Who Were the Sea Peoples?

recently tried to claim here that to admit that a being infinitely greater than oneself created the universe is an act of... hubris !... just the same as devotees of scientism claiming science is to get credit for the wonders of creation. (And of course, no devotee of scientism is actually going to outright claim that science created galaxies or deep sea fish or volcanoes. The way this sort of propaganda works is that they will continuously suggest that, but when challenged, will offer a shocked denial that they ever suggested any such thing. Just like my own dolts did.) Ed Feser nails such combox trolls: "Then there is the element of pride. You have to be smart to do natural science. Combox trolls usually are not very smart, but they think of themselves as smart, because they at least have the capacity to pepper their remarks with words like 'physics,' 'science,' 'reason,' etc. as well as to rehearse whatever science trivia they picked up from W...

"all reality that did not bend or reveal itself through the orthodox method [of the physical sciences] was a priori defined as subjective fancy." -- Colin Cordner, "Eric Voegelin and Michael Polanyi on Science and Philosophy," forthcoming in Tradition Versus Rationalism . That's a nice, concise definition or you!

“The advancement of science and the rationality of politics are interwoven in a social process that, in the perspective of a more distant future, will probably appear as the greatest power orgy in the history of mankind.” -- Eric Voegelin,  “The Origins of Scientism”

These guys are barking up the wrong tree : 'Some researchers question whether dogs experience feelings like love and loyalty, or whether their winning ways are just a matter of instincts that evolved because being a hanger-on is an easier way to make a living than running down elk.' I question whether these researchers really have 'questions' and 'findings,' or if they have just evolved to act as if they because being a hanger-on around grant-writing agencies is easier than working for a living. 'Raymond Coppinger, a professor emeritus of biology at Hampshire College, noted in his landmark 2001 book, “Dogs,” that “best friend” is not an “ecological definition.” And he suggested that “the domestic house dog may have evolved into a parasite.”' You know what else is not an "ecological definition," Raymond? Professor emeritus. And I suggest that some intellectuals have evolved into parasites.

At least if the average of which we speak is the mean: "Consider the average number of legs for a human: it’s around 1.999. Almost everyone is above average and no one is average." By the way, the quote is from a good article rejecting scientism.

"Nothing carries so much authority today as science, but there is actually no such thing as 'the scientific world-view'. Science is a method of inquiry, not a view of the world. Knowledge is growing at accelerating speed; but no advance in science will tell us whether materialism is true or false, or whether humans possess free will. The belief that the world is composed of matter is metaphysical speculation, not a testable theory." -- John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette , p. 151 Gray is, by the way, an atheist, and a materialist of some sort or another, so this is certainly not a case of religious nostalgia resisting scientific advances, but simply a philosopher who correctly understands what science can and can't tell us about.

of massive frustration. Modern forms of superstition, such as materialism and scientism, are apparently completely immune to reason. And the people who embrace the myths put forward in establishing these superstitions hold to them with a tenacity that exceeds that of any Young Earth Creationist. Consider: The Ancient Greeks thought epilepsy involved possession by a spirit. Today, we "know" that epilepsy occurs when physiological processes X, Y, and Z take place. So this contradicts the Greek view, correct? It is almost unbelievable that people think that with such assurance, since there is absolutely no logic supporting the conviction. What?! Don't these views posit mutually exclusive explanations for the same thing? Of course they do not. It is a symptom of the complete confusion people have been put into by the rise of scientism and positivism that anyone even suspects that they do. Let us first imagine what an ancient Greek thought, and then see if we c...

I mentioned Chris House's model of science in a previous post . But now I want to comment on a different aspect of its oddity. (And my goal here is not to pick on House, but on the view of science he has presented, because I think it is too common.) If you recall, House's model is this: The scientific method goes something like this:  Observation Formation of hypotheses Testing/evaluation Repeat  If you can follow these steps then anything (even economics! even macroeconomics!) can be studied scientifically.  When economics is at its best it truly is a science.  The aspect I wish to point out in this post is that ever achieving any success at explaining anything plays no part, for House, on whether any endeavor is scientific. Want to do "scientific" astrology? * Observe that the planets, moon, and sun move around in the sky relative to the "fixed stars." * Form an hypothesis: "When the moon is in the seventh house / And Jupiter ali...

Chris House tries to set out "the scientific method": The scientific method goes something like this: Observation Formation of hypotheses Testing/evaluation Repeat If you can follow these steps then anything (even economics! even macroeconomics!) can be studied scientifically. When economics is at its best it truly is a science. A purely empirical study is a necessary step in the scientific method (it’s step 1). Here is the funny thing about this sort of view, which is way too common among economists: philosophers of science abandoned this simple model beginning 50 or 60 years ago, and today you would be hard pressed to find any philosopher of science who would take it seriously. In particular, the idea that a "purely empirical study" is step one of this method came to be understood as fantastical: no one could possibly do an empirical study without a theoretical apparatus and an hypothesis to test already in mind. (To see the absurdity of this idea...

There is a very odd way of "dismissing" experiences that points to neurological evidence, and says, "See, it is really just a change in brain state!" We see this in "scientific" accounts that attempt to explain away, say, love: "We have detected that people in love are really just experiencing altered neurological states!" But how about the neurologist who made this finding? Wouldn't we detect that his brain state had altered upon seeing this evidence? So why aren't his findings dismissed in the exact same way? "He thought he had just performed an important experiment, but really he was just experiencing an altered brain state." Oh, you respond, others can duplicate his experiment? Well, altered brain states for them, too. I ran across an amusing example of this recently, where the author states: It is now believed that instead of the brain becoming more inactive during the final moments of life, brain activity actu...

may be valid if scientism (the idea that all knowledge is scientific knowledge) is true. What neuroscientists say about philosophical questions certainly can't be used as evidence that scientism is true, since it presumes that very conclusion!