Speaking of provocateurs, Steve Fuller surely counts as one too. Ever since Fuller threw his lot in with the intelligent design crowd it is hard to take him seriously. This is something of a shame because he often sees through the pretence that passes for savvy and insight in our fairly shallow conventional wisdom.
So, I was very pleased by Melinda Bonnie Fagan's restrained (here's a lovely understatement: "Fuller's claims are controversial") review of a recent book. (I dare not say "Fuller's most recent book," because it is hard to keep up with him.) She appreciates Fuller's desire to provoke, and has the right response to it. Rather than presenting 'science' as the new mono-theism (as most public Darwinian spokespeople tend to do), Fagan uses her knowledge of scientific practice to offer an alternative rejoinder: she calls attention to science's "pluralism" and the values associated with it: "notably tolerance, an idea with powerful implications for both religion and science." I wish more philosophers (of science) would agree. But earlier blogging experience suggests that pluralism is an idea too far for the philosophic establishment.
Recent Comments