Monday, March 01, 2010

He who lives by materialism must die by it

Jeffren Shallit at Recursivity, complains about an editorial in the New English Review which he characterizes as "anti-science":
Here is yet another "oh those nasty scientists" rant from the senior managing editor of the New English Review, Rebecca Bynum. Some highlights:

For example, science can describe the effects of electricity, but it cannot tell us what electricity is any more than it can tell us what life is or what gravity is. This poor woman obviously did not attend 10th grade science, or she would know that electricity consists of a flow of electrons.

... And if pattern does not exist in mind or as mind, then where does it exist? Utterly moronic. Pattern exists as a configuration of atoms and molecules. I wonder what she thinks differentiates hexane from dimethylbutane.
Shallitt's arguments are easily refuted, however, since all they are are collections of dots on a screen in a particular arrangement and transmitted digitally over the Internet. Didn't he learn this in 10th grade science?

12 comments:

Art said...

Um, Martin, did you bother to read Bynum's essay? It's a collection of unsupported assertions, plainly stupid statements, and a vague defense of vitalism as a valid description of reality.

Heck, if she's going to try and steal the gist of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, then she should at least take the time to clean up the verbiage of the more glaring and annoying inanities.

On the bright side, Bynum's world view is but a short hop, skip, and jump from the sorts of relativistic thinking that ID proponents embrace.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

I was not defending Bynum's essay; I was commenting on the plausibility of Shallit's arguments given his own clearly materialist position. The fact that Bynum's arguments may not be very good (I don't know: I haven't read them) doesn't make Shallit's any better.

Art said...

Martin, Shallit's argument is summarized succinctly by the title of his essay:

"More Anti-Science Stupidity from Non-Scientist"

By criticizing as you do, you are defending rank stupidity. And by assailing Shallit's arguments (poorly represented as they are in your piece) as you do, you are embracing the relativistic leanings that Bynum holds to. Heck, the statement "Shallitt's arguments are easily refuted, however, since all they are are collections of dots on a screen in a particular arrangement and transmitted digitally over the Internet" is nothing more than this.

I always find it curious that those who claim to have special knowledge of some fundamental and immutable moral code are so accepting of a metaphysic that is, basically, "I want to believe, therefore it is".

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

You can't be serious. Questioning the reasoning in the attempted refutation of an argument is equivalent to a defense of the original argument? C'mon. You know better than that.

But since you apparently believe this, I guess I can mark you down as defending the simplistic materialism expressed in Shallit's post. I mean since you question my response, you must be defending Shallit's reasoning, right?

Art said...

Martin, Shallit's argument is, exactly, that Bynum's anti-science arguments are moronic. That you are of the opinion that consciousness is immaterial has no bearing on the fact that Bynum is a fool, and her arguments are stupid. These latter facts are quite independent of one's beliefs about the nature of things. And it these facts that Shallit is pointing out.

It's bad enough that you didn't bother to read Bynum's piece. That you apparently cannot be bothered with reading Shallit's response makes things that much more bizarre.

Martin Cothran said...

Art,

Okay, I think I've got it now: all I've got to do to make an argument better is to go out and find a really bad argument against it.

Check.

I said nothing about Bynum's piece. NOTHING. Shallit's naive materialism undermines his argument against Bynum, and the quality of Bynum's argument makes absolutely no difference to that fact.

None.

One Brow said...

Martin,

In what way does Shallit's arguments being patterns of electons refute his contention that thoughts exist as patterns of atoms and molecules? If anything, it would confirm his argument.

Martin Cothran said...

How?

Lee said...

> Martin, Shallit's argument is, exactly, that Bynum's anti-science arguments are moronic.

Do all scientific arguments depend on the use of question-begging epithets? Or just this one?

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Art said...

Lee, you probably agree with Bynum that the molecular formula for water is HO2, which is why you take umbrage at plain-speaking. Shallit would say that this belief is stupid and to hold it is to be anti-science, and I could not argue with him.

Of course, water = HO2 is probably acceptable in the open-minded classical academy. After all, there is no reason for chemistry to be constrained by materialistic forumlas.

Lee said...

> Lee, you probably agree with Bynum that the molecular formula for water is HO2, which is why you take umbrage at plain-speaking.

Why stop there, Art? Let's stipulate that I also believe the moon is made of green cheese and with the right incantation I can turn lead into gold.

But none of this will turn the sow's ear of depending on question-begging epithets into the silk purse of good argument.

I actually tried to read the lady's argument, and found it impenetrably boring. If you could figure out what she was talking about, you have more endurance than I do. I might agree with her that materialism as a philosophy is washed up, but there are certainly better discussions of the subject to be found. George Gilder has written some, if you're interested.

It was never a scientific position anyway. It is and always has been an assumption. That the assumption has been embraced by many scientists doesn't mean that the assumption is valid.