His More4 trailer about how opposed he is to Social Darwinism is really very good. But it is like his routine appeals to teleological and aesthetic arguments: wholly incompatible with the scientism that the Professor professes to profess.
If that position is correct, then not only can there be no room for teleology or aesthetics as means to truth, but there can be escape from Social Darwinism. Mercifully, that position is not correct. Mercifully, not least, for science, of which scientism is utterly ruinous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good points. Social Darwinists do indeed simply claim that their ideas are scientific truth, no matter how unpleasant, and their favored policies are merely applied biology.
ReplyDeleteEven if they were right (and they are not) Social Darwinists are a good example of the problem of scientism and scientocracy. While I greatly admire the work scientists do, I don't necessarily trust them with ethically regulating their own professional conduct (this is why I support State bans on things like human cloning and other practices) let alone setting policy for the rest of society.