Seeing Is Unbelieving

[rug]

By PHILIP KITCHER
Published: March 23, 2012

Unless the pursuit of dreadfulness results in a tie, each year will possess its own worst book. But identifying the winner in this dubious competition poses difficulties. Surely even a well-read literary editor of The New Republic must wonder whether among all those inevitably unturned pages lurks something even more atrocious than his favorite candidate. How then could Leon Wieseltier select THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions (Norton, $25.95), by Alex Rosenberg, as the “worst book” of 2011?

Although the award is almost certainly misplaced, what inspired it is readily understood. The book expands the campaign of militant modern atheism, the offensive launched against religion by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Rosenberg’s broadsides attack a wider horizon. Since atheism is thought to be territory already secured, the targets now in view are the Big Questions, questions about morality, purpose and consciousness that puzzle softheaded people who muddle over them. Science brings good news. The answers are now all in. This conviction that science can resolve all questions is known as “scientism” — a label typically used pejoratively (as by Wieseltier), but one Rosenberg seizes as a badge of honor.

The evangelical scientism of “The Atheist’s Guide” rests on three principal ideas. The facts of microphysics determine everything under the sun (beyond it, too); Darwinian natural selection explains human behavior; and brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are. Physics, in other words, is “the whole truth about reality”; we should achieve “a thoroughly Darwinian understanding of humans”; and neuroscience makes the abandonment of illusions “inescapable.” Morality, purpose and the quaint conceit of an enduring self all have to go.

The conclusions are premature. Although microphysics can help illuminate the chemical bond and the periodic table, very little physics and chemistry can actually be done with its fundamental concepts and methods, and using it to explain life, human behavior or human society is a greater challenge still. Many informed scholars doubt the possibility, even in principle, of understanding, say, economic transactions as complex interactions of subatomic particles. Rosenberg’s cheerful Darwinizing is no more convincing than his imperialist physics, and his tales about the evolutionary origins of everything from our penchant for narratives to our supposed dispositions to be nice to one another are throwbacks to the sociobiology of an earlier era, unfettered by methodological cautions that students of human evolution have learned: much of Rosenberg’s book is evolutionary psychology on stilts. Similarly, the neuroscientific discussions serenely extrapolate from what has been carefully demonstrated for the sea slug to conclusions about Homo sapiens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/alex-rosenbergs-the-atheists-guide-to-reality.html

[Deep13]

1. "...the offensive launched against religion by...."

I completely disagree with this premise. Such books are a reaction to consistent attacks against nonbelievers, those in other religions, science, and secular government.

[Jim__]

2. I'd hate to see his review of the book that he does consider to be the worst.

It's a pretty scathing review of a book he thinks is not the worst.

But, I tend to agree with him about the difficulty of choosing the years est - either the best or worst. I usually can't pick either from the small selection of books that I read in any given year. To choose from all the books published? Quite a job.

[longship]

3. Blah, blah, militant, blah, blah, scientism, blah

What's next? Atheism caused Hitler, Papa Stalin, and throw in Pol Pot for good measure.

It all gets tiring. All atheists want is equality and for government to be a secular entity the way the founders created it. Most importantly we want to be able to say we are non-believers without being told that we're immoral, we're going to Hell, or we worship Satan. That's not militancy, it's Constitutional rights.

[cbayer]

4. I wish that what you say atheists want was true, but it's not true for all atheists.

There are some, including some who post here, who have more lofty goals. They see religion and religious institutions as inherently evil and are invested in destroying them.

[longship]

8. Who wants them destroyed?

Even the most outspoken atheists, the so-called four horsemen (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and Harris -- I would add Stenger and Myers to that list) do not want to destroy religion. I think rather that they would prefer a less virulent version, one that didn't use government fiat or violence, etc. to bring about their ends.

If you disagree with me on this then you should listen to them yourself. They are quite outspoken about their goals. But please don't put words in their mouths.

And as always, I appreciate your opinions.

[Angry Dragon]

18. Why does one need religious institutions??

[cbayer]

29. Why does who need religious institutions?

If you don't need or want them, that's great. You are fortunate to live in a place where no one will force you into one.

[Angry Dragon]

36. Your last sentence is a bit of farce

If what you say is true then why is it the catholic church tries to make everyone live by what they believe??
Why is it that other churches fight for the same thing??

