4 ms·

I don’t know how you came to such a bizarre conclusion. I value true science, I appreciate science, but for what it is, not what it is not. A robust philosophy

I don’t know how you came to such a bizarre conclusion. I value true science, I appreciate science, but for what it is, not what it is not. A robust philosophy of science helps in this regard, as it allows us to examine and to understand the nature of science, its methods, its limits, the nature of the knowledge its gives us, and so on. Scientism is incoherent from the start, as its basic proposition is self-refuting, as it is not itself a scientific claim. W.r.t. Sagan, it is the general character of his work that it privileged science (and I mean this in the modern sense of the term, i.e., “empirical science”) to the exclusion of other rational modes of knowing. Indeed, if anything is paradigmatic of rationality, it is philosophy, not empirical science. And Sagan’s insistence on evidence of does not square with things like his views on mathematics (never mind some of the superficial commentary on numerical representation) or what proofs for the existence of God can consist of. Sagan’s views were also often guided by sentiment rather than reason. The first that comes to mind if the childish and fallacious inference involving the tacit assumption that size is proportional to significance. But of course, they were presented as if they were reasoned. My point is, whatever his merits as an astronomer and the practice of astronomy (I have heard varying opinions), he was a mediocrity in areas like philosophy and theology. He should have had the humility to recognize the limits of his knowledge.

card_zero 1y ago
> I don’t know how you came to such a bizarre conclusion By guessing, of course! Gotta start somewhere. You still haven't supplied details of exactly ... ah, don't worry about it, I suppose I'll just bear your observation in mind when I come to read a Sagan book. Or a Dawkins book. But I don't remember Dawkins sidelining philosophy? It still sounds kind of like "oh he should have said something apologetic about religion because of metaphysics instead of being so damn certain", the kind of thing any wet agnostic would like - not because there's quality philosophy being overlooked, just because wishy-washy people want their spirituality placating.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  I think you have a good deal of odd baggage that's clouding your judgement. You seem to believe that anyone who is critical of any kind of intellectually flaky stance toward "religion" must therefore be an apologist for intellectual flaky religious views. This is childish. I encourage you to develop more intellectually rigorous and less tendentious habits of mind. An intellectual horizon where Sagan and Dawkins are intellectual heroes is highly parochial. In the case of Dawkins, that he was whiggish and philosophically weak is not some novel criticism. His criticisms of Aquinas, for example, were laughably uninformed. And unlike Aquinas, who charitably advised people to attack an interlocutor's views at his strongest points, Dawkins happily sought out the weakest and their weakest for cheap show. He didn't seek out highly regarded scholars who disagreed with him, but ones he could easily ridicule, and he found them. It is buffoonish to think Dawkins et al. have some kind of intellectual high ground here. Only someone ignorant of philosophical work of the last two millenia could find Dawkins impressive here. For you and others here, I would recommend beginning with Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism" [0] to begin to grasp how crude, unsophisticated, and incoherent their intellectual positions are. The author wrote this book during the height of the New Atheist craze when the polemic of the "Four Horsemen" was particular aggressive, and so he rightly returns some of those polemical barbs, though unlike the New Atheists, his comes from a position of intellectual substance. [0] https://archive.org/details/edward-feser-the-last-superstition-a-refutation-of-the-new-atheism https://archive.org/details/edward-feser-the-last-superstiti...
tinyplanets 1y ago
Wow, you've really got it out for Carl Sagan (of all people)! Why is it required that he be something other than a "mediocrity" in philosophy and theology? He was an astronomer and (more importantly in my opinion) an incredible science communicator. That doesn't necessitate also being an expert in the study of religion, faith, and philosophy.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  > Why is it required that he be something other than a "mediocrity" in philosophy and theology? Because as a general rule, if you're going to engage in commentary of a subject matter, you should know what you're talking about. Many people, including many scientists (certainly among the vocal ones), fail to mind the bounds of their narrow domain of expertise and tread unwittingly into philosophical territory, all the while believing their views are scientific in nature. This happens all the time with materialism, which is not a metaphysical position entailed by science, but nonetheless is often presented as if it were and sold to the public as a package deal. Sagan was certainly guilty of that, that and his whiggish view of history.

card_zero 1y ago

> I don’t know how you came to such a bizarre conclusion By guessing, of course! Gotta start somewhere. You still haven't supplied details of exactly ... ah, don't worry about it, I suppose I'll just bear your observation in mind when I come to read a Sagan book. Or a Dawkins book. But I don't remember Dawkins sidelining philosophy? It still sounds kind of like "oh he should have said something apologetic about religion because of metaphysics instead of being so damn certain", the kind of thing any wet agnostic would like - not because there's quality philosophy being overlooked, just because wishy-washy people want their spirituality placating.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
I think you have a good deal of odd baggage that's clouding your judgement. You seem to believe that anyone who is critical of any kind of intellectually flaky stance toward "religion" must therefore be an apologist for intellectual flaky religious views. This is childish. I encourage you to develop more intellectually rigorous and less tendentious habits of mind. An intellectual horizon where Sagan and Dawkins are intellectual heroes is highly parochial. In the case of Dawkins, that he was whiggish and philosophically weak is not some novel criticism. His criticisms of Aquinas, for example, were laughably uninformed. And unlike Aquinas, who charitably advised people to attack an interlocutor's views at his strongest points, Dawkins happily sought out the weakest and their weakest for cheap show. He didn't seek out highly regarded scholars who disagreed with him, but ones he could easily ridicule, and he found them. It is buffoonish to think Dawkins et al. have some kind of intellectual high ground here. Only someone ignorant of philosophical work of the last two millenia could find Dawkins impressive here. For you and others here, I would recommend beginning with Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism" [0] to begin to grasp how crude, unsophisticated, and incoherent their intellectual positions are. The author wrote this book during the height of the New Atheist craze when the polemic of the "Four Horsemen" was particular aggressive, and so he rightly returns some of those polemical barbs, though unlike the New Atheists, his comes from a position of intellectual substance. [0] https://archive.org/details/edward-feser-the-last-superstition-a-refutation-of-the-new-atheism https://archive.org/details/edward-feser-the-last-superstiti...

tinyplanets 1y ago

Wow, you've really got it out for Carl Sagan (of all people)! Why is it required that he be something other than a "mediocrity" in philosophy and theology? He was an astronomer and (more importantly in my opinion) an incredible science communicator. That doesn't necessitate also being an expert in the study of religion, faith, and philosophy.

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
> Why is it required that he be something other than a "mediocrity" in philosophy and theology? Because as a general rule, if you're going to engage in commentary of a subject matter, you should know what you're talking about. Many people, including many scientists (certainly among the vocal ones), fail to mind the bounds of their narrow domain of expertise and tread unwittingly into philosophical territory, all the while believing their views are scientific in nature. This happens all the time with materialism, which is not a metaphysical position entailed by science, but nonetheless is often presented as if it were and sold to the public as a package deal. Sagan was certainly guilty of that, that and his whiggish view of history.