5 ms·
With respect, I think you're dead wrong. Pinker may be out of his depth when it comes to the bigger concepts but within the narrow constraints of materialism t
by igravious 9y ago
With respect, I think you're dead wrong.
Pinker may be out of his depth when it comes to the bigger concepts but within the narrow constraints of materialism the data is incontrovertible. Pointing to a review written by Gray of Pinker's work when Gray is _explicitly_ in the camp which opposes the Polyannas of progress is bad sportsmanship.
What you should be asking yourself is how we can synthesise a worldview that incorporates both optimists and pessimists. I wholeheartedly agree that more nuance is needed but I also think that Pinker has done an excellent job at framing one side of the debate. The fact that he thinks there is only one side of the debate only means that he has as hard a time as the rest of us taking in the enormous sweep of human history and science.
I very much doubt you could write a decent rebuttal of either of his last two works.
- pron 9y agoIt's not about pessimists vs. optimists, but about the fact that 1. Pinker has obviously not read many of the works he criticises, and 2. he displays no ability at self-skepticism or any other quality that makes for interesting intellectual writing. His texts are thinly veiled propaganda (in his talks the veil is completely gone; they are long rants against intellectuals he clearly has not read) of the most boooooring kind. It's OK to have an opinion; it's not OK not to seriously study what it is that you're writing about (say, the Enlightenment), and it's not OK to write boring propaganda yet present yourself as a profound intellectual. He is shallow, unoriginal, boring and almost criminally unknowledgable.
- igravious 9y ago> almost criminally unknowledgable Do yourself a favour and develop a sense of proportion.