The logic of these positions is that of an "explanatory gap": 1. "Physics leaves something out" 2. ? 3. Profit The most insidious of these positions simply consist of bald-faced anti-intellectualism, masked by a lot of hard work.
-
Show this thread
-
Aside: Am I the only one who remembers the "New Atheism" stuff being at least partly provoked by elementary schools in the south teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution? The rhetoric of a "gap in science" has broad political consequences.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
So, if we're interested in adequate explanations of "how life works" the science is just fine. But if we're interested in *provocative alternatives to science* the rhetoric of vitalism or creationism will occasionally flare up, like gout.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
The popularity of such views speaks directly to the deep strands of anti-intellectualism in our culture. The rhetoric of an "explanatory gap" is compelling precisely because it provides intellectual cover for our folk theories and habituated practices.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
If I'm aprioristically committed to science being constitutively incapable of certain explanations, then rationalized away any obligation to learn about the explanations actually found in science that might challenge my beliefs.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
"The sciences won't satisfy me, no matter what they say" is simply rationalizing ignorance. "Nothing I say would change science" is equivalent to "nothing I say is informed by science", and neither are "pro-science" views.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
In short: anyone defending vitalism or creationism today isn't doing much more than providing an elaborate justification for why they don't need to do their science homework. Panpsychism is just a variation of vitalism, mystifying mind rather than life. The analogy is exact.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
All the "explanatory gap" arguments used to defend qualia today are direct descendants of the vitalist arguments against biological materialism from the mid-19th century. It's all just technical machinery aimed at arguing that we have a soul.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
But the connection between vitalism and qualia isn't just geneological/historical; they share a worldview, a philosophy of science, and their arguments are often just superficial variations of each other. Technical fluff aside, they are the same view. Qualia is the vital force.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
From this historical perspective, the fact that the vitalists are now haggling over "qualia" shows just how far they have retreated, and what narrow ground they have left to defend. Qualia is the death knell of vitalism. The naturalists have won. /end
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread
You don't need to be a hardcore naturalist to spell doom for vitalism. I think you are secretly or openly stanning a Quinean position which is venerable but utterly misses the point in this fight.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.