Leiter, Brian & Weisberg, Michael - Do You Only Have A Brain?

10/26/2012

The Nation, 9/2012

This is a review of Thomas Nagel's newest book "Mind And Cosmos; Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False". According to authors, there are two major arguments that Nagel levels. The first is the false promise that philosophers have about theoretical reductionism, in that all material facts in the sciences can ultimately be reduced to physical facts about the fundamental elements of the universe. The second is that many scientific discoveries are contrary to "common sense" and our natural understandings about ourselves. The authors discuss the first briefly, the second more thoroughly.

To Nagel's first objection to naturalism the authors generally concede the point: no one is working very hard in the sciences to provide reduction; it is unclear if there is much practical benefit to providing such a thing; it is unclear it is fully even possible. Regarding the second of Nagel's 'broadsides', the authors push back: Nagel's understanding is limited; common sense often is in error, even about ourselves. Nagel uses the supposition that there is an objective moral, mathematical, and logical truths to drive a wedge between human mentality/behavior and the 'Neo-Darwinian' conception. Authors represent Nagel as having "simplistic evolutionary reasoning" and focus more on the logical and mathematical truths rather than the supposed moral ones.
Nagel's argument: how would we know it is valid if all our methods of knowing have nothing to do with validity and more to do with evolutionary history?
Authors: Because when we use math, things work validly.
Author's use the analogy of Neurath's Boat, that validity is built as it continues to sustain solutions that work.

The last argument from Nagel that authors consider is one where it seems (currently) impossible for science to explain how consciousness came to be from evolutionary processes. Authors claim that some explanation is possible but to ask for prediction to accompany explanation is asking too much. There need not be predictive capabilities on a one-to-one basis with explanations, authors retort.