This was the guy who said hip-hop is not music, because ALL music needs melody, chords and bass, which would also make Bach's chorals not music, or Gregorian choir? Please, aim higher :))) Edward Feser can be more interesting.
Really interesting! Aren't you going too far with associating with scientism with modernity? Because it would look like the limits of scientism are the limits of modernity as well. I mean, scientism can tell us how to make nukes but not when to use them.
For example the etologist Konrad Lorenz wrote he cannot use in etology the standard scientific worldview of a point-like neutral observer outside the system observing an object. It is obviously an interaction between two living organisms. So for example here we are running into one of scientism's limits, that the observer is not part of the observed system.
When I read philosophers and Feser is no exception, the impression I get there is a certain background assumption: that there is value in our thoughts. That is, there are certain truths sort of embedded in our minds, which we cannot mine out with scientism, but we can mine them out by thinking hard. I don't know whether it is true.
I don't think you are appreciating the evolutionary argument that Shapiro was sharing. This is actually a well known and well defended argument from Alvin Plantinga, typically referred to as the "evolutionary argument against naturalism". This argument comes out of Alvin Plantinga's epistemology on warranted belief, specifically proper function.
I'm familiar with that argument. Empirical knowledge is probabilistic, with a pragmatic basis, so certainty isn't needed. Our models can indeed lead us astray, as in the case of monotheism itself. The better models are independently tested, as occurs in science. Science didn't evolve but is a by-product of some native reasoning powers that we developed to improve on our intuitions, heuristics, and natural biases.
This was the guy who said hip-hop is not music, because ALL music needs melody, chords and bass, which would also make Bach's chorals not music, or Gregorian choir? Please, aim higher :))) Edward Feser can be more interesting.
I've done Feser too.
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/anthropocentrism-and-the-downfall-of-medieval-apologetics-c65b4afab165?sk=733c9341bd9e0fe5f59645edd4ef2657
https://medium.com/deconstructing-christianity/pointless-niceties-in-wrangling-with-catholic-pedantry-f2ab340d317d?sk=b85e2a9cac5a1af0820afa3709dff601
Really interesting! Aren't you going too far with associating with scientism with modernity? Because it would look like the limits of scientism are the limits of modernity as well. I mean, scientism can tell us how to make nukes but not when to use them.
For example the etologist Konrad Lorenz wrote he cannot use in etology the standard scientific worldview of a point-like neutral observer outside the system observing an object. It is obviously an interaction between two living organisms. So for example here we are running into one of scientism's limits, that the observer is not part of the observed system.
When I read philosophers and Feser is no exception, the impression I get there is a certain background assumption: that there is value in our thoughts. That is, there are certain truths sort of embedded in our minds, which we cannot mine out with scientism, but we can mine them out by thinking hard. I don't know whether it is true.
I don't think you are appreciating the evolutionary argument that Shapiro was sharing. This is actually a well known and well defended argument from Alvin Plantinga, typically referred to as the "evolutionary argument against naturalism". This argument comes out of Alvin Plantinga's epistemology on warranted belief, specifically proper function.
I'm familiar with that argument. Empirical knowledge is probabilistic, with a pragmatic basis, so certainty isn't needed. Our models can indeed lead us astray, as in the case of monotheism itself. The better models are independently tested, as occurs in science. Science didn't evolve but is a by-product of some native reasoning powers that we developed to improve on our intuitions, heuristics, and natural biases.