KF recommended reading this book as a contribution to current thinking inPoS, and I'm grateful. However, I gave up after a couple of days (the
bookmark is at p111) because it seemed to me the author was perversely
playing with words: the idea that truth is relative [to time and place] is
one use of the word, but is a perversion. We understand what is meant by,
say, "jews are inferior" and recognise that in 1930s Germany it was stated
to be "true". An author who deliberately confuses scientific truth, which
has to relate to a belief in an independent system, with what is believed
to be true, which is de facto subjective or relies on consensus, is just
muddying the water.
The justification for reporting this is that the book is reviewed in the
current issue of Nature (27 June 2002 pp900-901). To give a balanced
quote: "As a guide to how scientific findings impinge on philosophical
orthodoxies in various fields, the book is highly recommended. However,
it often sacrifices clarity and argumentative rigour in its quest for
suggestive link-ups with science. ... Nozick seems to think ... that new
terminology can never be faulted as long as it is interesting. ...
Finally, Nozick demands far too much from an 'illuminating' theory of
truth, because he confuses the question 'What is truth?' with the question
'What is true?'"
My interpretation of this is that the book might be read by philosophers
but not by scientists, and if anything will drive a greater wedge between
the two.
R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask]
|