Scientism & Reductionism
This page is about scientism & methodological reductionism. The comments are links to those areas. I just launched this page in July ’13.
Currently, much of this is in the “Christian Resources” comments section.
This is part of my research effort. If you want to add something relevant you are welcome to.
For instance, currently some of the best places to think about this issue include:
• Test of Faith (link)
• Alvin Platinga’s work (link)
• Michael Polyani (not sure what his faith is) (link)
• Templeton Prize Winners (not all of them–but there are a number I believe on this question) (link)
• Veritas Forum has a couple (link)
• Open Biola (philosophy subsection–if you search under neuroscience you might also find these) (link) here are a number of interviews on the intersection of faith and science
Compassion in Politics: Christian Social Entrepreneurship, Education Innovation, & Base of the Pyramid/BOP Solutions 
ORDER: GOD’S, MAN’S AND NATURE’S
Avoiding Neurobiological Reductionism:
The Role of Downward Causation in Complex Systems
by Nancey Murphy
(This chapter will appear in Moral Behavior and Free Will. A Neurological and
Philosophical Approach (eds Juan José Sanguineti, Ariberto Acerbi, José Angel Lombo)
Click to access MurphyHolyCross.pdf
Need to ask specific profs & authors/speakers for help.
Should look at Philosophy.org (or whatever the source area is)
Should look at Academia.edu
See also Quora sub-section
I think this guy may lean new age perhaps (if I was to guess), but honestly not sure. He does seem to make a limited argument
Reductionism, however, has its limitations. Many mainstream psychologists rue the day when the reductionist behaviorism of J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner hijacked the discipline of psychology, setting the field back, some estimate, by 50 years.
Reductionist models can be valuable, but at best they crudely approximate reality.
Holography is a fitting metaphor for what mystics have always taught: separation is illusion. The universe is a seamless whole. Reductionism has revealed much, but its utility may have run its course. I anticipate that holism has as great a role to play in the future of science as reductionism has played in its past.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-pruett/reductionism_b_2891392.html
Rationality/Spock
(this isn’t a perfect article…but an interesting jumping off point):
http://www.livingchurch.org/ethics-dr-spock
Veritas again–this is their vimeo channel:
http://vimeo.com/veritasforum/videos/sort:plays/format:thumbnail
Here are 3 key subjects on Compassion in politics in this regard
https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/?s=scientism
https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/?s=reductionism
https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/?s=atheism
Also searching Christian apolegetics (spelled two different ways) and/or Christian philosophy
Not sure what I think about this lecture entirely.
Michael Polyani
http://academia.edu/1572387/Michael_Polanyis_theory_of_knowledge_Habermas_and_interdisciplinary_research
He apparently was so prolific that he has a special collection at the University of Chicago.
Also this quote is I think kind of devastating:
The ramifications, in many areas of life and thought, of the philosophy of tacit integration are
explored, developed, and applied to further spheres of life and reality in the subsequent chapters of Personal Knowledge and in most of his later books and articles, beginning with its extended application to the human sphere in The Study of Man (1959). Those ramifications include:
refutations of the reductions of persons, their actions and history to ‘behaviour’ (behaviourism),
economics, psychology, physiology and biology; and of organism, life and biology to chemistry and physics;
an alternative hierarchical ontology of levels of increasing complexity, each governed by its own principles of operation which determine the boundary conditions left open by the previous and lower level;
the abolition of the dichotomies between fact and value and between description and evaluation on the levels of life, sentience, intelligence and personhood, where achievements, which succeed or fail, replace mere processes and events, and which can be known only in and through evaluating them as successes or failures;
an account of ‘dwelling’ in our bodies, perceptual organs, intellectual frameworks and languages, which we use and primarily and tacitly attend from in order to attend to, know, understand and cope with the world, by assimilating and incorporating things to and within them; plus an account of ‘breaking out’ of them, when intellectual and moral conflicts lead us tacitly to reach out to realities that cannot be assimilated to them, and thus to adapt our frameworks, etc., to those new
realities;
the abolition of the dichotomy between reason and emotion, for even in scientific research emotion has an essential ‘selective’ function to appraise the value of science itself and those facts of significance for science from those of no significance, a similar ‘heuristic’ one to sustain the scientist in his labours and to help him to cross the logical gap which opens up between the new realities which he vaguely discerns when attending from his existing knowledge which he uses as a clue to what lies beyond it, and a ‘persuasive’ one which he needs to help him to persuade his fellow scientists to follow him in crossing that gap.
