I read Pinker's article, thanks to you. The letter to the editor you also helpfully cited said what I was thinking better and certainly more concisely than I would have. As something of a scientist or at least as one who daily deals in the principles of scientific studies and their claims, it is embarrassing to see scientists make truth and value claims that are not scientifically based. These hide behind words like "inherent" and many others. This op-ed by Pinker is full of examples as the respondent makes very clear. Pinker's best line is how science "cruelly" falsifies cherished beliefs. His glee at this is poorly hidden. So much for dispassionate science.
so have you written a letter to the Crimson objecting to Pinker's definition?
ReplyDeleteSomeone has beaten me to it.
ReplyDeleteI read Pinker's article, thanks to you. The letter to the editor you also helpfully cited said what I was thinking better and certainly more concisely than I would have. As something of a scientist or at least as one who daily deals in the principles of scientific studies and their claims, it is embarrassing to see scientists make truth and value claims that are not scientifically based. These hide behind words like "inherent" and many others. This op-ed by Pinker is full of examples as the respondent makes very clear. Pinker's best line is how science "cruelly" falsifies cherished beliefs. His glee at this is poorly hidden. So much for dispassionate science.
ReplyDelete