[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

david dmbuchanan at hotmail.com
Wed Jun 10 17:20:13 PDT 2015



Arlo said:
> I read this article the other day, and was left a little disappointed. The author sets up the (almost classic) 'subjective-objective' clash, here coming from the cultural studies folks versus natural scientists. And from here he laments how the rhetoric of the cultural studies folks (no truth) was appropriated by the anti-intellectualists as a way of undermining research that violated their ideology. But I think what the author is trying to present is impossible without an understanding of the simultaneous clash between social and intellectual values. Without this, it comes across as an argument for the 'objective' truth of the natural scientists, when instead the 'victory' should be to the empirical truth of intellect over the dogmatic truth of social value. 



dmb says:

I think you're quite right and said it well too. 



Arlo continued:

This would allow the author to better illuminate the 'intelligent design theory' strategy of the Discovery Institute, not as way to use relativism to discredit evolution theory, but as a way of masquerading social dogma as intellectual theory. Or, to restate, its wrong argue the objective truth of evolution theory when we should not take it is objective truth. But the challenges, when they come, should originate in empirically-based research, not in the scripture-based rituals of organized religions.



dmb says:

Right, except I think the use of relativism is part of that same masquerade. It's even used to feign open-mindedness and by the same token to condemn evolution's defenders as closed-minded and dogmatic. (John has accused me of being narrow-minded many times for refusing his to accept his absolutist dogma and for insisting that words and concepts have definitions.)



Arlo concluded:

So the solution to the dilemma proposed by the author is not to hunker down with the objective truth of the natural scientists as the author is forced to imply (in my reading) without a way of introducing the social-intellectual clash that is driving the "willfully ignorant". 


dmb says:

In a public debate or an essay for a general audience, I think the difference difference between social and intellectual values can find expression if the two sides are presented as rival moral values. One of the biggest obstacles for people dominated by social values is that they see that intellectual values are moral values and in fact usually construe that whole area as the source of nihilism and moral rot. And if Pirsig is right, that's the problem with objectivity, not intellectual values as such. But rather than try to explain the MOQ evolutionary hierarchy or even deploy the MOQ's terms, we can still frame the issues as moral issues. 

That's why I constantly complain in those terms and it's easy to back up the notion that is it simply unethical and dishonest to hold beliefs that are contrary to the evidence or unsupported by evidence. That's not just rhetoric for me either. I'm genuinely disgusted and literally sickened by that kind of behavior. Makes my blood boil when I encounter specific instances and it makes me sad that there's so much of it. We are swimming in an ocean of bullshit. 




 		 	   		  


More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list