Friday, April 27, 2012

A Rabid Dog Froths

Wreaking Indiscriminate Havoc with Both Guns Blazing


Recently, Krauss decided it would be a fun idea to vilify *all* philosophy and *all* philosophers, presumably as a hook for his book.

Krauss: Foot In Mouth

I have this to say about that...

I think we can safely say, with Krauss, that science has taken one more step to officially becoming a dogma. When your primary hook is to discredit those who ask questions you don't like, then what you have is a warning sign, made clear, especially, by Krauss's attacks on philosophy of science in particular. When confronted with dogma, a philosophical perspective - a skeptical perspective - is essential and necessary in order to ensure our grey matter doesn't seize up.

Frankly, Krauss sounds more like a petulant child, upset that someone might have the temerity to dare question his assertions, or even *gasp* dare disagree with him.

It is possible to be pro-science and philosophically-minded. Indeed, that's what I claim to be. Of course, unlike Krauss, I recognize that philosophy and religion are not identical subject matters. It has actually been my emphasis to pore over what separates the two.

The most generous reading I can give of Krauss is that he is using scientistic (yes, I just used that word) dismissive canards to try to provide a hook to draw people in by setting up an artificial conflict - essentially, to sell his book, to turn a buck. Krauss's use of these canards is a conflict-based "team spirit" betrayal of what we would normally understand as inquiring processes, and in support of orthodoxy enforcement.

It's too bad, really. I was interested in the idea presented, but now I find Krauss quite unpalatable. Anyone who decries inquiry is unpalatable to me. It is unpalatable when the religious dogmas do it, and it is unpalatable when hook-seeking morons making sweeping generalizations disparaging whole realms of inquiry do it. I guess I'll need to see it presented by someone less obnoxious and who is willing to entertain disagreement. I hope to approach the subject matter with an open mind, but when confronted by a rabid dog frothing at the mouth, it is difficult to see the subject matter neutrally. Is there anyone a little less ridiculous who can present this subject matter.

Beating a Hasty Retreat


Krauss: Backpedaling With Foot Still In Mouth


When I hear string theorists admit that so far they have no empirical referents for their fanciful, little wonderland, I have to wonder if theoretical physics has not become susceptible to the same errors the "philosophical" mystics and the theologians did. Maybe people versed and educated in such errors, from long experience, might be of some help with such issues - you know, if you don't make sweeping generalizations vilifying everyone who ever looked into such matters.

For my own part, I will keep string theory at a distance until something actually comes from it. See? No sweeping generalizations vilifying all science and scientists - just some reasonable caution with regard to what so far appears to be analytical, metaphysical fluffistry disguised as synthetic truth (empirical reality). Where's the falsifiability, kids?

A rational person would not have had to offer Krauss's half-baked, pseudo, somewhat less than honest apology. In future, check your fucking targets, moron.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.