[Ramesh] “She [Gertrude Himmelfarb] is concerned that people are going

to interpret the findings of science in a mechanistic and reductive

way…”

[Derb] I am concerned about that too, and I said so. Here I was

saying so: “I agree that this is something to be concerned about…”

[Ramesh] “…and she’s urging resistance to that temptation.”

[Derb] I’m not sure that urging resistance is going to get us

anywhere. What might get us somewhere is a wider understanding of

what science is, and does, and isn’t, and doesn’t. Said

understanding, I have discovered in the last few months, being in

woefully short supply.

I will concede, though, Ramesh, that I cheated a bit by fixing on

theology, which is at best a sort of legalistic enterprise –

intepreting what sacred writings MEAN in various contexts — and at

worst a game in which the winner is known in advance. Theology may be

a worthwhile enterprise in the first of those senses, but if I survey

my own small stock of understanding about human nature, I can’t see

that any of it is owed to the efforts of theologians or philosophers.

Historians? Novelists? Poets? Yeah, I’ll concede ground there.

Even there, though, my guess would be that scientists have now got, or

are just about to get, possession of the ball, and will keep it for a

century or so.