Scientific American on Eternal Fascinations with the End: Why We’re Suckers for Stories of Our Own Demise. See here.
Aug
2
Jim Manzi: What Social Science Does—and Doesn’t—Know.
Over many decades, social science has groped toward the goal of applying the experimental method to evaluate its theories for social improvement. Recent developments have made this much more practical, and the experimental revolution is finally reaching social science. The most fundamental lesson that emerges from such experimentation to date is that our scientific ignorance of the human condition remains profound. Despite confidently asserted empirical analysis, persuasive rhetoric, and claims to expertise, very few social-program interventions can be shown in controlled experiments to create real improvement in outcomes of interest.
More here.
Aug
1
Michael Ruse: Darwinism and the Moral Argument for God.
In my last blog, sparked by the essentially non-directedness of the Darwinian evolutionary process, I raised what seems to me to be a major problem for those who would reconcile Christian belief with modern science. I want to follow this in a similar vein, turning now to morality, a topic discussed in an interesting piece in Friday’s New York Times by the conservative but almost-always-worth-reading columnist David Brooks on the foundations of morality. He is reporting on a recent conference on the topic, where a group of “moral naturalists” argued their case. This is about the claim that morality can be given an entirely natural explanation, no need to get God involved to dictate or support our ethical imperatives. I found it extremely interesting because — okay, I’m talking about myself again — the topic is one that has been of major concern and interest to me from the day that I started out as a philosopher, 50 years ago.
Read more here.
Aug
1
The Humanist on broadening the science vs. religion debate.
Skeptics sometimes frame the science versus religion debate as one of knowledge and enlightenment versus ignorance and superstition. This framing oversimplifies the problem in a number of ways. It leaves the impression that worldviews rejecting religion pose no danger to science. It also fails to make distinctions between religious approaches that are hostile to science and those that are not. Similar to the way this framing implicitly views religion as unitary, it implicitly views science as unitary—ignoring the varied disciplinary perspectives on the debate. Moreover, it often assumes that “science” refers to the physical and biological sciences, thereby omitting important evidence- and logic-based contributions from the social and behavioral sciences. And by implicitly treating the debate as essentially a philosophical one, it often overlooks important cultural information.
Read the rest here.