Prof. Hooven is an evolutionary biologist and the author of the awesome new book, "T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us." She’s a teaching star at Harvard and it’s easy to see why.For three snippets of my conversation with Carole — on how male horniness is increasingly shamed; on testosterone’s effect on crying; and on the ways in which T needs to be contained and channeled toward noble ends — head over to our YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/user/DailyDishHosting/videos
Trying to follow the conversation in "Carole Hooven on Testosterone" using the captions is a nightmare for deaf people. I do hope you will provide transcripts for your podcasts at some point.
In Andrew's comments (of a couple of weeks back) in "Dissents of the Week: Liberalism under Threat", I was genuinely stunned by his brief response to a Dish reader who noted that, "You [Andrew] claim “truth” requires that it can be disproven. Yet you often write about your religious beliefs and how central they are to you, often lamenting their overall decline."
Andrew's outrageous, flippant retort: "When we’re discussing empirical reality, how anyone feels about it is irrelevant. The question is whether it is true or not. And of course, religion is an exception to this rule." I'm surprised no other reader has called him out on the extraordinary self-dispensation he grants himself with that last sentence, padding it with a convenient, utterly unearned "of course". Obviously, it is not a matter "of course" that religious belief has been granted an exception to rational thought--countless epistemological tomes have been written on that subject. An uncharacteristically lazy 'out' from Andrew Sullivan.
I think what Andrew means is that claims that are not falsifiable are not scientific in nature and therefore cannot be contested using scientific logic. I might believe God exists - as long as I describe it as a belief, I don't see how science can have anything to say about it. I am not making a truth claim or a claim about some empirical reality, I am describing a belief that I happen to hold. If I claim that my belief is objectively true or can be proven to be a fact etc, then it can be analysed on the basis of evidence. It is not also illogical per se to have such beliefs, because a belief in God is not contradicted by Science. If I were to say that I don't believe in the law of gravitation, that would be an illogical belief because it is explicitly contradicted by Science. I don't see any inconsistency here.
Understood, Sinchan. But that is my very point: a "belief"(whatever that is) that cannot be evaluated by evidence is, automatically and by definition, contradicted by Science.
Maybe not. I might have a belief about what kind of moral rules and principles I should follow in my life; we can have a logical debate about such issues and I can explain my position. But ultimately it cannot be evaluated on the basis of evidence because the nature of the question does not allow that. Not all questions are within the domain of science.
Fair point, Sinchan. I would modify my above comment to include not just evidence, but reason. A "belief" supported by neither evidence nor reason is meaningless.
I don't really have a problem with religious folks who explicitly exempt religion from their liberal knowledge values. I may think it's inconsistent, but when it's explicitly acknowledged to be beyond science and logic, it's an honest inconsistency. What concerns you about it?
Saying, "I believe in rationality, except when it goes beyond science and logic", is tantamount to declaring, "I believe in X, except when I don't believe in X." What's the use of such a nonsensical declaration? "I'm rational, except when I'm irrational." That's the definition of an epistemological contradiction.
Pretending that people are consistent seems like a frustrating way to live -- it sets one up for constant disappointment. You want someone to be rational about something they explicitly state they are not rational about. If he claimed he was being rational, I could see the problem, because he was making a false claim. He's not.
You nailed it, Andrew: my life is just a series of disappointments. I don't have a problem with religious folk, I just think it's nonsense to "believe" (whatever that means) something without evidence. And then, like Andrew did, proclaim his commitment to rationality.
Trying to follow the conversation in "Carole Hooven on Testosterone" using the captions is a nightmare for deaf people. I do hope you will provide transcripts for your podcasts at some point.
I'm quite deaf too and would love to see transcripts in the future.
In Andrew's comments (of a couple of weeks back) in "Dissents of the Week: Liberalism under Threat", I was genuinely stunned by his brief response to a Dish reader who noted that, "You [Andrew] claim “truth” requires that it can be disproven. Yet you often write about your religious beliefs and how central they are to you, often lamenting their overall decline."
Andrew's outrageous, flippant retort: "When we’re discussing empirical reality, how anyone feels about it is irrelevant. The question is whether it is true or not. And of course, religion is an exception to this rule." I'm surprised no other reader has called him out on the extraordinary self-dispensation he grants himself with that last sentence, padding it with a convenient, utterly unearned "of course". Obviously, it is not a matter "of course" that religious belief has been granted an exception to rational thought--countless epistemological tomes have been written on that subject. An uncharacteristically lazy 'out' from Andrew Sullivan.
I think what Andrew means is that claims that are not falsifiable are not scientific in nature and therefore cannot be contested using scientific logic. I might believe God exists - as long as I describe it as a belief, I don't see how science can have anything to say about it. I am not making a truth claim or a claim about some empirical reality, I am describing a belief that I happen to hold. If I claim that my belief is objectively true or can be proven to be a fact etc, then it can be analysed on the basis of evidence. It is not also illogical per se to have such beliefs, because a belief in God is not contradicted by Science. If I were to say that I don't believe in the law of gravitation, that would be an illogical belief because it is explicitly contradicted by Science. I don't see any inconsistency here.
Understood, Sinchan. But that is my very point: a "belief"(whatever that is) that cannot be evaluated by evidence is, automatically and by definition, contradicted by Science.
Maybe not. I might have a belief about what kind of moral rules and principles I should follow in my life; we can have a logical debate about such issues and I can explain my position. But ultimately it cannot be evaluated on the basis of evidence because the nature of the question does not allow that. Not all questions are within the domain of science.
Fair point, Sinchan. I would modify my above comment to include not just evidence, but reason. A "belief" supported by neither evidence nor reason is meaningless.
Are you the one that caused the comments to be turned off again?
Russel, I don't understand what you mean. I commented here, because comments had already been turned off for the post in question.
I don't really have a problem with religious folks who explicitly exempt religion from their liberal knowledge values. I may think it's inconsistent, but when it's explicitly acknowledged to be beyond science and logic, it's an honest inconsistency. What concerns you about it?
Saying, "I believe in rationality, except when it goes beyond science and logic", is tantamount to declaring, "I believe in X, except when I don't believe in X." What's the use of such a nonsensical declaration? "I'm rational, except when I'm irrational." That's the definition of an epistemological contradiction.
Pretending that people are consistent seems like a frustrating way to live -- it sets one up for constant disappointment. You want someone to be rational about something they explicitly state they are not rational about. If he claimed he was being rational, I could see the problem, because he was making a false claim. He's not.
You nailed it, Andrew: my life is just a series of disappointments. I don't have a problem with religious folk, I just think it's nonsense to "believe" (whatever that means) something without evidence. And then, like Andrew did, proclaim his commitment to rationality.
Just found this. Great Talk! So glad there are at least a few rational teachers at Harvard.
I would love to hear a discussion of the history of the restriction of sexuality - e.g. by the churches.