The following is a paragraph defending or approving of homosexuality.
It is written by a scientist who is defending the behaviour on scientific bases.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take homosexuality, for example.
Iron age scriptures might argue that homosexuality
is "wrong", but scientific discoveries about the frequency of homosexual behaviour
in a variety of species tell us that it is completely natural in a rather fixed
fraction of populations and that it has no apparent negative evolutionary impacts.
This surely tells us that it is biologically based, not harmful and not innately
"wrong".
In fact, I think you actually accede to this point about the impact of
science when you argue that our research into non-human cognition has altered
our view of ethics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where to start in terms of a reaction to this paragraph?
i) First - is it really true that there is a great deal of homosexual behavior among other species?
Many would instinctively say that it is true. And if they are asked as to why they are so sure they would perhaps say something like : "I read it somewhere."
Yet is it really true? Where is the evidence?
So - straight away we are possibly dealing with a simple factual inaccuracy. Even maybe a deliberate falsehood.
This is far from what "science" is supposed to be.
ii) Second. The Iron Age scriptures referred to are a problem for the writer seemingly because of their distance in time from us and not because of their "arguments" - which are referred to but not revealed to the reader at all.
Related Comments:
Since when did Philosophy accept any kind of defeat at the hands of "Science"?. Science was called "Natural Philosophy" not that long ago.
Philosophy will never "hand over the reins" to "Science", and never can. And it worries me that you think it ever could. We're all philosophers. Everyone with a Ph.d is supposed to be a filosofer of a kind, are they not?
This piece worries me. The quality of the reasoning - notably with regard to the defence of certain behaviours - is simply not good enuff. And this is why we always need Philosophy - to make sure we can reason well - as we have to in almost any endeavour.
A reply:
It is a such a pity that science went on its own merry materialistic way and severed ties with philosophy - surely to gain an understanding of our complete reality both disciplines are pivotal? for are not physics and metaphysics two sides of the same coin? What's needed is the reconciliation of both disciplines and perhaps with a united front we may make much greater progress.
My reply:
Thanks for reply. Let's hope the talks between Science and Philosophy bear fruit.
Science is a nice guy - and Philosophia is a very lovely lady!
No you are right. In the 20th century the Logical Positivists and such like in the Analytical rather than "Continental" tendency tried to give science and maths a logical basis and rejected much of the filosofy of the past! To be honest I don't think Physics and Metaphysics are exactly "two sides of the same coin" but something like it! And it will be something to discuss in the peace talks. Long may they continue!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another comment:
"Philosophy is useful, but it must be informed by science, because science tells us how things really are. Any philosophy that doesn't take that into account is worthless."
My reply:
Great comment.
In Spanish the word for "Science" - "Ciencia" - stil also connotes what the Anglosphere would simply call "knowledge".
So if you read things back replacing the word "science" with "knowledge" it is very interesting.
The concept of "Science" has maybe taken on a monolithic meaning in English-speaking culture - always seemingly opposed to other things.
.