Wow, another voice of reason within the ranks. I can’t wait to see how he is miss-read and misunderstood here. From a cursory glance through the comment section of the link, it is clear that reading comprehension and actually being able to follow someone’s arguments and deal with what they actually wrote (instead of what we think they wrote based upon our prejudices) is in short supply in the “scientific” community and lay scientific community.
A word of advice to science departments in our universities: Teach some reading comprehension, logic, and some basic philosophy. Please. This is embarrassing.
That people could react so ridiculously to what is so obvious a truth (“sometimes science must give way to religion”), tells us that fear and fundamentalism are alive and well within the scientific community.
From the link:
“But what was truly staggering was the support for the notion that science was, as one critic put it, “the best and only method we have for understanding reality”. It was here, in their rush to defend the walls of reason from the barbarians at the gate, the scientistas unwittingly took their cue from the logical positivists and came rather embarrassingly unstuck. It is as if, given an excellent Philips screwdriver, someone had concluded that only cross-head screws are of any use. Or worse, that they are the only type of screw to exist.
Imagine if, the next time you go to see The Long Day’s Journey Into Night or The Dark Knight Rises, the activity of your brain is recorded by an MRI machine. Would a full scientific explanation of those recordings really constitute the “best or only” way to understand the experience? For anyone?
Yet in their eagerness to bash those that dare to suggest that one might experience wonder and awe, or be moved, outside a scientific context, the scientistas happily dismiss culture without a second thought.
When the philosopher A. J. Ayer was asked in the 1970s to identify the key weakness of logical positivism, Ayer, once one of its leading proponents, replied that “nearly all of it was false.” By recycling the discredited notions of a dead philosophy, those that rashly criticized Sarewitz have demonstrated that they would benefit from a good, hard reading of poetry.”