My question was why if god is everything that is said about him/her is true, then why is organized religion necessary??

[cbayer]

37. And why do some churches fight vigorously against the imposition of religion

into our political system? There are many religious organizations that are absolutely horrified by what the RW religious extremists are doing and saying right now.

Perhaps organized religion is not necessary, but it exists and it is important to see its goodness and its badness.

I have no idea what the "everything" said about god even is, as the variability on that topic is so great.

[Angry Dragon]

38. Your last sentence........

If their is no consensus on what is a god then how can so many state that they believe in the same god??

It sounds like the word god is just thrown out there and is just to be taken on face value.
Or there are many gods...........

Or perhaps when people say they believe in god they need to list everything that their god is


Just yesterday I was told I should believe in god because he has a plan, but no one knows what that plan is and I should just accept that god knows what is best for me........ I have a deal of trouble believing in that

[cbayer]

39. There are many who feel no need whatsoever to define god.

There are many who feel that even an attempt to do so would be ridiculous.

There are those that would never even discuss this with you because it is inherently private.

I can see why you would have trouble with someone telling me I should believe because god has a plan. I would have trouble with that as well.

[tama]

5. Do you equal atheism with scientism?

And how do know what all atheists want?

Atheism, as we have been told over and over again, is just disbelief in God or gods, not even active disbelief.

And even though there are some self-identified atheists who are anti-theists and/or believers in scientism (e.g. the writer of the book of the OP), that does not mean that all atheists so believe.

Those who believe in scientism should just openly say so, and not hide under the cloack of atheism while doing so, nor claim victimhood as persecuted atheist when the belief system of scientism is not given a free pass from rational and skeptical criticism any more than other belief systems.

Atheism as atheism and scientism as scientism. They are not the same, even if some former theists critical of religion switch to scientism in need to believe in something.

[longship]

7. "Scientism" is not a word I use

But those arguing against atheism use it all the time.

I know what atheists want because I am one and I am active in the freethinking/atheist/agnostic community.

Indeed, atheism is just the non-belief in gods. It shouldn't be necessary for anybody to be told that since it's simple enough to open a dictionary. Unfortunately it is, even on these forums.

I am anti-theist, but only to the extent that they don't seem to be able to keep their mealy fingers out of government, out of peoples' bedrooms, and they seem to have a problem with equal rights for women, gays, racial minorities, and yes apostasy (also known as non-believers).

I don't give a damn what others believe, but when the churches and their leaders are doing what they're doing these days, it really gets people like me irritated. So, we are moved to action, not to end religion, but to let people know that we exist and that we are paying attention to events.

And we vote.

[cbayer]

9. Your generalizations about theists would lead me to wonder if your

exposure has been limited to only a certain sub-group.

I know lots of theists who would totally agree that religion has no place in our government's role in defining what people can do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

And I know many who are strong advocates for equal rights and social justice.

[longship]

10. Well, tell that to the Republicans

You're complaining to the wrong person. I'm in this with you and I don't give a damn if you believe in a hundred gods or no gods. Consider what the Republicans have been attempting just this past few weeks and consider what their rationale might be. Hell, they talk about it all the time.

I'm a very strong ally to people of all faiths as long as they leave me and my beliefs alone and stop using legislative fiat to impose their religion on others. For Christ sakes (so to speak), aren't you equally pissed off that they're using school boards all over the country to cram their creationism into our science classrooms? Do you honestly believe these things are not religiously based?

[cbayer]

12. I am equally pissed off, but your tendency to generalize is polarizing.

I think we are on the same side. I will never attempt to foist my life perspective on you and do not anticipate that you will on me.

I think it's important that we distinguish who we are talking about here. The RW evangelicals are a sub-group and not representative of all theists or believers.

Just like de Botton represents a sub-group of atheists. To paint all atheists with his brush would be wrong.

And anyone who wants to throw the NTS argument at me right now, please do. It's so old and stale that it's just going to crumble into pieces (this line not aimed at you in particular, btw).

[longship]

13. Thank you very much, kind sir

But bear in mind there are a few things that everybody here ought to know.

You want to piss off an atheist?

Use militant, angry, rude, strident or any number of adjectives with it. It'll work every time.

Compare atheism to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or any otherdreadedr of a perceived secular dictatorship.

