|
Basic InformationLatest News'Miracle' Young Blood Infusion Treatments Unproven, Potentially Harmful: FDAPossible Parkinson's 'Pandemic' Looms: ReportScience Puzzling Out Differences in Gut Bacteria Around the World'Mind-Reading' AI Turns Thoughts Into Spoken WordsEat What You Want and Still Stay Slim? Thank Your GenesGood News, Bad News on Levodopa for Parkinson's DiseaseNature or Nurture? Twins Study Helps Sort Out Genes' Role in DiseaseBeing Bullied May Alter the Teen BrainFDA Warns Companies on Dangerous, Unapproved Stem Cell TreatmentsGene Tweaking Prevented Obesity in MiceApproach That New Gene Testing Kit With CautionResearch on Almost 2,000 Brains Brings Insight Into Mental IllnessRestoring Hair Growth on Scarred Skin? Mouse Study Could Show the WayParkinson's Gene Therapy Wires New Brain CircuitsNext for Disabling Back Pain? New Discs From Patients' Own CellsSkin 'Glow' Test Might Someday Spot Disease Risk EarlyComputer-Brain Link Helps 'Locked In' People Chat, Surf WebCould a Natural Protein Help Fight Obesity?Blood Test May One Day Help Track Concussion RecoveryThe Bigger the Brain, the Bigger the Tumor Risk?Gene Therapy for Parkinson's Symptoms Shows PromiseCould Same-Sex Couples Have Babies With Shared DNA? Study Hints It's PossibleMany Americans Curious, But Wary, About Gene TestingAHA: New Report Explores Genes Behind Congenital Heart DiseaseScientists Find 500 More Genes That Influence Blood PressureALS Affects the Mind, Not Just the BodyScientists Finally Get Around to Finding Procrastination's Home in the BrainGene 'Editing' in Dog Study Shows Promise for Kids With Muscular DystrophyGut Enzyme Could Help Solve U.S. Blood Shortages'Fat' Mouse Test Failure Yields New Obesity ClueIs Evolution of the Human Brain to Blame for Some Mental Disorders?Scientists Trace Link Between Head Injuries and Parkinson'sAHA: Scientists May Have Cleared Gene Therapy HurdleAlmost 1,300 Genes Seem Tied to Academic SuccessBrains May Be as Unique as Fingerprints'Heading' Soccer Balls May Be Bad for BalanceScientists Target Cellular 'Fountain of Youth' to Extend Mouse Life SpanThose At-Home DNA Tests Are an Imperfect ScienceScientists Spot Gene Linking Down Syndrome, Early Alzheimer'sMassive Study Finds Same Genes Drive Many Psychiatric ConditionsThyroid Cancer Survivors at Risk for Heart DiseaseBetter Diet, Bigger Brain?Primary Care Providers Have Mixed Views on Genetic TestsFDA Targets Clinics Offering Unapproved Stem Cell TherapiesRestless Legs Linked to Brain ChangesContact Sports May Alter the Brain, Scans SuggestJust One Concussion Could Raise Parkinson's RiskLove Your Hair Color? You Have Over 100 Genes to Thank.Too Much Sitting Could Raise Brain RisksBusting Myths Surrounding Cancer and Genetic Testing Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews |
| |
by Frederick A. Olafson Routledge, 2001 Review by Mark Welch, Ph.D. on Mar 22nd 2002 
The subtitle to Professor Olafsons small and
engaging book is a little misleading. He is not really so much against
scientism per se, as against its totalizing
influence. It is very much a baby and bath water argument. It is not so much
science that is the problem, but scientism as a dogma that seeks to exclude all
other perspectives.
The book finds it genesis in Olafsons concern that
naturalism is in the unchallenged ascendant. He very concisely covers the major
threads of the naturalist position, that is that it is only through examination
of the natural world that we may be certain of anything; and he freely concedes
that in many circumstances this is entirely appropriate. However, he also
points out that it leaves many gaps in what is clearly our experience of the
world, our phenomenological knowledge of our lives. In order to understand the
implications of this, he takes the reader on a tour of areas of major concern,
and areas in which naturalism may seem to have an unrivalled place, such as the
nature of language or what the brain actually does. Then, with the help of a
number of distinguished tour guides, to whom he pays deference such as
Heidegger and his notion of being in the world, in particular but also Merleau-Ponty
and his philosophy of consciousness, and others, he begins to examine some of
the blind spots of naturalism.
For Olafson the search for unity in knowledge, the
great project to define and categorize the world, is in fact an ideological
rather than truth-seeking activity, and aims, rather contrarily, at the
uniformity of knowledge. Thus, dogmatic scientism does not free us, it
restricts us. However, and this is one of the main points of his thesis, he
argues that naturalism is in the end confused, contradictory and
self-defeating. It deludes itself into believing that the principles on which
it rests are self-evident and beyond challenge. Yet, Olafson argues, they are
in fact based on, and can only be understood by the very philosophical
positions they seek to deny. Human beings, Olafson points out, live with each other
in a condition of transcendence, not just of material relationships. It is only
by acknowledging and examining our sense of being in the world that we can
begin to understand that there is no royal road to the truth, but many and
protean explorations. To believe in a single dogma is to lay a dead hand on
what it is to be human.
Having laid out his argument Olafson asks, in a very
reasonable way, where we are to go from here and whether it is possible to think
together world and nature. He does not offer many options here; rather he is
content to think his contribution as part of the process (which is after all
his preferred method). Nevertheless, he does make it clear that the zero-sum
game of science and religion, the sense that they are in some sort of struggle
for supremacy in which one can only win if the other loses, is not either very
productive, nor very helpful to any of us. The world should not be confused
with nature because, in Olafsons view, the view we have come to have of nature
is in fact seen through the prism of scientism and thus defined in terms of the
other rather than itself.
Olafson states that his intention in writing the
book was to justify his hunch, that naturalism gets it wrong, to himself and
anyone else who might be interested. It can be said with some certainty that
many people are interested in just that question, and a book such as this,
which is modest in ambition if not in scope, is a worthy contribution. It
cannot always be said that he achieves his aim of writing for the educated
general reader. There is often an unjustified assumption that his prose is
without jargon or unnecessarily wordy. However, it is a thoughtful and
provocative work that will stimulate debate, raise some pertinent questions and
add a little pin prick to any smug self-satisfaction that scientism is indeed solely
capable of explaining the human condition.
© 2002
Mark Welch
Dr Mark
Welch is currently a Senior Lecturer and Postgraduate Coordinator in The School of
Nursing at the University of Canberra, Australia. His PhD investigated the
representation of madness in popular film, and his other research interests
include the mental health of refugees and victims of torture, and the history
of psychiatric epistemology. With his wife he has written a play, which is
currently in production.
|