Source: http://www.spcps.org.uk/polanyi.pdf
Stuff of Michael Polyani
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/
http://www.spcps.org.uk/index.html
http://philpapers.org/s/michael%20polyani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi
Semi-random essay:
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Comp/CompBote.htm
Not quite in this vein, more apologetics, but certainly in the realm of philosophy/theology:
http://theologicalstudies.org/
And:
Theological Epistemology
Apologetics/Scientism
http://open.biola.edu/resources/scientism?collection=bbst-450-apologetics
I think the end of this Darwin lecture might have some anti- scientism arguments:
http://open.biola.edu/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=scientism
Christian Apolegetics–just updated–I think this has about 50 articles/posts:
https://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/christian-apolegetics/
Are we asking the right questions?
Are we looking with the right lense?
Are we looking in the right places?
—-
What are our values, our standards? Are our priorities properly aligned?
What are our biases? What are our misperceptions?
—-
what is our purpose?
what is meaningful–truly meaningful?
Borrowing the airplane metaphor for individuality versus community (I’m curious how the democrats have done this or another group might have:
Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally. Every time I take a flight I am always mindful of the many people who make a successful journey possible, the known pilots and the unknown ground crew. You honor the dedicated pilots of our struggle, who have sat at the controls as the freedom movement soared into orbit. You honor, once again, Chief Lutuli of South Africa, whose struggles with and for his people are still met with the most brutal expression of man’s inhumanity to man. You honor the ground crew, without whose labor and sacrifice the jet flights to freedom could never have left the earth. Most of these people will never make the headlines, and their names will never appear in Who’s Who. Yet, when years have rolled past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we live, men and women will know and children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble civilization because these humble children of God were willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake.
I think Alfred Nobel would know what I mean when I say I accept this award in the spirit of a curator of some precious heirloom which he holds in trust for its true owners: all those to whom truth is beauty, and beauty, truth, and in whose eyes the beauty of genuine brotherhood and peace is more precious than diamonds or silver or gold.
I’m going to begin….where Martin Luther King left off.
Love the parallelism of this speech in the middle:
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_acceptance_speech_at_nobel_peace_prize_ceremony/
This quote is also stark:
I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history.
I refuse to accept the idea that the “is-ness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “ought-ness” that forever confronts him.
I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him.
. He says, “…if there is something more excellent than truth, it is God. If there is not, then truth itself is God (Augustine 92).”
Click to access article.pdf
http://www.reasons.org/articles/faith-and-reason
Augustine and rationality
http://www.chinesetheology.com/FLeung/AugustineFromFaithToUnderstanding.htm
Looks like a repository of Christian philosophy at Calvin College (this is quite an amazing resource potentially–wonder if they have this for preaching too):
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/article_names.htm
Should check back on these:
Click to access Augustinian_Christian_Philosophy.pdf
Specifically check out articles in the resource section.
http://www.andrewmbailey.com/
Do a google search for “critiques of physicalism” and “critiques of naturalism” (also fundamentally related topics)
Also this:
Click to access bealer-george-and-koons-robert-the-waning-of-materialism.pdf
The Waning of Materialism ($30 on Amazon and $22 on Kindle)
http://appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/
This also seems to be relevant:
http://www.newdualism.org/websites.htm
A pretty extensive outline, with citation from a person in a academic philosophy program (I believe its a grad program):
Christian philosopher articles by Author name:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/author_names.htm
There are 63 include (although I think Platinga may have been used multiple times perhaps)–none the less about 50 philosophers. Assembled at Calvin College–so pretty legit.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/article_names.htm
For instance Platinga’s Augustinian philosophy is interesting, along with his critique of Scientism (Naturalism, Physicalism, Reductionism). Krefts 12 ways to know God isn’t a philosophical treatise, but arguably helpful. A number of other Kreft articles are quite helpful too.
Not sure this explicitly addresses this issue, it deals perhaps more with the science versus faith divide:
http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/
Swinbourne takes on determinism
Swinbourne’s essays are available here–specifically his criticism of Dawkins
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/framesetpdfs.shtml
Neuroscience and the Soul (this is their theme for the year–they even have a number of conference videos on this topic):
Swinbourne is also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne
You can also find some of his work/thought on the website for Closer to Truth–the PBS series.
http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Richard-Swinburne/103
Might be worth checking out–people in the philosophy of science (5000 people or so–so not small)
http://www.academia.edu/People/Philosophy_Of_Science
The Philosophy bibliography resources, including Google scholar may also prove helpful.
