I created and regularly teach the upper-division course on “Science Fiction in Literature and Film” at SUNY Oswego, under the aegis of the English Department. My approach to the genre is that, so to speak, everything one thinks he knows about it is wrong, beginning with the supposition that SF functions as the propaganda arm of established science. On the contrary, the most intellectually developed SF of the twentieth century seems to me to be quite critical of established science – or of the scientific establishment. Thus far from being generically “propaganda for science,” SF is one of the prime loci of the critique of scientism. I wrote the following paragraphs for the students in my class, in an attempt to explain the term scientism and to suggest why the authors whom we study in the course address scientism with a cocked eye.
Apologists for theism often point out, correctly, that science cannot tell us why things happen, but only what happens and how. As what was once called natural history, what we have lately called science can provide, not explanations, strictly speaking, but rather only more or less precise and accurate descriptions (and their formalizations). Proper scientists would as natural historians presumably be the first to agree. Scientism, the metaphysical doctrine erected upon this lacuna of science, argues that it is due to there being no such thing in reality as a why; no purpose, no end or telos or reason to things. Devotees of scientism rarely notice that if there is no reason to things, there is then no possibility of explaining or understanding them; so that scientism, if true, is incomprehensible.
The devotees of scientism render themselves absurd, and we needn’t trouble ourselves further with their arguments against competing metaphysical theories.
This of course does not at all mean that we may disregard science or its findings; nor does it mean that there is any necessary correlation between being a scientist, or as a scientific layman crediting the discoveries of science, and being an absurd devotee of scientism. It is perfectly possible, in other words, to be a believer in science, its findings and methods, and to be rational and coherent.
But this is possible only for those who are ready to admit that there must be a purpose, a reason and therefore an explanation of things, even though science cannot tell us what it might be. Indeed, it is possible only for those who are ready to admit that science cannot even get started unless there be such reasons and purposes.
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
Nerd Princesses and Babies
Did you know Alte is the “true Nerd Princess of the Orthosphere“? Awesome! I get all giddy just thinking about our “sphere” having a nerd princess. I’m such a beta.
Speaking of which, Traditional Christianity had a post up (by Elspeth, who’s also an Orthosphere Princess) on co-sleeping a while ago. Apparently the city of Milwaukee is on a jihad to stop mothers from sleeping with their babies. They’re worried parents will roll over and squish the little ones, or something like that. I have some experience in this matter–Julie having decided a little before her first birthday that it was time for her to move into bed with mommy and daddy, and the stronger will overpowering the weaker two–that cribs were not designed to protect babies; they were designed to protect fathers. Trust me, little people are total bed hogs. More mornings than not, I’ll wake to find myself holding onto the edge of the bed–where someone has pushed me–trying to keep from falling off.
Men and Women
Will S. at Patriactionary links to a brilliant set of posts F. Roger Devlin defending patriarchy.
Whither Jewry?
Justin helpfully summarizes the statistical data showing that American Jews remain overwhelmingly a Leftist bunch. (The alleged tendency of Jews to disagree with each other doesn’t extend to the topic of abortion, for example.) What happens, though, when we look to the future, or even to the present outside our own country? Will the growth of Orthodoxy and the political experience of Israel (where Jews must take responsibility for preserving a nation with which they identify, and criticizing from the sidelines from a position of morally superior alienation is not an option) strain this love affair with the Left? They already are. Steve Sailer is already pointing to Israel for an example of how intelligent people deal with “illegal infiltrators”. Also, the Tablet has a fascinating report on a recent academic conference on the death of the Jewish-Leftist alliance. Since these are academics, they see the question as whether Jews shall be revolutionary Leftists or only liberals–as if those were the two extremes of the political spectrum. Still, some of the statements made were notable. Michael Walzer argues that Jewish Leftism’s invocation of the prophets is illegitimate. The prophets had no interest in democracy or revolution; what they wanted was an end to idolatry and submission to God. Other speakers spoke harshly of the Jewish Left’s dalliance with communism, properly treating communism as a genuine evil rather than an excusable excess of enthusiasm. I noticed that English-speaking Jewish magazine articles like this one still write as if it were a proven fact that the Torah is not divinely inspired. I suspect (and hope) that is will not be true a century from now, given which Jewish groups are most likely to still be around then.
Thinking about the Right
Summaries of conservative belief vary widely in quality, so throwing up a picture of Joseph de Maistre on top is a good way of signaling that you’re going to do a good job of it. And Samuel Goldman does do a good job here of explaining to the Corey Robins of the world the differences between an extreme reactionary and a fascist.
See also R. J. Snell’s post on the Trinitarian grounding of the Right’s anti-individualism.
Posted in Judaism, Links, Marriage & Family Life | 17 Comments »
A friend of mine recently referred me to an excellent talk by Denis McNamara, an energetic and extremely knowledgeable historian on the liturgical importance and implication of Church architecture. For reactionaries concerned with transcendental representations and the need for a coherent and recognizable social order, this is a talk you can’t miss. McNamara is a Roman Catholic, but his sensibilities shouldn’t offend anyone except those, perhaps, of an iconoclastic bent.
Posted in Christ & Culture, The Arts | 1 Comment »
Rorate reported a few days ago that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has handed on its recommendations regarding the SSPX to the Holy Father. It’s expected a determination may be made by the end of the month. So, to borrow a turn of phrase common in the postconciliar age, let’s have a dialogue. What’s going to happen? Some thoughts of my own below the break. Continue Reading »
Posted in Catholicism, Traditionalism | 9 Comments »
Those of us living in the Western U.S. will witness a solar eclipse today (Sunday, May 20) from around 5-7 pm Pacific time. A lucky few will get the full “ring of fire” spectacle, while many more will see some sort of partial eclipse. If you wish to see this event, please follow the appropriate safety precautions.
Some fun facts:
Posted in Science & Natural History | 2 Comments »