John Gray's review of Pinker's latest book starts like this:
"Opposing reason is, by definition, unreasonable.” Steven Pinker is fond of definitions. Early on in this monumental apologia for a currently fashionable version of Enlightenment thinking, he writes: “To take something on faith means to believe it without good reason, so by definition a faith in the existence of supernatural entities clashes with reason.”
Why are scientists so silly when they stray from their specialties?
Let's think about the second quotation. The first independent clause is plainly false. Suppose my belief that Jones shot Smith is based solely on the testimony of a number of reliable witnesses all of whom agree. My belief is reasonable despite its being based on faith in the veracity of the witnesses.
Most of us have a justified true belief about our birth dates. How did we acquire these beliefs? Did we glance at a calendar as we emerged from the birth canal? No. I reasonably believe that I was born on such and such a date because I remember my mother telling me so, a telling never contradicted by anyone, and because I have an official-looking birth certificate in my possession. My belief is reasonable despite being based on the testimony of others.
There are reliable authorities in all fields. What I believe on the basis of their testimony and what they have recorded in books I believe reasonably.
I could go on, but this is boring, so enough. Pinker has done very good work, but when he tries to play the philosopher he makes a fool of himself. Another example: Pinker on Scientism.
Gray's review here.
Recent Comments