I'm glad you think models are really important. Many in science sadly overlook them. In fact I often worry I'm not scientific enough because I'm a comp modeller. However, I'm a little surprised you feel the need to explain this to me.
I have a feeling you think that by latching on to specific quotes from Pinker or Harris that you can "prove" they are not scientismists.
-
-
This is like saying that because a Christian isn't repenting for every single sin that they can't logically be Christian as why would anybody "rational" not repent if they sinned and if they believed in hell? This is not how to discover who is and is not Christian
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, so far that article quotes only one person, Pinker, and the quote shows exactly the opposite. I agree that whoever does those things in the article is committing scientism, but I cannot see how Pinker fits in there unless severely misunderstood or straw-manned.
-
OK, well, thanks for sharing.
-
I think there are people who try to be objective and analytic first, know all options, then see what it all means and what to do. And people who are first about what does this mean for me, mean for others, what are the moral implications. 1/2
-
I am very much in the first. And I have a hard time understanding those who reason more form the second. But I want to get more feeling for it. Sorry if my questions were somewhat critical, but it's how we come to know other ways of thinking. 2/2
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.