Say that atheism is a religion. Even worse, call it scientism.

Say that atheists want to destroy all religions. This is generally not true.

Say that atheists worship Satan, the Devil, Beezlebub, or any other malignant entity.

Say that atheists have no basis for morals.

Or any other of the countless ways that atheists are commonly portrayed. We are really sick and tired of the whole thing.

We're your neighbors, your relatives, your friends. Many of us attend church with you. We may even be the pastor of your church, synagogue, mosque, or temple.

We deserve the same respect that anybody does.

Thank you all for your respectful dialogs. I've enjoyed the discussions. Let's keep things going.

[cbayer]

15. I'm a ma'am and I am married to an atheist.

I hear you loud and clear.

While you may hear some of the things you outline said here, most participants are respectful and sensitive.

I've stepped in it a few times, but I hope I am learning from my errors.

It's a rough group to hang out with, but I encourage you to stick around.

I also have enjoyed this respectful discussion with you and look forward to interacting in the future.

[longship]

17. I apologize, Madame

I get a little snarky myself, as maybe you've seen. I have a very low tolerance for postmodernism, for instance. But I try to be respectful, no name calling, etc.

Your posts have been good.

[tama]

11. It's not the word that matters

but the ideas and beliefs it refers to. Reductionism, materialism, scientific realism and empirical positivism are other similar or related words, and each with different history and scope of meaning.

In the science forum re quantum biology you stated that "it would be a big mistake for anybody to assign any top-down causality in quantum effects. Rather, these are emergent behaviors which are able to utilize quantum effects and of course biological evolution is able to exploit it. But that still keeps the causality arrow from bottom-up."

That's a strong statement and your reductionistic view of causality can't be proven empirically, and on the other hand evidence like Wheeler's delayed choice experiment quite clearly falsifies at least classic newtonian causality as the only form of causality.

I mention this again because people affiliated to those communities you mention (e.g. in these discussion refer mainly only to sources from (pseudo)skeptic organisations and publications and celebrities and spend a lot of time discussing on (pseudo)skeptic websites developing forms of "group-thinking" seem to have belief systems with many striking similarities, strong and often also very emotional attachment to reductionistic and materialistic positions. These positions are often much less well educated and rigid than e.g. many of the scientists they consider authorities.

And it seems that many of the people associated with organized (pseudo)skepticism/atheism/scientism hold on to their views not because of scientific or rational reasons, but because of group identity based on debating and opposing the common enemy and and uncompromising unwillingness to "give an inch" in any of the debate points. In short, instead of rational dialogue and inquiry the group-thinking has became a tribal game of appearing right and scoring debate points. A game of petty politics where winning has become more important than truth.

[longship]

14. Okay

I am an atheist for the same reason I am a reductionist. The evidence!

As far as top-down causality in QM, there is no strong evidence that it exists -- sorry a couple experiments ain't gonna do it, it takes more than that to overturn a century of data. But I'm willing to look at it if the evidence builds to a consensus and if there is a plausible mechanism. Right now, there is neither.

If there was evidence for a supernatural god of some sort, and I could reasonably rule out an advanced civilization (a la Arthur C Clark -- advanced civilization being indistinguishable from magic) I would believe in that god. Note that this is a tall order. I'd very much sooner believe in top-down causality in QM.

And I know I get a little snarky sometimes, but it's not personal. I really enjoy the back and forth. I only wish I didn't have to do it all on an iPhone,y only bandwidth here.

[tama]

16. I have more confidence

in myself than in scientific - or other - concensus, especially about philosophical foundations and how evidence - and other experience - is interpreted according to them.

A democrat may be inclined to support the position that 'majority cannot be wrong', but anarchists are not democrats in that sense. Also history of science offers lot's of reasons to doubt the consensus and what the consensus considers a "plausible" mechanism.

And to begin with, I really don't know what the consensus is at the moment - as science is in fact a social fact of pluralistic state of multiple disagreements and misunderstandings, including the imperialistic reductionistic powergrappers (sic ) who claim that only reductionistic science is and can be good science and want to lable everything else as pseudoscience.

[longship]

19. I am a reductionist

But I'm not wedded to that. I just see no compelling evidence to support a non-reductionist view. The universe, from all evidence, seems to emerge from basic rules of nature, many of which we understand very well and to a very high degree of accuracy.