File under critical thinking, philosophy, & apologetics from perhaps an emotional perspective:
http://beliefsoftheheart.com/
Should look at philosophers here:
http://now.biola.edu/experts/terms/
Not sure where to file this:
Apolegetics & neuroscience & philosophy:
http://cneuroscience.org/articles
Could add a list of URLs to speakers at Biola
Also:
http://www.indiana.edu/~scotus/articles.html
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/03/27/why-the-brain-is-not-like-a-co/
This isn’t revolutionary–but Hasker has written about this issue:
My guess is his book “Emergent Self” discusses this on some level. Unfortunately, it pre-dates some of the recent “scholarship” on this question.
Hasker has also written “Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God.” It is quite expensive at $89. It releases in Sept of 2013
Humans are amphibians—half spirit and half animal…As spirits they belong to the eternal world, but as animals they inhabit time. This means while their spirit can be directed to an eternal object, their bodies, passions, and imaginations are in continual change, for to be in time means to change. Their nearest approach to constancy, therefore, is undulation,” writes C.S. Lewis (Screwtape Letters, 40).
Conference–both sides–mostly ethics & worldview–not the reductionism discussion as much:
More theology:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=research-projects
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=frame&add=http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/00_TyndaleBulletin_ByDate.htm
More theology, etc…
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/resources2
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/toolbar
Godels theorem:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
I don’t know what conclusions these come to, but I thought they might be helpful (mostly RE: determinism):
http://consc.net/mindpapers/5.4
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/incompatibilism-theories/
http://consc.net/chalmers/
Einstein quotes on God:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/01/16/Einstein-and-Intelligent-Design.aspx
He isn’t without his criticism of religion, but he did seem to believe in a creator-God.
Possible source here (as well as the overall center on Science & Religion):
http://scienceandreligion.hampshire.edu/gs/index.php?id=past-lectures
Also curious about the work of Patrick Hale at Louisville as well as any work at Baylor.
Determinism/Indeterminism/Free Will, etc…:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/
Specifically Robert Kanes theory.
Might be helpful in the determinism debate:
Click to access Gazzaniga_response_WTN.pdf
William T. Newsome also has some short videos on this question as long as a presentation for Kavli Institute for Brain and Mind presents Neuroscience, Explanation, and the Problem of Free Will.
William T. Newsome–Department of Neurobiology, Stanford and Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Not usually under this heading–should just go under Christian:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/29/us/to-heaven-and-back/
I’m not a fan of “near death testimony”–but I think its something we should pay attention to.
“People have values and feelings, perceptions, opinions, motivations, and biographies, whereas cogs and sprockets do not.”
Sir Ken Robinson
About meaning:
http://positivepsychologynews.com
So is greater good.
Awe and Transcendence:
http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/ryan-whisnant/2013110427486
Visual map:
http://positivepsychologynews.com/image-maps/
Platinga Essay:
Click to access an_evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism.pdf
Scientism debate:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2013/aug/27/scientism-wars-sam-harris-elephant
This indicts scientisms fear of ambiguity & mystery:
http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2013/06/13/the-dangers-of-scientism-and-the-fear-of-the-unknowable/
I’ll include this link as well:
http://biologos.org/resources
Philosophy of science:
Click to access Watson_W-McKeon&PhilOfScience.pdf
Quotes on God and Science:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html
Quotes on God and Science:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/science-quotes/
Quotes on God and Science
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes
Quotes on God and Science (ok):
http://www.allaboutscience.org/scientists-and-the-cosmological-arguments-faq.htm
Naturalism and the De-marcation:
http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/38mat.naturl.a.html
More links:
Polanyi and Tacit Knowledge:
http://infed.org/mobi/michael-polanyi-and-tacit-knowledge/
Wikipedia links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
Polanyi & Philosophy of Science:
Mostly faith versus science question (multiple languages):
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Papers.php
some multi-media resources from the same organization:
http://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/Multimedia.php
Goeth and the two part science
Polanyi Essays:
http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/essays.htm
I’m curious if Charles Sanders Pierce might fit as well.
