[general_re]

But for me the mystery of existence has proven profound enough to keep my pride in check. I take counsel from Santayana's description of Hegel: "He described what he knew best or had heard most, and felt he had described the universe." The same tendency surfaces often among many of our learned public intellectuals, especially in the sciences. I hope to avoid their condition.

One of the traps people occasionally fall into is that of scientism, the notion that only science can tell us that which is truthful or valuable, or that the methods of science are equally valid and applicable across all fields of inquiry. I don't think it happens all that often, but I think I would agree that Gould was occasionally prone to the affliction. It's a specific form of a general human failing - when the best tool you have is a hammer, everything around you starts looking an awful lot like a nail, if you follow my meaning.

That's not the worst of Gould's sins, though. IMO, "The Mismeasure of Man" represents one of the greatest sins in science and rationality - the distortion of the truth in order to pursue a personal political agenda. The potential damage from such poisonous perversion is immeasurable. Thanks, Steve...

I ask myself as I stand before the mirror: "How did we get here?"

Do you then tell yourself that this is not your beautiful house, and this is not your beautiful wife?

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was... ;)

[beckett]

I ask myself as I stand before the mirror: "How did we get here?"

Do you then tell yourself that this is not your beautiful house, and this is not your beautiful wife?

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

You got me. Yes, I really am David Byne.

[pariah]

One of the traps people occasionally fall into is that of scientism, the notion that only science can tell us that which is truthful or valuable, or that the methods of science are equally valid and applicable across all fields of inquiry.

This is an accurate description of what has come to be considered the 'scientific' attitude in modern times and, to the best of my knowledge, owes its genesis to Bertrand Russell, who's epistemology was founded on the tenet of scientific verifiability. I.e., any claim not immediately testable under laboratory conditions is nonsense, except for tautological statements in mathematics and symbolic logic. Thus Russell was able, in one fell swoop, to destroy all previously existing metaphysics and theories of knowledge, at least in his opinion.

The problem, of course, is that such an arbitrary intellectual fiat has no rational basis itself, beyond satisfying the materialist's desire to cram the entire universe into a one-dimensional scientific model. If we believe Russell and like-minded followers, we should be obliged to throw out all philosophy prior to around the time of Newton, and exclude all subsequent thinking that does not strictly adhere to this very narrow criterion. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the school of Logical Positivism tried to do. No wonder it drove poor Wittgenstein to give up philosophy altogether. It is an intellectual trap that attempts to take the success of empirical science and impose it on all questions whatsoever -- and it leaves humanity all the poorer for the effort.