I invite you to grab Murray Gell-Mann's TED talk off the TED site. You can download it and watch it at your leisure. He explains the principles better than I can on these forums.

Concerning plausibility, that's a pretty strong requirement in science. New science always fits in with the existing theories. It's been that way since the birth of modern science, basically Galileo. There are few exceptions, possibly Darwin, but even he wasn't the first to talk about evolution.

New theory fits like a jig saw puzzle piece into the existing body of theory. That just seems to be the way nature is arranged. And mother nature is the final arbiter to what is true, not any personal bias. In other words, nature seems to be reductionist, it's not anything I or anybody else is trying to imprint on her.

[tama]

20. I'm a reductionist

in the sense that holography, causal loops, self-referential universe etc. concepts don't exclude reductionistic direction but try to put it in larger context.

And Darwin took his idea of evolution of species from evolution of manuscript traditions that philology had developed - both sharing the tree metaphor.

Science is largely cumulative, but there are also revolutions and "paradigm shifts" that Kuhn talks about.

The idea of "clockwork universe" of deterministic laws or basic rules of nature has allways been plagued by the rather silly idea that science itself is not a part of the universe that it is trying to describe as an external object, "it" instead of "home". There are also household rules, but home is also much more than a set of rules. On this I agree with feminist criticism of "patriarchal" science.

[longship]

21. Revolutions still build on what came before

That's where the prior plausibility comes in. Yes, Einstein revolutionalized electrodynamics and mechanics and gravity, but he knew he was correct because it fit in with everything we already knew. So there really aren't any standalone Kuhnian paradigm shifts.

Anyway, even though Kuhn wrote some interesting ideas his whole paradigm shift thing is overrated, and overused by kooks promoting stuff that's manifest quackery, cure all medicines, perpetual motion machines, zero point energy, and loads of insane crap. Paradigm shift is almost a sign of coo coo for cocoa puffs these days.

Please try out the Gell-Mann talk on TED. You may get a kick out of the old crotchety dude. He makes clear the current thinking on the lines we've been discussing. It's about 15 mins and you can download an MP4. Easy.

[tama]

24. Agreed

Allready Bohm noted that most of the change happens gradually between Kuhnian 'revolutions'. But Bohm - who was not only great theoretician but also great philosopher of science - was also correct that without revaluation of its philosophical foundations - premisses and axioms and also and perhaps even more importantly less conscious presuppositions and prejudices (some call them "myths&quot - science can become fragmented and dogmatic dead-end.

And as for "pomo" I'm not quite sure what that refers to, but if phenomenological continental philosophy (Heidegger etc.) has anything to do with that, its value to scientific progress is in exposing and deconstructing subconscious "mythical"/"metaphysical" presuppositions of Western thought that manifest also in scientific theory building.

As for the "pomo jargon" it is only natural that it is hard to comprehed without having been exposed to the larger context of continental philosophy, but even as such, not as hard as the jargon of mathematical physics without a doctorate - and then some! - in the field. Checking wikipedia for the jargon of text like this does not help much, as the magic of math is AFAIK sort of embodied comprehension of very far-out geometric imaginations and algebraic relations, which for dafts like me goes way over the scalp:
http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2012/03/p-adic-homology-and-finite-measurement.html#comments

[tama]

25. Gell-Mann

I wathed the video, pretty much same as what Steven Weinberg said in his popular book about Final Theory. Mathematical beauty being of primary importance and empirical evidence of secundary, etc. That's also kind of causality, the aesthetical kind.

Here's an interview of very closely related primary (pun intended) importance:
http://www.urbanomic.com/Publications/Collapse-1/PDF/C1_Matthew_Watkins.pdf

[longship]

28. Yup, re Weinberg, Gell-Mann

Not surprising since they both worked on the same stuff, quantum field theories.

But the take away from this talk is him speaking of how complex behaviors are emergent from the quantum behaviors, plus a huge number of accidents, which are not included in the theories because they are, at their base, random. The theories can predict the probabilities but not predict outcomes.

Here is the core of the differences between the reductionists, like most theoretical physicists and those who see, for instance, that macro things can effect things at the quantum level. Well, the equations seem to say, "no."