An interesting case for faith & ethics in the Yale Law Journal:
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3810&context=fss_papers
The other one thats interesting is the relativism discussion. Michael Novak’s indictment of relativism at an awards dinner, before he passed away. I’ll have to chase it down.
Polanyi, Michael. Knowing and Being: Essays by Michael Polanyi, edited Marjorie Greene. London: Routledge, Keegan and Paul, 1969.
_____. Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1951. _____. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1958.
_____. Science, Faith and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
_____. Society, Economics, and Philosophy: Selected Papers, edited by Richard T. Allen. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, 1997.
Click to access Cunningham_DarwinsPiousIdea_Bibliography.pdf
Not sure if this willl have the quotes I need, but for one or more of the authors I’m going to look at it should have something:
http://www.todayinsci.com/K/Kuhn_Thomas/KuhnThomas-Quotations.htm
http://todayinsci.com/Quotations/QuotationsIndex.htm
Moreover, for some reason the accomplishments of science need to be highlighted while at the same time those not attributable to science go acknowledged only parenthetically: “If one were to list the proudest accomplishments of our species (setting aside the removal of obstacles we set in our own path, such as the abolition of slavery and the defeat of fascism), many would be gifts bestowed by science.” Yes, let’s not count little things like the abolition of slavery and the defeat of fascism, or perhaps the general improvement in human rights, women rights, gay rights, general education, access to health care (as distinct from the science-based quality of that care), and countless other improvements the human race has managed to make without science. Again, this isn’t an attack on science, it’s simply a matter of pointing out that science has done great goods as well as the more than an occasional evil, and moreover, that much has been accomplished without a lot of help from science. Nuance, people, nuance.
http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/steven_pinker_embraces_scientism_bad_move_i_think-118240
Also this:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ian%20hutchison%20and%20scientism&sm=3
And this:
http://veritas.org/talks/scientism-delusion/
Potentially interesting from Dallas Theological Seminary:
http://www.dts.edu/thetable/play/engaging-new-atheism/
Hmmm….
Click to access ZTT_Feb09_Session1notes.pdf
Answering the New Atheism (book)
?
I’ve included this for the link to Ian Hutchison’s essay/paper:
http://biologos.org/blog/engaging-todays-militant-atheist-arguments-part-1
Biologos Resources:
http://biologos.org/resources
A critique of RTB model of evolution:
http://biologos.org/resources/essay/an-evangelical-geneticists-critique-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creatio
Criticism of Scientism
http://www.sott.net/article/240992-Its-Time-For-Science-to-Move-On-from-Materialism
Criticism of Scientism:
http://biologos.org/blog/series/monopolizing-knowledge
Multi-disciplinary
Accountability
Technocentism. Brave New World
Humanities checking
a) societal and community
b) science itself
Framework for understanding
Value of humanities. Hmmm.
Systems theory
Phenomenology/Perspectivalism
Dynamic Interplay
DNA Diagram or something like it.
1) How the humanities contribute to society, culture, and inquiry
2) How the humanities adds to science
3) How the two works together
Hegelian dialectic
Logical circularity of scientism & naturalism
The need for idealism & romanticism & other isms.
PPT….about neuroscience & scientism:
Click to access aut11_tallis_brain_mind.pdf
Mentions David Brook’s article:
http://www.curatormagazine.com/sabrina-little/dont-tread-on-me-neuroscience/
Criticism of Pinker:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/repudiating-scientism-rather-than-surrendering-to-it/
Nice post. As a historian of science and medicine, I heartily agree that the sciences need healthy, constructive critique using analytical methods that are different from those of science. The tools of the historian–context, complexity, and contingency–are well adapted for cutting through hype and for following the money.
I’d also point out that Pinker conflates scientism with acceptance of the principles of science. Scientism is in fact the belief that all problems can be explained or solved by the scientific method.
Not a robust argument….but an interesting way to think about things:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/08/14/should-the-humanities-embrace-scientism-my-postmodern-response-to-pinkers-patronizing-plea/
I’m curious if scientific complexity undermines either reductionism or the notion of Accams razor or related stuff. I do think that specifying the tools of the other disciplines would be interesting.
