and the critics say . . . The Atheist's Guide to Reality
Rosenberg sounds pretty sure about his conclusions--but given my own limited background in this area, I wanted to see what others had to say.
The first review I located was by Manjit Kumar, the author of Quantum, which was one of the top science books to read in 2012 by The Hindustan Times (good source? I don't know). Review is basically a summary with no critical material. Not helpful.
Skipping over a couple of conservative reviews that brand it the worst science book ever. . . and the expansion of science into realms where it doesn't belong (namely into questions that God could answer instead. . .). I found the Kirkus Review. It's summary statement: "A cocky, relentlessly arrogant treatise on the true nature of all things human". And the review does not provide much else. . .
Psychology Today offered a review by Gregg Henriques. Finally, at least, a review that actually attempts to provide critical support for its position (which is Rosenberg is an arrogant reductionist). Why? Because the title is misrepresentative (this is not a book about atheism, but a book about physicalism--the belief that physics is the final arbiter of truth).
Using the "unified theory", which I know nothing about but it has lots of pretty diagrams, he argues Rosenberg's argument is clearly and unequivocally wrong. In the unified theory, there is another layer of "energy" which includes consciousness, thoughts, the self, purpose and morality, which Rosenberg dismisses as evolutionary necessary illusions. Unfortunately, however, Henriques critique is not very convincing. . . he doesn't provide anything to support the idea that consciousness or any of those other things do exist and he comes across as defending his territory (psychology).
Harper's does a kind of "group" review, looking at Rosenberg as well as several other "new atheists". The author does mention that Rosenberg is a philosopher at Duke and brings a commitment to rigor to his thesis, unlike the others. Christopher R Beha states in the review that he was disappointed to find that Rosenberg's argument is more convincing then the others because he had hoped there would be some hope somewhere.
NYT book review essay by Philip Kitcher, a philosopher, dismisses most of Rosenberg's arguments as a throwback to sociobiology of an earlier era (but he doesn't really say why, though he mentions "methodological cautions that students of human evolution are widely aware of--without stating what any of these cautions are. . .). He adds though, quite helpfully, that the science is not in yet and Rosenberg is too quick to dismiss what it might discover. And, not so helpfully by reminding us that literature and poetry and the social sciences can benefit humans (which Rosenberg does not say is not the case; he just says they aren't science). Interesting discussion between Kitcher and Jerry Coyne on this topic.
When I read these criticisms, they don't seem to be really addressing Rosenberg. They just keep saying there are other ways of knowing. . . but they do nothing to prove this. It seems like how they define "knowing" is so different that they are comparing apples and oranges.
I can't find a scientist addressing the book. Does that mean I just didn't look hard enough? They all agree with R so don't need to take the time to say so? They all think it's a joke and not worth their trouble?
Questions the criticisms raise for me:
1. What is epistemology? Or rather, what is considered an epistemology? If science is, in fact, the only "truth" does that necessarily mean it's also the only way "to know"?
2. Despite what might be delusions we developed or were developed for us through evolution, we are still "trapped" by them in a way (especially if that's the way our brain works--which is out of our control), then are we creating "knowledge" for ourselves even if it is delusional? If not, what is it that we are creating?
3. Could it be that the "knowing" that the humanities offers "feels good" and so is worth doing for that reason alone but does not need to be providing us any "truth" about the universe?
4. Kitcher argues that humanities can provide us with different ways of framing ideas. If this is so, it might help us to pose questions that science could then answer. . .
Rosenberg is too stripped down for me: I don't get how it is "he knows"? Is he without delusion? Is there any reason for him to continue to learn? Does he learn because he's evolutionary predisposed to do so?
The first review I located was by Manjit Kumar, the author of Quantum, which was one of the top science books to read in 2012 by The Hindustan Times (good source? I don't know). Review is basically a summary with no critical material. Not helpful.
Skipping over a couple of conservative reviews that brand it the worst science book ever. . . and the expansion of science into realms where it doesn't belong (namely into questions that God could answer instead. . .). I found the Kirkus Review. It's summary statement: "A cocky, relentlessly arrogant treatise on the true nature of all things human". And the review does not provide much else. . .
Psychology Today offered a review by Gregg Henriques. Finally, at least, a review that actually attempts to provide critical support for its position (which is Rosenberg is an arrogant reductionist). Why? Because the title is misrepresentative (this is not a book about atheism, but a book about physicalism--the belief that physics is the final arbiter of truth).
Using the "unified theory", which I know nothing about but it has lots of pretty diagrams, he argues Rosenberg's argument is clearly and unequivocally wrong. In the unified theory, there is another layer of "energy" which includes consciousness, thoughts, the self, purpose and morality, which Rosenberg dismisses as evolutionary necessary illusions. Unfortunately, however, Henriques critique is not very convincing. . . he doesn't provide anything to support the idea that consciousness or any of those other things do exist and he comes across as defending his territory (psychology).
Harper's does a kind of "group" review, looking at Rosenberg as well as several other "new atheists". The author does mention that Rosenberg is a philosopher at Duke and brings a commitment to rigor to his thesis, unlike the others. Christopher R Beha states in the review that he was disappointed to find that Rosenberg's argument is more convincing then the others because he had hoped there would be some hope somewhere.
NYT book review essay by Philip Kitcher, a philosopher, dismisses most of Rosenberg's arguments as a throwback to sociobiology of an earlier era (but he doesn't really say why, though he mentions "methodological cautions that students of human evolution are widely aware of--without stating what any of these cautions are. . .). He adds though, quite helpfully, that the science is not in yet and Rosenberg is too quick to dismiss what it might discover. And, not so helpfully by reminding us that literature and poetry and the social sciences can benefit humans (which Rosenberg does not say is not the case; he just says they aren't science). Interesting discussion between Kitcher and Jerry Coyne on this topic.
When I read these criticisms, they don't seem to be really addressing Rosenberg. They just keep saying there are other ways of knowing. . . but they do nothing to prove this. It seems like how they define "knowing" is so different that they are comparing apples and oranges.
I can't find a scientist addressing the book. Does that mean I just didn't look hard enough? They all agree with R so don't need to take the time to say so? They all think it's a joke and not worth their trouble?
Questions the criticisms raise for me:
1. What is epistemology? Or rather, what is considered an epistemology? If science is, in fact, the only "truth" does that necessarily mean it's also the only way "to know"?
2. Despite what might be delusions we developed or were developed for us through evolution, we are still "trapped" by them in a way (especially if that's the way our brain works--which is out of our control), then are we creating "knowledge" for ourselves even if it is delusional? If not, what is it that we are creating?
3. Could it be that the "knowing" that the humanities offers "feels good" and so is worth doing for that reason alone but does not need to be providing us any "truth" about the universe?
4. Kitcher argues that humanities can provide us with different ways of framing ideas. If this is so, it might help us to pose questions that science could then answer. . .
Rosenberg is too stripped down for me: I don't get how it is "he knows"? Is he without delusion? Is there any reason for him to continue to learn? Does he learn because he's evolutionary predisposed to do so?
Comments
Post a Comment