral codes teach us that seeking revenge is bad. But, while acting on vengeful feelings clearly needs to be discouraged, acknowledging them should be not merely permitted but encouraged.”
So let me get this straight: from our own true nature, moral codes have deferred…
“feelings…natural and powerful”
…into a “cold monster” of the state?
Yet, if we invested in our feelings, wouldn’t we make the state more powerful by increasing its desire to control our feelings too?
Wait…I thought the state was bad, or un-natural?
Okay…so…according to Diamond, if we just feel enough, we’ll think clearly?
See Also: This post about David Sloan Wilson’s research. Is a common thread between evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and perhaps even psychologists the attempt to base morality in feeling?
So…is Diamond an anthropologist? It appears not. My mistake.
Of course, the writer is in London, where the moon of cultural relativity is just about full…
Yes, green has gone glitz, and apart from some of the more patently moralistic (good people ride bikes, you should too) arguments for going green, treehugger has decided to show you pictures that support the work of two academics who praise Walt Disney. Apparently, he gets children to create a relationship with nature…
Clearly, this is how I want smart people spending their time…thinking about nature (though, in this case, mostly just poorly understood political ideas) through the lens of Snow White.
Addition: I get an angry email each time I write something like this: Why bother those who are trying to do some good? Maybe due to Disney’s lush backdrops, children will become more interested in nature…
This is perhaps true but also moralistic…it’s sloppy thinking..because there are ultimately consequences to everything we think about and most importantly, how we think about them. Hopefully, that point gets across, despite the tone.
Making such unclear, sentimental and now commercialized arguments for ’nature’ may do us more harm in the long run…but then again, now I’m being moralistic.
If you’re interested, see the comments on this post.
