|
Basic InformationLatest NewsAutopsy Study May Explain Why Some COVID Survivors Have 'Brain Fog'Gene Study Probes Origins of Addison's DiseaseCould a Common Prostate Drug Help Prevent Parkinson's?AHA News: Hormones Are Key in Brain Health Differences Between Men and WomenNerve Drug Might Curb Spinal Cord Damage, Mouse Study SuggestsIs There a 'Risk-Taking' Center in the Brain?AHA News: Dr. Dre Recovering From a Brain Aneurysm. What Is That?Can 2 Nutrients Lower Your Risk for Parkinson's?New Clues to How Cancers Originate in the BrainBrain May Age Faster After Spinal Cord InjuryScans Reveal How COVID-19 Can Harm the BrainWhat Loneliness Looks Like in the BrainNeurologists Much Tougher to Find in Rural AmericaCOVID-19 Survival Declines When Brain Affected: StudyAs Testing Costs Rise, Neurology Patients May Skip ScreeningGene Therapy Shows No Long-Term Harm in Animals: StudyCould Gene Therapy Cure Sickle Cell Disease? Two New Studies Raise HopesCocoa Might Give Your Brain a Boost: StudyLockdown Loneliness Could Worsen Parkinson's SymptomsChildhood Lead Exposure Tied to Brain Changes in Middle AgeStaying Social Can Boost Healthy 'Gray Matter' in Aging BrainsDNA Analysis Might Reveal Melanoma RiskGenetics Might Explain Some Cases of Cerebral PalsyDiabetes Drug Metformin May Protect the Aging BrainNew Research Links Another Gene to Alzheimer's RiskYour Sex Affects Your Genes for Body Fat, Cancer, Birth WeightExperimental Drug Shows Promise Against ALSCould Gene Therapy Stem the Damage of Parkinson's?Genetic Research May Help Identify Causes of StillbirthBlood Test Heralds New Era in Alzheimer's DiagnosisMore Clues to the Genes Behind Hearing LossScientists Move Closer to Mapping Entire Human GenomeBlood Test May Reveal Concussion Severity With Accuracy of Spinal TapDeep Brain Stimulation May Slow Parkinson's, Study FindsStroke, Confusion: COVID-19 Often Impacts the Brain, Study ShowsYour Genes May Affect How You'll Heal If WoundedEven Without Concussion, Athletes' Brains Can Change After Head Jolts: StudyHealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: For Patients, Promise and Challenges Ahead">HealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: For Patients, Promise and Challenges AheadHealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: Giving Docs a Diagnostic Assist">HealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: Giving Docs a Diagnostic AssistBlood Test Might Predict Worsening MSKeto Diet Might Change Your Gut in More Ways Than OneParkinson's Patient Improving After First-Ever Stem Cell TherapyKey Areas of the Brain Triggered in Recent Heart Attack SurvivorsFirst Good Evidence That Brain Hits 'Replay' While You SleepSome NFL Players May Be Misdiagnosed With Brain Disease: StudyGreenhouse Gases Bad for Your BrainTransplanted Skin Stem Cells Help Blind Mice See LightBrain Plaques Signal Alzheimer's Even Before Other Symptoms Emerge: Study'It's Like You Have a Hand Again': New Prosthetic Gets Closer to the Real ThingDeep Brain Stimulation May Hold Promise in Alzheimer's 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.
|