Subjective-objective dichotomy/External Links: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews
(Pinker Wielselteir debate)
 
imported>John R. Brews
(Some orientation upon Jone's book)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}Pinker Wielseltier debate
{{subpages}}
*{{http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114754/steven-pinker-leon-wieseltier-debate-science-vs-humanities Pinker-Wieseltier debate Part III}}
 
*{{cite web
|url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities
|author=Steven Pinker
|title=Science is not your enemy: An impassioned plea to professors and tenure-less historians
|publisher=New Republic
|date=August 6, 2013}} Pinker's essay on science and the humanities: "Surely our conceptions of politics, culture, and morality have much to learn from our best understanding of the physical universe and of our makeup as a species."
 
*{{cite web |url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114548/leon-wieseltier-responds-steven-pinkers-scientism |title=Crimes against humanity: Now science wants to invade the liberal arts. Don't let it happen. |author=Leon Wieseltier
|publisher=New Republic |date=September 3, 2013}} Wieseltier's reply to Pinker. "The question of the place of science in knowledge, and in society, and in life, is not a scientific question...science [does not] confer any license to extend its categories and its methods beyond its own realms, whose contours are of course a matter of debate."
 
*{{cite web |url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114754/steven-pinker-leon-wieseltier-debate-science-vs-humanities |title=Science vs. the humanities: Round III |author=Steven Pinker, Leon Wieseltier |date=September 26, 2013
|publisher=New Republic}} Pinker-Wieseltier debate Part III. Pinker: "Good ideas can come from any source, and they must be evaluated on their cogency"; Wieseltier: "I am for a two-state solution. In this arena of tension, as in the other one, I believe that a one-state solution would involve the erasure of one of the realms, its distortion by, and subordination to, an authority that has no legitimate claim over it."
 
*{{cite book |author=James W. Jones |title=Can Science Explain Religion?: The Cognitive Science Debate |chapter=Chapter 4: Beyond Reductive Physicalism: ''Mind and Nature'' |pages=pp. 140 ff |isbn=9780190249380 |year=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lgE7CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&dq}} The author is an active priest in the Episcopal Church and practiced psychological counseling for thirty years. He views himself as straddling two worlds. His approach is based upon the view that "reductive physicalism" is neither compelling nor scientific. He hopes the latitude granted by abandoning reductive physicalism will admit a basis for understanding religious beliefs including such matters as gods, angels, and souls. Whether or not one subscribes to these goals, the discussion of the limitations of reductive physicalism is interesting.

Latest revision as of 00:39, 17 February 2016

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
A hand-picked, annotated list of Web resources about Subjective-objective dichotomy.
Please sort and annotate in a user-friendly manner and consider archiving the URLs behind the links you provide. See also related web sources.
  • Steven Pinker, Leon Wieseltier (September 26, 2013). Science vs. the humanities: Round III. New Republic. Pinker-Wieseltier debate Part III. Pinker: "Good ideas can come from any source, and they must be evaluated on their cogency"; Wieseltier: "I am for a two-state solution. In this arena of tension, as in the other one, I believe that a one-state solution would involve the erasure of one of the realms, its distortion by, and subordination to, an authority that has no legitimate claim over it."
  • James W. Jones (2015). “Chapter 4: Beyond Reductive Physicalism: Mind and Nature”, Can Science Explain Religion?: The Cognitive Science Debate. Oxford University Press, pp. 140 ff. ISBN 9780190249380.  The author is an active priest in the Episcopal Church and practiced psychological counseling for thirty years. He views himself as straddling two worlds. His approach is based upon the view that "reductive physicalism" is neither compelling nor scientific. He hopes the latitude granted by abandoning reductive physicalism will admit a basis for understanding religious beliefs including such matters as gods, angels, and souls. Whether or not one subscribes to these goals, the discussion of the limitations of reductive physicalism is interesting.