What science ain't

Shortly before taking his last breath, the late William F. Buckley heaped praise on The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, a new book by mathematician and intelligent-design evangelist David Berlinksi. This will likely encourage certain segments of the population to buy Berklinski's book, which is a shame.

The rest of us can take advantage of a cheaper alternative, and scan the first item in the April 2008 Harper's magazine Readings section. The excerpt from the book reminds those of us who fear a return to the Dark Ages of just what it is we're battling.

To the surprise of no one familiar with Berlinski, his book is a diatribe against pretty much everything I and, I suspect, all of my fellow ScienceBloggers, stand for, specifically the superiority of science over superstition. This is a writer for whom science's weaknesses are exemplified by its failure to "say anything of interest about the human soul." What a strange thing to say. Seeing as there is no scientific evidence for the soul, why should science have anything to say about it, interesting or otherwise?

In other words, I disagree with just about everything he has to say about the subject. What do you expect when you read of the "four most powerful and profound scientific theories" since the 17th century, but come across no mention of evolution by natural selection? What you do expect when you are told science is but an ideology? That "science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love, and meaning...?"

Evolutionary biology, neurophysiology, biochemistry ;;;;; all of no value.

I hope the editors at Harper's included the excerpt to better expose the silliness of Berlinski's ilk. The Readings section is, after all, home to comical example of absurdities and other misguided attempts to make sense of the a confusing universe. Regardless, that's how I took it, and I'm not complaining about their decision to print the item.

What does disappoint me, however, is the unfortunate timing of the release the book next month, with it's accompanying publicity, and Buckley's embrace of Berlinski's philosophy. I've never been a fan of Buckley's politics, but his passing prompted more than a few kind words from even his most vociferous opponents. WFB Jr., it would seem, was among the most generous and kind-hearted products of his generation. And, of course, he was smart. One cannot discuss the foundations of modern conservatism without mentioning his role as its intellectual patron saint.

But combining Buckley's early errors (opposing Blacks' voting rights being a strong hint) with his more recent inability to understand the most basic science behind climate change, and now his decision to use words like "profound" and "vastly learned" to describe Berklinski's writing, I have to beg to differ on the merits of his intellectual powers. Indeed, it would seem that Buckley's most powerful weapon was his renowned vocabulary, not his brain.

Tags

More like this

A parable:

One day, a friend comes to you and says, "I live in an old building, and I'm worried that there's lead in the paint." You pack your scientific equipment in your bag, trundle on over and test the lead content of their wall paint.

"Looks like you're lucky," you say. "The lead content is vanishingly small — certainly lower than any threshold of toxicity."

"You mean there isn't any?"

"Pretty much, yep."

"That can't be! You haven't found out anything about the lead paint in my house!"

Berlinski can cling to the happy thought that he seemed "profound" and "vastly learned" to William F. Buckley, Jr., while the latter was on the verge of death from emphysema-induced oxygen starvation.

Just as a matter of correction, Dr. Berlinski is not, repeat not, a mathematician. His PhD degree is in philosophy. I am not aware that he has ever published a mathematical article in a peer reviewed mathematics journal.

It's not quite true to say that Berlinski isn't a mathematician at all. At least that is what wikipedia has lead me to think. Make no mistake, I still think he is a dangerous weirdo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

I am ordering 500 copies to sneak into schools and libraries.

Bahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

By Emanuel Goldstein (not verified) on 17 Mar 2008 #permalink

It seems to be true to Berlinksi holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, not math. Which would explain a lot. But he has also taught math at Stanford and the U of Paris, and according to his bio, was a fellow in mathematics at one point. So perhaps I should have said "philosopher of mathematics" or something like that.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that is isn't a very good philosopher....

Berlinski can cling to the happy thought that he seemed "profound" and "vastly learned" to William F. Buckley, Jr., while the latter was on the verge of death from emphysema-induced oxygen starvation.

Intriguing. I find if I hold my breath for 'round two minutes, Berlinkski briefly seems wise... But then I also tend, for roughly the same, brief period, to believe my big toes are guppies.

(... after which, usually, I just pass out.)

Re William F. Buckley Jr.

After the Firing Line "debate," biologist Ken Miller had a conversation with Mr. Buckley and found him to very polite, quite articulate, apparently very intelligent and totally ignorant of biology.

There's a lot of overlap between philosophy and mathematics in the mathematical logic area. If he did work in symbolic logic, set theory, etc. then he could qualify as mathematician and philosopher. I know I'm currently working on a masters in philosophy, but the introductory logic classes I teach count for both a philosophy credit and a math credit.

I'm not defending Berlinski by any means. Just pointing out that mathematics and philosophy aren't mutually exclusive.

Buckley was an effete legacy snob, whose entire life was devoted to a defense of the caste privilege that had sustained him, and nothing else.

If Darwin had come from enough money, Buckley wouldn't have doubted it.

If Darwin had come from enough money...

And that's saying something.

By Sven DiMilo (not verified) on 17 Mar 2008 #permalink

TTT,

Though I agree with the sentiment, it should be noted that Charles Darwin was a member of the safely well-to-do Darwin Wedgwood family. Please forgive me if you were making a joke.

Berlinski has written several books that have a theme like this laced through them.

They drive PZ MYERS wild. PZ can of course refer to his many books to counter Berlinki's books!

By Hugh McElroy (not verified) on 17 Mar 2008 #permalink

Berlinski has never published a single mathematical paper in any peer reviewed journal. So I would not call him a mathematician, he doesn't meet the requirements of a mathematics PhD degree even in a thirld-world country university.

As usual the wirehead cult of backbenchers and lesserlight scientific types attack the messenger when they have zero logical, rational, rebuttal to offer; thus, WFB and DB get a heavy dose of the usual ad hominem attacks and personal insults.

Of course this behavior and empty sophistry is precisely what drives the American public writ large and considerable elements of academia to distain the TOE and its adherents.

It's a symptom of some disorder that the evo community believes it can persuade people to its position by the efforts of P Z Myers and his tribe each of whom is a nobody in science and simply a profiteer,provocateur, a deranged hater, and a person with a deep seated anger management problem.

No wonder the Expelled movie is so appreciated and anticipated and will likely result in further dismissal of any credibility toward the evo community or its message.

By Keith Eaton (not verified) on 18 Mar 2008 #permalink

What a strange thing to say. Seeing as there is no scientific evidence for the soul, why should science have anything to say about it, interesting or otherwise?

But that in itself is an interesting thing to say; given that many humans, for many thousands of years, have believed in souls of some sort or another, it is very interesting that as science continues to progress in its ability to explain human behaviour, there is no evidence for a soul.

No wonder the Expelled movie is so appreciated and anticipated

So appreciated that they are paying people to see it!

By Tegumai Bopsul… (not verified) on 18 Mar 2008 #permalink

Speaking of obituaries, WFB once self-published a fingersnappingly bitchy full page requiem in his Nationalist Review entitled, "Ayn Rand, RIP".

Though I am and was then no fan of Objectivism, I naturally expected him to offer some fond, polysyllabic, farewell phrases about their shared belief that the Little Guy Can Just Suck It, because that's how the world works and that's a Good Thing. (Both of them loved to ride boldly through the commoners' square on their prized intellectual high horses under the rallying cry, "I've got mine, Jack.")

What motivated this generous, kindly-hearted, well loved, erudite little snotweasel of a man to snipe at Ayn Rand's still-warm body? Why, her philosophy was insufficiently Catholic for his taste, of course!

Your trackback didn't work. So here's one by hand.

"I wondered where were the responses from the atheist community to Berlinski's book "The Devil's Delusion". I can offer a few..."