Sunday, April 12, 2015

"All Professions are Conspiracies against the Laity"

The shorter version of this:  philosophers are like any other modern professional.  If you want them to pay attention to you, brings lots of money.

The longer version is kind of interesting.


  1. I did come to one conclusion while reading the article, I think the reason so many scientists diss philosophy is that they lack the training and background to understand it and they resent that there is a rigorous discipline that their long, hard and expensive training in science didn't prepare them to be more than high school level readers of. And everyone knows that science is the Tree of Knowledge and its priesthood the true priesthood, so philosophers are just old poopy heads. It doesn't get much higher than that.

    I saw a youtube where Larry Krauss is in conversation with Noam Chomsky, Krauss is billed as a "public intellectual". Just to show you how devalued that currency is.

  2. Scientists, and especially their fan-bois on the intertoobs, do NOT want to be told that science is a philosophy. And don't even think about telling them the difference between techno and sophia in ancient Greece.

    I've seen comments where scientists tie themselves into knots in order to deny the clear implication of Kuhn's reasoning about science, because Kuhn means science is also entirely of human manufacture. Indeed, the reason science decided religion was all about "explaining" natural phenomena (it never was) was so that science could then usurp religion and claim to be, as you say, the "true priesthood."

    That isn't universally true, of course. Bohr and others were trained in philosophy, and thought in philosophical terms. We don't teach philosophy at all in this country, except as a college major for a handful of people who then become cloistered professionals (a la this article), so we generally eschew any connection between philosophy and life.

    Indeed, it's the reason I want to seminary. When I visited, the Dean of the school told me their purpose was to put theologians in the pulpit. Unfortunately, that's not the best person to put in the pulpit, but that's another story.....

  3. I love those occasions they provide when the sci-rangers and their allies make it necessary to point out that not only science but also math are human creations. I've smiled when I can ask them which gods they imagine those were stolen from by some latter day Prometheus (it's hilarious that the atheist Regnery cites that name) for us.

    It's necessary for them to pretend that science is a replacement for God and to do that so ignorantly and with such unawareness because of their philosophical ignorance that leaves them unable to understand what they're contending.

    But I'm trying to be better than that so I should stop smiling when they give me that opportunity. Still needs to be pointed out, though.

  4. As I think I said somewhere recently (in a comment, in a post, in my dreams?), it's interesting that science decided that religion was all about explaining natural phenomena, and so defined science could then "replace" religion and assert it's place on the throne of Ultimate Explanation and so Ultimate Concern.

    The favorite retort of most on-line atheists is to refer to God as an "invisible sky man pulling the strings." And, of course, if you don't see God that way then you're really an atheist (as I've seen some insist Obama is, because he's not Billy Graham) and just won't admit it.

    It's all about identity, especially about defining yourself by what you think you are not (but actually are. Back to the splinter in my brother's eye, a reflection of the log in my own....)

  5. Apparently a LOT of us are (cowardly) latent atheists, if we say we're religious but not fundamentalist.