It is true that the common simplistic descriptions of the scientific method are largely mythological. But, nevertheless, there are identifiable characteristics in science as it has been practiced since the scientific revolution, and these constitute substantial limitations of the scope of science’s ability to describe the world. I identify the two key characteristics as reproducibility and Clarity. Science describes the world in so far as it is describable in terms that are reproducible. An experiment done here, and now, by me, if it is part of science will give the same result when done somewhere else, sometime else, by someone else. Or if we are discussing something inaccessible to manipulation, for example the stars in astronomy, then multiple consistent observations at different places and times, by different observers must be possible, providing reproducibility in practice even if not necessarily at will. Moreover science requires that its descriptions have a specialized Clarity (capitalized to indicate my use as a technical term), so that they are
unambiguously understood by the trained scientist. This often (but not always) involves quantitative measurement and mathematical theory. Such mathematical forms of expression most abundantly possess Clarity but other forms such as systematic description or classification also provide it in ways that would not normally be described as mathematical. In any case Clarity is required even to know whether reproducibility has been attained, and these requirements place limitations on science.
>>>>>Many of life’s most important matters simply do not possess reproducibility. History, for example, cannot be understood by appeal to reproducibility. Its most significant events are often unique, never to be repeated. There is no way to experiment on history, and no way to repeat the observations. Some parts of historical study benefit from scientific techniques, but the main mission of history cannot be addressed through reproducibility; its methods are not those of science. Yet history possesses real knowledge. Or in respect of Clarity, consider the beauty of a sunset, the justice of a verdict, the compassion of a nurse, the drama of a play, the depth of a poem, the terror of a war, the excitement of a symphony, the love of a woman. Which of these can be reduced to the Clarity of a scientific description? Yes, a sunset can be described in terms of the spectral analysis of the light, the causes of the coloration arising from light scattering by particles and molecules, and their arrangement and gradient in the sky. But when all the scientific details of such a description are done, has that explained, or even conveyed, its beauty? Hardly. In fact it has missed the point. Many-layered connections and implications are intrinsically part of the significance of these subjects. We appreciate and understand them, we know them, through sharing conceptually in the interwoven fabric of their often only evocative allusions.
Source: http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/hutchinson_white_paper.pdf
Consciousness Studies:
http://consc.net/responses.html#jcs
Not sure how much of this is secular/agnostic, etc..
If I were to guess….I don’t think this will be particularly helpful:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sackler/
I need to find more about the mechanistic worldview along with the problems with Behaviorism:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31678
Interesting–not entirely helpful for my idea, however:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/25/the_scientific_argument_for_being_emotional/
I should include this here:
http://johnlennox.org/jresourcess/video-resources/
The whole resources section should be helpful.
Nagel’s thesis has, I think, similarly radical consequences for philosophy itself. His argument implies that consciousness—indeed, mental life, whether conscious or not—is not atomic but holistic: there is no such thing as a piece or an atom of experience, but, rather, a mind at a given moment is flooded with an incalculable number of perceptions, memories, ideas, judgments, and desires. Even enumerating them in the plural is a little silly, because it implies the ability to isolate them as singular events or things. Therefore, philosophy, in order to account for mental life, will need to turn aside from isolated experiments in logic and argumentation in favor of rough-edged, life-sized chunks—historical events and figures, works of art, artists themselves, cities, countries, languages, human dramas of all sorts, lived or imagined.
Nagel is an atheist
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/07/thomas-nagel-thoughts-are-real.html
There’s a bit more Christian oriented slant here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/our_top_10_evol067901.html
Not sure where this falls on the spectrum, but its about free will v. determinism:
Perhaps interesting thoughts:
http://telicthoughts.com/
This looks pretty cool–its kind of an encyclopedic repository:
http://www.inters.org/anthology-and-documents
I believe this is a secular writer (actually I’m quite sure)–
http://www.dukeupress.edu/The-Robert-Bellah-Reader/
Critique of Carl Sagan:
Scientism bad…criticism of Pinker:
http://www.metanexus.net/around-web/steven-pinker-embraces-scientism-bad-move-i-think
Science vs. Faith–from a faith-based perspective:
Click to access Chapter_5.pdf
Eliminative materialism:
http://www.academia.edu/348585/A_Critical_Refutation_of_Eliminative_Materialism
2.1 starts with critique. The earlier part provides an explanation of Churchlands theory a bit
Perhaps interesting:
http://anamnesisjournal.com/2013/10/science-and-scientism-in-eric-voegelins-thought/
The journal itself may be helpful as well.
