<story><title>Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress</title><url>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/philosophy-has-made-plenty-of-progress/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ripsawridge</author><text>The only thing our world needs now is a reorientation away from growth at all costs into a mode of life that values the simple, the close by, the cheap.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see this guy giving a damn about that problem. Instead he tosses off bon mots about Popper and Gödel, and intones comfortably that in his view his peers have the right idea because they converge on atheism&amp;#x2F;agnosticism. Wow. The world is saved.&lt;p&gt;There is a class of people who value a &amp;quot;small life,&amp;quot; the kind we all need to adopt: zen monks. Unfortunately, such people are afflicted by the disease of irrationalism in their ideas about God, or some similar concept that offends the sensibility of the excessively rational so much that they can only paint Belief in the most lurid colors.&lt;p&gt;Highly unfashionable to study such people. Instead, a professional philosopher keeps giving interviews, attending conferences and publishing papers. I&amp;#x27;ll be glad when we can no longer afford them. I also apologize for my lack of charity but there it is.</text></comment>
<story><title>Philosophy Has Made Plenty of Progress</title><url>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/philosophy-has-made-plenty-of-progress/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>brobdingnagians</author><text>Sounds like a clever, witty, and charming guy. Would be very interesting to talk to him; I like his style of talking.
Curiously ironic that he cites a consensus in personal belief in atheism and agnostics among philosophers (at least, modern philosophers, most philosophers in history believed in God..) as a good reason for philosophy not accepting the existence of God, which appears to be a popularity contest (and echo-chamber), then later in discussing a scientific belief says &amp;quot;This I do believe, but have no proof.&amp;quot; Sounds like some faith to me... (and I agree that there is probably a surprisingly simple and elegant theory underlying all of physics, based on what I understand and see of the universe) Of course, I&amp;#x27;ve found that most atheists tend to have faith in science without actually understanding science (though plenty do understand the science) and have some personal, emotional reason for not believing in God rather than a well-thought out chain of reasoning; but most people believe things for personal and emotional reasons, so it isn&amp;#x27;t surprising. It is always a bit humorous to ask them why they believe in science or what it is they believe and get back answers based on a fanatical devotion to, and blind trust in, the priesthood of &amp;quot;pseudo-&amp;quot;scientists like Dawkins, who makes all sorts of unsupported meta-physical claims in his books. I would always encourage atheists to investigating with an open mind, and to learn more about their system of beliefs, and more about logic. They should do what they believe is correct, and should always seek the truth, but be open to discovery of truth even when they may not like it. Most real scientists have a healthy skepticism towards the correctness of at least part of their own theories.</text></comment>