Philosophy: What’s the Point? Part 3: Maybe It Should Stick to Ethics — John Horgan (The Science Writer)

johnhorgan.org · 1,396 words · saved by 1 readers

Kant looks mournful in this portrait, I’m guessing, because he fears his philosophical descendants will destroy the ethical edifice he has so painstakingly constructed. Source: Wikipedia. This is the third in a series of posts on philosophy. It would be immoral to read it without having read my first and second posts. It must irk philosophers that any idiot thinks he can do what they do. Take Stephen Jay Gould. He wasn’t an idiot, but he wasn’t a philosopher, either. He was an evolutionary biologist who often pontificated on philosophical matters, like whether science and religion are compatible. Unlike his bitter rival Richard Dawkins, Gould didn’t denounce religion as harmful claptrap. Gould suggested that science and religion can peacefully co-exist because they occupy different realms, or “magisteria”; science addresses what is and religion what ought to be. Gould called his scheme “non-overlapping magisteria,” NOMA. NOMA never caught on, because each side thought it conceded too m

Philosophy: What’s the Point? Part 3: Maybe It Should Stick to Ethics Mar 20 Written By John Horgan Kant looks mournful in this portrait, I’m guessing, because he fears his philosophical descendants will destroy the ethical edifice he has so painstakingly constructed. Source: Wikipedia . This is the third in a series of posts on philosophy. It would be immoral to read it without having read my first and second posts. It must irk philosophers that any idiot thinks he can do what they do. Take Stephen Jay Gould. He wasn’t an idiot , but he wasn’t a philosopher, either. He was an evolutionary bio

Philosophy: What’s the Point? Part 3: Maybe It Should Stick to Ethics — John Horgan (The Science Writer)

related reading