There are some kooks who try to shoehorn the reverse causality into the randomness, but a cursory examination blows that out of the water, because these random events are predictive, just only in the accumulation of a large number of them. Then, accuracy of QM is phenomenal. For example, you can't predict when a nucleus of carbon-14 will decay, but if you have a chunk of it, you can predict precisely how many nuclei have decayed.

All these behaviors are emergent, so it seems, based on processes which at their base are random, yet a cumulatively predictive.

Yes, there are experiments which show bizarrely reversed causes and effects, but these all concern quantum systems, which by all the theory predicts that these things can happen. Once you get above that level quantum effects average out.

Good discussion going here.

[tama]

30. Several problems

- The Final or Fundamental Theory of perfect set of equations does not exist at the moment, except as a dream projected into future (psychological) time - as a teleological mental object that keeps reductionists like Gell-Mann and Weinberg interested in working on to actualize their dream of mathematical beauty. Another example of most ordinary mental causation "backwards in time" or "causal loop". There is also the Gödelian objection that says that Final Theory is not possible and opinions differ on that, so it is a matter of speculation, not an actual fact.

- Cumulation of "random events" is not very satisfactory explanation to THIS biofriendly universe, leading to multiverse-hypothesis in some form or other, like string/M describing 10 to exponent 500+ low energy universes (or worse, External Fine Tuner hypothesis).

- Outdated scaling assumptions - we as "macro" can most easily test quantum phenomena that fit in laboratories we can build, but even in lab conditions Zeiliger has made large molecules behave quantum mechanically in the classic double slit experiment. And the Wheeler's modification of it, delayed choice experiment, is currently being done also on cosmic scale and the math says results should be same as in lab conditions. Also, measurement events are macro events, so I'm at loss what do you mean by implying that "macro things" can't affect things at quantum level. Let me add that the word "thing" can be very misguiding in this context.

[longship]

31. Actually I see no problems there

Gödel? Any significantly powerful system of number theory has propositions which are unprovable, etc. So what!? Gödel is a non sequitur in the context of mathematical physics. Do you honestly think that theoretical physicists are unaware of the abilities of the mathematics they are using?

Strings? M-theory? Multi-dimensional universes? These are a different approach to finding solutions to quantum physics, but as Gell-Mann and every physicist would admit, they would have to reproduce all the results of the extant quantum field theory, the standard model. So far it doesn't. Sic transit gloria mundi. Another non sequitur.

Scaling? The experiments you describe are indeed macro systems. So what! They are still single quantum systems which of course behave... (wait for it) quantumly! because they were designed to do so, using exotic materials like Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. what does this say about top-down causality? Oh, uh, nothing at all. They just act like normal quantum interactions, which granted may not be normal for our every day experiences, but says nothing at all about quantum entanglements in, for instance, your brain. We don't have Bose-Einstein condensates in our brain, or in any other normal materials we experience. Another non sequitur.

I agree that my terminology may be a bit loose here. But if you think that events at the macro (defined as "above the quantum level&quot can effect outcomes at the quantum level, go for it. There's probably a Nobel Prize there. And I would be cheering you on. You see I have no dog in this hunt. But when people make up science that ain't there, I feel I have the obligation to call them on it.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but there is a lot of crapola out there about quantum and I don't like that because it causes people to think that it's all magic, or something. Well, it isn't. It may be difficult and seem strange, even to those who study it, but that doesn't mean you can assign just any attributes you want to it.

I guess I don't know what else to say except that these conversations have been a lot of fun. Plus, I'm getting better at keying on my iPhone -- no broadband here in the Manistee Nat'l Forest, barely have cell coverage here.

[tama]

32. There's lot to pick

but I'm not in the picketing mood. I'll just agree with you that your terminology is hard to follow and loose, as I'm accustomed to "macro" and "micro" being used for size-relations (e.g. macro cosmic scale and micro planck scale). The way you use them they are redundant and only add to confusion, as we agree that a "macro" like universe can be a single quantum event.

And in that sense I don't see why reductionistic "causal" arrow 'quantum -> classical' should be called "bottom-up" instead of e.g. "top-down", as the direction is "holografically" from more general to particular. Bottom-up and top-down are hierarchical or gravitational metaphors.

And what *is* quantum except the mathematical weirdness that experiments obey? And what *is* math?

