Global Strategy - blog

Despite that I mostly agree with evolutionary biologists, especially when it comes to the societal implications of their evolutionary views (such as eradicating religion from the affairs of state); one thing has bothered me for a while now. That is the ontological framework-the world-of these popularly bent natural scientists.

Hearing one of the opening sessions of philosophy of natural sciences, the cornerstone of their world appeared to me clear (even though I knew it also before, ‘luckily')! It is their precious gene! As it appears to me, to these writers, even the sociological realm, can be reduced to societies (societies or man as a social animal), which in turn is reduced to individuals who (roughly) are products of their genes and surroundings. Without going into details, it is quite evident that social scientists might raise some objections at this point.

The interesting part is not, however, the ontology of Dawkins and his mates. The natural (funny, eh?) corollary of these ontological fundamentals is that the methods of obtaining knowledge in one world are ‘perfectly' suitable for getting information of the other, social world. This kind of intellectual narcissism is of course, nothing new in the course of history, not to speak of academia. Perhaps the successes in explaining biological phenomena, that is, their own field, gives them the (over)confidence in interpreting everything through their own lenses.

Nevertheless, it reminds me of one of Nassim Taleb's favourite concepts-the famed ‘epistemic arrogance', which relates to the primacy of one's own educational background, thinking, and (needless to say) brilliance.

Edit: a related piece of news.