Mar 22, 2018 | Politics, Sci-Tech
Jason Crawford has written an positive summary of Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress over at his blog Roots of Progress:Enlightenment Now is just what the world needs right now. It is a defense of the ideas and values that have created the modern world, and a defense of that world itself. I don’t agree with every word of it, but I agree with its theme and essence. The weakest aspect of the book, to me, is its morality. “Humanism” is a great start, because it sets the right standard: human life and everything that helps people thrive and prosper. But Pinker largely ignores issues of individualism vs. collectivism, and egoism vs. altruism, that I see as core to the ideological struggles of the modern world. And closely related, Pinker falls short of painting a truly inspiring, motivating picture, a heroic ideal to strive for. He himself indicates this in the final pages of the book, when he writes: “The case for Enlightenment Now is not just a matter of debunking fallacies or disseminating data. It may be cast as a stirring narrative, and I hope that people with more artistic flair and rhetorical power than I can tell it better and spread it farther.” I hope they do, as well. But overall, this is a great book, full of profound truths, meticulously researched, lucidly argued, and entertainingly written. Everyone who cares about the big issues of human life, society, politics and culture should read it. [Enlightenment Now: A summary]
One problem with Pinker's book, according to energy expert Alex Epstein -- author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, is his analysis of climate and energy. Writes Epstein:I am generally very excited about Steven Pinker’s new book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Unfortunately, the book’s treatment of climate and energy is deeply problematic. A few nights ago I recorded a 20 minute analysis of the climate section of the book. You don’t need a copy of the book to follow along since the text of the book is in the video. I hope you find my analysis useful. I think the principles involved apply to many smart people who get this issue wrong. Bonus: At the end of the video I defend “the Koch Brothers” from Pinker’s smearing. I haven’t spoken much about them publicly so I was glad to get the opportunity. [What’s wrong with Steven Pinker’s analysis of climate and energy | Center for Industrial Progress]
Epstein's particular analysis and Crawford's overall review are both important reading on this vital topic. Mar 2, 2018 | Politics, Sci-Tech
Dr. Edwin Locke has just released a new book defending volition, called "The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal."According to Dr. Locke, "Determinism is the doctrine that everything we think, feel, believe, and do is caused by factors outside our control—that we have no choice regarding our character, our thoughts, our actions, our lives. There have been many forms of determinism but the one that is most popular today is based on neuroscience, with the enthusiastic support of many psychologists, philosophers, and physical scientists (e.g., physicists). This version argues that we are controlled by our physical brains with the brain being which are set in motion by environmental factors. The debate continues because many people disagree with determinism and assert that they have, in some form, free will. Determinists insist that such a belief represents “folk psychology,” an illusion held by people who are ignorant of what science has allegedly proved.""Determinists typically believe that:- Consciousness is the same thing as brain activity (as opposed to requiring a brain)
- The conscious mind, though real, plays no significant role in human life
- The human mind is not significantly different from that of the lower animals such as chimpanzees
- All causes are material (or mechanical)
- Goal-directed action applies equally to people and machines
- The concept of a self or the self as a causal agent has no intelligible meaning
- Key neuroscience experiments have proven that the intention to act appears after the brain has already decided what to do
- Determinism is not only compatible with objective knowledge but is also the only guarantee of objective knowledge, because it is based on scientific truth
- Determinism has to be either proved or disproved based on philosophical and/or scientific arguments
- Free will, at best, is a necessary illusion
"On the other side of the coin, various free will advocates typically believe that:- Elementary particles which make up our brain act at random, thus refuting causal necessity
- Free will and determinism are compatible
- Religion validates free will
In The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal, Dr. Locke shows that all of the above beliefs are mistaken, and that free will is, as many have claimed, self-evident, even though most people have not validated it or correctly identified what it consists of—what it is, and what it isn’t." Mar 2, 2018 | Politics, Sci-Tech
Dr. Edwin Locke has just released a new book defending volition, called "The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal."According to Dr. Locke, "Determinism is the doctrine that everything we think, feel, believe, and do is caused by factors outside our control—that we have no choice regarding our character, our thoughts, our actions, our lives. There have been many forms of determinism but the one that is most popular today is based on neuroscience, with the enthusiastic support of many psychologists, philosophers, and physical scientists (e.g., physicists). This version argues that we are controlled by our physical brains with the brain being which are set in motion by environmental factors. The debate continues because many people disagree with determinism and assert that they have, in some form, free will. Determinists insist that such a belief represents “folk psychology,” an illusion held by people who are ignorant of what science has allegedly proved.""Determinists typically believe that:- Consciousness is the same thing as brain activity (as opposed to requiring a brain)
- The conscious mind, though real, plays no significant role in human life
- The human mind is not significantly different from that of the lower animals such as chimpanzees
- All causes are material (or mechanical)
- Goal-directed action applies equally to people and machines
- The concept of a self or the self as a causal agent has no intelligible meaning
- Key neuroscience experiments have proven that the intention to act appears after the brain has already decided what to do
- Determinism is not only compatible with objective knowledge but is also the only guarantee of objective knowledge, because it is based on scientific truth
- Determinism has to be either proved or disproved based on philosophical and/or scientific arguments
- Free will, at best, is a necessary illusion
"On the other side of the coin, various free will advocates typically believe that:- Elementary particles which make up our brain act at random, thus refuting causal necessity
- Free will and determinism are compatible
- Religion validates free will
In The Illusion of Determinism: Why Free Will is Real and Causal, Dr. Locke shows that all of the above beliefs are mistaken, and that free will is, as many have claimed, self-evident, even though most people have not validated it or correctly identified what it consists of—what it is, and what it isn’t."Dec 21, 2017 | Politics
Writes David Gulbraa at NEW ROMANTICIST:
The US Justice Department announced today that it will file an antitrust suit against Santa Claus. “He’s got a monopoly on delivering presents on Christmas Eve,” said Justice Department spokesperson Ben Scrudge. “Plus he’s giving those presents away for free. Who can compete with that?”
Read the rest of The Government Against Santa Claus.
Dec 20, 2017 | Business, Philosophy, Politics
From Is Ayn Rand Affecting Trump’s America? An Interview with Steve Simpson | Merion West.
[Alex:] To what degree do you think Ayn Rand’s philosophy is influencing the modern Republican Party?
Steve: I would say very little honestly. It’s really hard to say that she’s influencing the Republican party. She’s definitely influenced the right, generally speaking, in a huge way, but that does not mean necessarily that conservatives are interpreting her ideas correctly.
I would put it this way: the right is just as afraid of Rand’s ideas as the left is; the right disagrees with her important ideas just as much as the left does. But what Atlas Shrugged has done is give people who are in favor of business, in favor of the free market, in favor of capitalism an ideal to aspire to. Atlas Shrugged is the only novel I’ve ever heard of that portrays businessmen as heroes. I think if you’re on the right and you think there is something good about capitalism, Rand gave the most ringing endorsement to that view that anybody could have given. So it makes really good sense that people on the right, who are sympathetic to capitalism, would like her novel, but that’s a very different thing from them saying they agree with her.
I think she’s influenced the right in general, but the caveat is that it does not mean those on the right necessarily agree with her. When you get to things like “Trump is the Ayn Rand presidency,” that’s nonsense. She’s influenced the right, but there’s still a big gap between Objectivism and what many conservatives believe.
Read the rest: Is Ayn Rand Affecting Trump’s America? An Interview with Steve Simpson | Merion West.
Dr. Edwin Locke has just released a new book defending volition, called "