Comments for Wisdom, not the Geek Squad at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Mon, 20 May 2013 12:54:22 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9706 The term "Geek" implies "Youth with eccentric interests usually possessing above average intelligence". Most "geeks" are harmless and even useful and using the term as pejorative for politicians you happen to dislike is in poor taste. - jason taylor Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:44:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9184 Howard: I used to be a physics student and value real science. Re-read the column more carefully. You're arguing with some other position, not mine I made sure throughout this piece to make clear what I think the scientific method itself specifies that it can do: empirical analysis. Historically, modern science emerged by bracketing questions of value and ends. By its nature, it cannot prescribe policies or goals or an honorable way of life, all of which lie outside science. My quarrel is not with science or even scientists, necessarily. I do quarrel with anyone, scientist or not, who thinks that "science" can replace moral responsibility. And we all need to recognize the charlatans who claim that their ideologies are just the best "science." - Robert Royal Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:32:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9183 If I have a leaky pipe, I call a plumber. I don't say, "Hmm, I wonder what we should do about all these teenage criminals on the streets? Maybe I should call the plumber." Scientists do well within the limits of their expertise and of the things that submit to material manipulation. They can also be wise and broadly educated, but my experience suggests instead that the scientism of our times leaves them foolishly arrogant and narrowly read. They are men, like the rest of us -- but the stupid homage we pay to them has caused them to suppose that only they possess knowledge, and that they are quite immune to the blinding effects of pride and vanity. Nothing in my long experience hanging around academics suggests to me that scientists, as a group, are particularly saintly people, let alone possessed of any broad human experience. As for Catholic intellectuals -- Howard's barb is cute, but it falls to nothing once one considers what a Catholic intellectual actually recommends. It's like saying, "I wouldn't trust public policy to centralizing technocrats, but neither would I trust it to people who believe that mid-level institutions should address issues closest to them." The statement doesn't make sense, because it is precisely the Catholic position that public policy should never be entrusted to any single group, and particularly not to any group as powerful as scientists at the big industrial and academic laboratories. - Tony Esolen Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:10:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9182 Howard: there are public policy decisions that should be handed over to scientists, and public policy decisions that should be handed over to intellectuals deeply schooled in philosophy. There are public policy decisions that should be made by scientists and philosophers working together. The real problem is that the nexus against which philosophers of the perennial tradition and other advocates of common sense need to exercise themselves is so deeply entrenched, or, as Dr. Royal concludes, that modern states are arrogating more and more power over our lives to themselves. In the current electoral cycle, no major candidate is speaking credibly about reducing the size and scope of the Government: not Romney, really; not Newt; and certainly not the President. The argument that scientists are better educated and wiser than the rest is both old and wrong. Hawkins is a brilliant physicist but an absolutely lousy philosopher. That's but one example. Technocratic expertise does not equate to wisdom; and in Aristotle's scheme of things, it is a lower order of knowledge. So we make use of it without giving it the final word. When we do give "science" the final word, we get what we've gotten: great technical expertise, great confusion, and a demoralized population. Scientism -- the view that only that which is measurable, quantifiable, etc. is what is real -- has brought us to the precipice; it will take good philosophers to draw us back. - Dave Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:06:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9181 Prudence is a virtue: the virtue of understanding the consequences of our actions. Like it or not, that requires substantial scientific understanding upfront, as well as a willingness to react to facts which are contrary to our expectations. It is science that tells us that Nutrasweet and Splenda are *probably* safe (even for children without a prescription), but that "Plan B" is a contraceptive. Science is not sufficient to answer all questions about what we should or should not do. On the other hand, science really is testable, it really is verifiable, and there really are standards for knowing who knows what he's doing. And there is no reason why someone with scientific knowledge must be less wise than someone with no scientific knowledge; on the contrary, someone who is ignorant of science is more likely to also be ignorant of any other given subject. Public policy decisions should not be blindly handed over to scientists. Nor should they be blindly handed over to Catholic intellectuals. - Howard Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:26:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9176 Mr. Cornwell, if you reread the column, I wrote "pro-abotion', the Democratic staffer being quoted says "pro-choice." - Robert Royal Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:48:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9175 With all due respect, why would anyone who is pro-life refer to pro-abortion i.e. pro-death as pro-choice. Pro-choice is a nonsensical term. Do you think Jesus would use that terminology? Merry Christmas - Robert Cornwell Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:23:12 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/wisdom-not-the-geek-squad.html#comment-9173 "Modern states are arrogating more and more power to themselves over our lives...: and the nexus of Big Government, Big Finance, and Big Business (including, especially, Big Pharma) is tantamount, in my view, to a neo-fascist order: just check out Fascist Italy. The real danger is that we may yet reach a moment in which opposition to this nexus, whether public or semi-public, is considered an incarcerable crime. Robert Hugh Benson contemplated such a possibility in his Lord of the World, more than a century ago; and he posited not the harsh world of the gulags and concentration camps but of jails, euthanasia/suicide clinics for those for whom life had lost its meaning, etc. It was all so very genteel. It's too easy to say that it cannot happen here, because it is happening. Which of Dr. Royal's two possibilities regarding the temporary stop to Plan B for under-seventeen girls-- a sop to Catholic Democrats or a sober realization of a man with two teenage daughers -- is the guiding factor here, what really stands out, to me at least, are the predictable howls of protest from the Left, reporting in other outlets. We are facing an entire cohort of people who want to build the Brave New World, sooner rather than later, and who aren't afraid, at all, to see innocents die in order to bring that world about. And be certain there are those among the Republican elite who would likewise support the availability of Plan B to young girls. Many prominent Republicans support Planned Parenthood and its agenda: many. Nor is it clear that at the moment anything can be done about this parlous state of affairs. Fact is, it costs way too much to be elected, and so politicians, of all stripes, are bought in myriad ways (direct contributions, insider information, etc.) and beholden to their corporate or Big Finance sponsors. The current slate of candidates for the GOP nomination isn't really addressing this situation; those trying -- Santorum, Paul, maybe Bachman -- just aren't getting enough traction. What is required of us, I believe, is a sober realism, that we are about to enter the deluge. Things are likely to get worse before they get better, because in times of crisis people demand security from the Government, and the Government is only too happy to provide it. Government has even been known to manufacture crisis so that people can clamor for its protections. Perhaps if there were sustained prayer and fasting for conversion of heart, mind, and culture, we might see the juggernaut stopped. Perhaps not, though: the train has been set in motion for some time, it's a big train, and it will stop only slowly. The Fatima prophecies come to mind. Our Lady of Guadalupe: pray for us. - Dave Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:40:16 +0100