This wikipedia entry on eliminative materialism also looks helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#Limits
Scientism:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/06/eric-voegelins-1948-definition-of-scientism.html
A whole bunch of the arts vs. scientism debate:
Fodor wrote a critique of the Churchlands (actually perhaps two)
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/cv.html
I don’t think the text of either is available at this link, however.
Here is some neuroscience stuff (its probably mostly very mechanistic, etc..)
http://neuroethics.upenn.edu/resources/teaching-resources/
Limits of Neuro-talk is quite good:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-limits-of-neuro-talk
Here I believe:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/science/philosopher-offers-six-signs-of-scientism/
Click to access Haack,%20Six%20Signs%20of%20Scientism.pdf
I don’t think this speaks exactly to the issues, but is something I want to review:
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality
Quantum mechanics/Copenhagen interpretation
Not sure of what his ideology is, but Philosophy of the Mind:
http://www.philostv.com/category/philmind/
Also this on physicalism:
http://www.philostv.com/philip-goff-and-david-papineau/
Want to explore this more fully:
Hmmm…
http://www.academia.edu/378015/A_critique_on_the_falsification_of_free_will_by_using_Libet-style_experiments_REVISED_AND_EXPANDED_VERSION_
Click to access on.benjamin.libet–free.will.and.determinism.pdf
Probably this too…
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/libets-experiments-and-human-free-will/
http://www.blogos.org/scienceandtechnology/neuroscience-free-will.php
Against determinism:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/balaguer/
Compatibalism:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
Potentially interesting (not sure what this is reference to in terms of materialism, however):
archive.org/details/historyofmateria00lang
Raymond Tallis is very critical of neuro-law & materialist interpretations of neuroscience:
“For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.”
Here is an interesting site…..I haven’t been through many of the articles yet:
http://allaboutscience.org/
Also all about philosophy….too.
Criticism of Michael Shermer
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/06/book-review-believing-brain-by-michael.html
Feser on Scientism:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/
Reductionism:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/life_purpose_mind_where_the_ma046991.html
http://philpapers.org/browse/philosophy-of-science-misc
Epistemology
Critiques of scientism
Critiques of vertificationism
Critiques of logical posititivism
Critiques of skepticism
Critiques of hume (both arguments)
——-
Hopefully:
critique of the churchlands & (reductive) materialism/physicalism
critique of steven pinker (re: scientism)
critique of krauss (ie something from nothing)
Libertarian defense:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/balaguer/
Should also look into compatibalism. For instance:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/fischer/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/09/scientism-and-methodological-naturalism/
https://twitter.com/mpigliucci
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/
particularly scientism week
Not sure about this yet:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2014/10/is-physicalism-an-impoverished-metaphysics/
http://www.lewissociety.org/scientism.php
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/philosophy-is-not-a-science/?_r=0
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
[this one links to a couple others]
Agnostic philosopher Mary Midgley:
http://www.giffordlectures.org/lecturers/mary-midgley
Francis Shaffer Apologetic:
https://sites.google.com/site/francisschaefferstudies/fss-document-center-home/schaeffer-s-apologetic
Platinga on Materialism:
Click to access Against_Materialism.pdf
This is on the neuro-science/free will aspects of the materialism question:
http://lawneuro.typepad.com/the-law-and-neuroscience-blog/2010/01/neurocriticisms-by-raymond-tallis.html
This video from 40 minutes to around 50 minutes (and beyond–up to about 60 minutes) has indicts/critiques of Libet (and determinism) more broadly:
Christian journalism:
http://www.worldji.com/monographs
Christian communication
Labri Ideas Library:
http://www.labri-ideas-library.org/
My Scientism and Naturalism Bibliography:
Here is more a generic apologetics website. I haven’t checked it out yet much:
http://alphausa.org/
I think its more oriented toward the core story of Christianity
This blog has a number of short articles which quote Ed Feser which may be helpful:
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/
I’m sure there is other stuff too.
Systems theory–non reductionist. Parallel between faith and environmentalism:
This is a decent interview and this book is quite good:
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2015/03/26/apologetics-cultural-liturgies-and-our-postmodern-age/
Determinism:
http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/08/are-humans-simply-robots-nancy-pearcey-on-the-free-will-illusion/
This mini-podcast makes the point itself.
Google “Nancy Pearcy and determinism” or “Nancy Pearcy and free will”
Scientism: Science vs. Philosophy:
https://iai.tv/video/hawking-vs-philosophy