tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631240246638798.post6058505058682992615..comments2024-03-18T21:13:12.753-04:00Comments on Jacob Russell's Barking Dog: Reading Causes Global Warming!Jacob Russellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07090220157886320148noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631240246638798.post-75664213851216015562008-07-09T13:06:00.000-04:002008-07-09T13:06:00.000-04:00Jacob,I agree with the basic thrust of what you'r...Jacob,<BR/><BR/>I agree with the basic thrust of what you're saying. When I mentioned those things that are outside science's purview, and then said "which I think are where philosophy and religion come in", I should have added "and art".<BR/><BR/>I think that, perhaps because of this possibility to "progress" in science, many do have a tendency to look for "progress" or "advancement" in Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631240246638798.post-92172878403094343912008-07-09T10:39:00.000-04:002008-07-09T10:39:00.000-04:00Richard,Let me begin with the point you make about...Richard,<BR/><BR/>Let me begin with the point you make about fundamentalist religious movements being reactionary--though this isn't central to what you're saying, I think it's so often (almost always, I should say), misunderstood or ignored, that Fundamentalism is symbiotic to modernity--it doesn't exist without it. The recent wave of books, by not recognizing the reaction, are quite unable to Jacob Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090220157886320148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631240246638798.post-70340405452463500232008-07-09T10:05:00.000-04:002008-07-09T10:05:00.000-04:00Yes, I definitely meant Mitchelmore.And, I'm argui...Yes, I definitely meant Mitchelmore.<BR/><BR/>And, I'm arguing that it's problematic that science has, as a theoretical goal, an all-embracing model or theory. You say that "science has overtaken philosophy and religion", but has it? As an explanatory system, perhaps, but was that ever really what was important about philosophy or religion? (I ask this--somewhat rhetorically, I admit--as an Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631240246638798.post-84236516686744525382008-07-08T23:33:00.000-04:002008-07-08T23:33:00.000-04:00More than a little wasted myself... what I meant w...More than a little wasted myself... what I meant was that science has, at least as a theoretical goal, an all embracing theory--that would explain everything. An all embracing model.<BR/><BR/>(I assume (hope) the Steve you have in mind was Mitchelmore, and not Augustine...)<BR/><BR/>There can be no such thing for literary criticism. We can draw on insights from science--as writers and artists Jacob Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090220157886320148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6631240246638798.post-58261019582931594092008-07-08T21:35:00.000-04:002008-07-08T21:35:00.000-04:00With respect to the comments over at This Space, l...With respect to the comments over at This Space, let me say that you're not the only one disappointed that the conversation got sidetracked so completely, as happens so often. I thought your comment was the only one relevant to what Steve was talking about. (I'm not sure I understood your point, in relation to his post.)<BR/><BR/>I agree with your basic point about science and science journalism.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08014014605639738887noreply@blogger.com