Complexity and variety of relations, math included, the dance of forms, do not "emerge" from atoms banging into each other (as lay-mans physics still think) or other notions of classic causality, but cools down from Absolute Entropy of no-form aka Singularity; we with our brains and neurons and all this jazzy biomatter and thoughts are "state function reductions" or "decoherred" complexes; both "it from bit" and "bit from it". There is no need to think that we are products of deterministic classic causality, as those are just quantum histories flowing "backwards" from this thusly decoherred state-moment of cosmic self-reflection aka "measurement event".

As you see, I'm not disagreeing with your quantum version of "reductionism" at all, the way I understand it. I'm just explaining it better.

[Thats my opinion]

6. If anybody says any of those things in this forum,

let me know and I'll take them on broadside.

[skepticscott]

23. Fine, next time someone here claims

that "militant atheism" was responsible for 130 million deaths in the 20th century, you knock yourself out.

[skepticscott]

22. So, is the book's author claiming that science

can resolve questions like:

"How can I live a more fulfilling life?"

"Should I ask my girlfriend to marry me?"

"Were we justified in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?"

"How did human language arise?"

"Who was the best NFL quarterback in history?"

Is ANYONE claiming that? Hmmmmm...doubt it. Just another phony attempt to show that "scientism" exists anywhere but in the minds of its detractors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Rosenberg does claim the label 'scientism'

My conception of scientism is almost the same as that of those who use it as a term of abuse. They use the term to name the exaggerated and unwarranted confidence that science and its methods can answer all meaningful questions. I agree with that definition except for the ‘exaggerated’ and ‘unwarranted’ part.
...
You are strongly committed to the view that “the methods of science are the only reliable way to secure knowledge of anything”? What would you say to those who would suggest that the methods of science can give us no knowledge about mathematics and what it is like to see red?

What I say in response to such sophisticated philosophical challenges is first, like all the other metaphysical and epistemological alternatives, scientism does not yet have a satisfactory account of mathematics or our understanding of it; second, the so-called “hard problem” of consciousness—what its like to have a qualitative experience—is a sign post along the research program of neuroscience. It will eventually have to dissolve this problem, just as physics eventually had to dissolve Zeno’s paradox of motion. Meanwhile, if I have to weigh the achievements of science in the balance against the problems of the philosophy of mathematics and the first person point of view, I’ll choose science. 400 years of ever-increasing depth and breadth in explanation and prediction carries a lot more weight with me than a handful of philosophical conundrums and Platonism about mathematics.

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209

[skepticscott]

27. Well, the reviewer claimed

"This conviction that science can resolve all questions is known as 'scientism'" (my emphasis). But the goalposts have apparently been shifted explicitly from "all meaningful questions", and implicitly from "all meaningful questions in the areas it purports to study". He says nothing about most of the type of questions that I posed, which all are "meaningful" within their own context. Just another exaggerated characterization of what is called "scientism", designed to make science and scientists look arrogant and dogmatic, and to try to paint science as "just another belief system".

Scientists have justified confidence, based on a long history of success, that science can and will continue to answer difficult questions, including questions that we currently can't imagine it answering. Sticking an "ism" on that confidence is just rank silliness.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Just to break it down...

The first two are subjective decisions, and only the evidence of your own life can inform on those.

The 3rd was a political decision, one in which many people still debate on, again, either subjective or arbitrary.

The fourth, on languages, is absolutely a scientific question, indeed there's a scientific field based around it, trying to figure out how, when and what the first languages and proto-languages were.

The fifth is again, arbitrary and subjective.

Only one is open to true scientific inquiry, however, science can possibly inform you on the others, at least to a limited extent. Knowing human behavior would help you pop the question without, hopefully, facing rejection. It can help inform you of your current place in the universe, so you would know where to go from there, metaphorically. The bombing is the most difficult, understanding the human costs, and possible benefits of the decision can make it more palpable, or not, depending on your view. Math can help break down the stats on who might be the best QB, though by what standard they are judged would be arbitrary.

[skepticscott]

34. Which is just a way of pointing out

that NOBODY actually holds the "conviction that science can resolve all questions" (i.e. scientism), despite what the reviewer implies, not even Rosenberg.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Exactly, science helps answer questions about nature, nothing more or less..

granted, that's a lot, and much of it encompasses things such as animal behavior(we are not removed from that study), and pretty much everything else under the sun. But arbitrary or subjective questions? No, it can't really answer those, for there is no objectivity there.