Posts

Author Barry Linetsky

Part 7: Science, Human Action, The Search for “Truth”, and Consequences

Thinking on the Potential Dangers of Science Myopia (Photo: Joao Silas, Unsplash.com)

In The Land of Blind Science, Volitional Consciousness Is King (7/20)

© 2018, Barry L. Linetsky. All Rights Reserved.

When it comes to human actions, notes Hayek in his aptly titled book The Counter-Revolution of Science, “things arewhat the acting people think they are” (44). For example, a hammer is not a thing in itself or an objective fact of Science, but rather a means to an end as perceived by a human being, a tool that can be created, designed, and used for a conceived purpose as defined by the user. A hammer can be a tool to join pieces of wood by means of nails, or to remove nails and break things apart.

Scientism neglects the study of human action and the meaning humans ascribe to the world they encounter. The best science can do in this realm is generate statistics and data maps. Human motives cannot be directly perceived and quantitatively measured, and to this extent are excluded from “real” Scientific study. Read more

Author Barry Linetsky

Part 3: Science, Human Action, The Search for “Truth”, and Consequences

Thinking on the Potential Dangers of Science Myopia (Photo: Joao Silas, Upsplash.com)

Science for Civilization, or Chaos? (3/20)

© 2018, Barry L. Linetsky. All Rights Reserved.

In moving beyond “common sense” and trying to understand and make sense of the nature of the world in which we live and function, there is occasionally a clash in perspectives that bubbles to the surface, as happened in a recent conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson in their attempt to identify the meaning of truth in a world centered around human action.

Where a conflict of ideas is encountered, what some people refer to as “academic” or esoteric issues come to the foreground.

How and whether such conflicts of fact, truth, and values are resolved as fundamental philosophic issues can be the difference between the success of human endeavours – perhaps even entire civilizations – and the flourishing of humanity on the one hand, and the fall into barbarism and human misery on a grand scale on the other. Read more

Author Barry Linetsky

Part 2: Science, Human Action, The Search for “Truth”, and Consequences

Thinking on the Potential Dangers of Science Myopia (Photo: Joao Silas at Unsplash.com)

Sam Harris–Jordan Peterson “What is True?” Post-Podcast Analysis (2/20)

© 2018, Barry L. Linetsky. All Rights Reserved.

The challenge Sam Harris faced in his discussion with Jordan Peterson on his Waking Up podcast episode 62, in my opinion, is that he couldn’t or wouldn’t comprehend the position Peterson was putting forth because it was outside of his philosophic and scientific paradigm of a materialist/positivist/empiricist worldview. These are premises that in my assessment Peterson understands perfectly well and appears to reject as being insufficiently robust to capture the full spectrum of the subject matter of science. The materialist/positivist world-view is too narrow and exclusionary of the full gamut of real-world events important to, and reflective of, human meaning, human values, human experience, and human action. Read more

Author Barry Linetsky

Part 1: Science, Human Action, The Search for “Truth”, and Consequences

Thinking on the Potential Dangers of Science Myopia (Photo: Joao Silas at Unsplash.com)

Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and the Search for “Truth” (1/20)

© 2018, Barry L. Linetsky. All Rights Reserved.

In a recent podcast of a discussion by popular and best-selling authors Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson with the title “What Is True?”, these two high profile intellectuals attempted to discuss the nature of truth in science.

Harris had received more requests from his fans to interview Peterson than “any other person on earth.” Peterson is the author of the worldwide #1 bestseller, The 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

The discussion proceeded with the two hoping and expecting to identify some areas of fundamental agreement and disagreement in order to fuel intellectual sparring for Harris’s Waking Up podcast audience.

Instead, for more than two hours, Harris and Peterson agreed on almost nothing, which made the encounter all the more fascinating. Read more