SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the green-skinned-dancing-metaphors dept.
Alva Noë has an interesting piece on NPR about how some scientists, and cultural defenders of science, like to think of themselves as free of prejudice and superstition, as moved by reason alone and a clear-eyed commitment to fact and the scientific method. "I'm pro-science, but I'm against what I'll call "Spock-ism," after the character from the TV show Star Trek," writes Noë. "I reject the idea that science is logical, purely rational, that it is detached and value-free, and that it is, for all these reasons, morally superior."
According to Noë, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, Spockians give science a bad name because if you think of science as being in the business of figuring out how atoms spinning noiselessly in the void give rise to the illusion that there are such things as love, humor, sunsets and knuckleballs, then it isn't surprising that people might come to think that the inner life of a scientist would be barren. "The big challenge for atheism is not God; it is that of providing an alternative to Spock-ism. We need an account of our place in the world that leaves room for value. What we need, then, is a Kirkian understanding of science and its place in our lives. The world, for Captain Kirk and his ontological followers, is a field of play, and science is a form of action."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:02AM
If you're going to post stuff that was on Slashdot days ago, can you at least make sure Slashdot didn't hate it first? They're not the best judges of quality, but if *they* find something too inane and clickbaity to deal with, odds are pretty good we won't like it either.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:19AM
do you also bitch over at slashdot when they run stuff we [slashdot.org] ran [slashdot.org] first? [slashdot.org]
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:36AM
No, because there's so many more things about Slashdot to bitch about.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday September 17 2014, @12:10PM
Point taken.
That is all.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:22AM
> If you're going to post stuff that was on Slashdot days ago, can you at least make sure Slashdot didn't hate it first?
Slashdot and apparently you too missed the point. Missed it so badly that in all the flaming you guys are actually agreeing with the author.
He takes a swing at "head down" types - the sort of people who think there are no moral implications to the results of scientific inquiry. But even more, the article is a criticism of religionists who think atheism equals this fiction of a value-free life. That it is a strawman. The guy's point is that religionists mischaracterize atheists in a way that ignores most of what makes atheists tick - that atheism does not equal nihilism and anyone who thinks so is misinformed.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:35AM
Wow, well said! I doubt it will make any difference, though. The Kirkians are already all up in arms, and legs, and realism.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 16 2014, @02:50AM
(note: of course I didn't RTFA, but) after reading TFS and your comment, I can't see any relation between the two.
Which, if you are right, speaks quite a lot about the quality of TFS (or the quality of my intellect, I admit. But if so, it seems I'm not alone).
Any way, TFS is so convoluted and I can relate so little with it that there's nothing to push me reading TFAs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:10AM
So you are willing to put in the time to criticize Hugh Pickens's take on the article but not willing to read the article itself.
I think that reflects even more poorly on you than anything you could say about what Pickens wrote.
Because, unless you are some kind of weird savant, reading the article would have taken less time than it took you to write that.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 16 2014, @06:23AM
I'll read TFA iff TFS raises an interest to me, yes. Otherwise, no.
I'm old enough not to care anymore how I'm reflected on a Web site (especially a site where I'm pseudonymous by choice).
Really? Maybe I'm a very fast writer, but I don't think reading 500+ words FA (using freshly invented "-isms/-an" like Spokism and Kirkians and trying to translate figure out WTH the author means by them) takes less than writing <80 words which essentially say: "I didn't got TFS, it's so convoluted it created no deside in my to go and RTFA. Reading other comments, I guess I'm not alone".
On the line of "less time" in general: while on SN, I'm not after increased efficiency, I'm after a quality leisure time, and mind you... quality in my acceptance of the term. I don't see why would anyone imagine they are pertinent in their attempts judge what I consider quality - but... hey... whatever floats your boat: you are free to spend your time as you see fit, including making impertinent value judgements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @07:45AM
> I'm after a quality leisure time, and mind you... quality in my acceptance of the term.
Yeah, and so too are public masturabators. Feels great for you, a handful of onlookers might even get excited, but everyone else is just icked out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:07AM
This prof makes such a blatant popularity appeal to the kinds of college freshman who can talk day and night in their dorms about science and religion and Star Trek and never manage to crack open their textbook (or scroll through it, I guess nowadays). Much to the annoyance of their dorm mates who are actually serious about getting work done.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday September 16 2014, @03:15AM
What is this Slashdot you talk of? :)
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday September 16 2014, @10:47AM
So you think to do a good job, the authors have to follow slashdot? Maybe they contribute here because they didn't like slashdot that much anymore in the first place :-)
I didn't monitor the submission pipeline, and also don't follow Slashdot. Are you certain the submitter submitted it after reading it on Slashdot? Or before? Is the summary that similar that it looks like a clone?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Tuesday September 16 2014, @11:52AM
Who reads that sight anymore to even know what they've posted? I, for one, haven't been by there for months, so would have no idea what they post..
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:25PM
(Score: 2) by LaminatorX on Tuesday September 16 2014, @01:28PM
We don't monitor /.'s feed. Hugh and other authors regularly submit to both sites, and are welcome to do so.