Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Doubt : a history, by Jennifer Michael Hecht

Here's yet another book I may have to read. From the Washington Post's review:

For instance, Xenophanes, another of the pre-Socratics, argued that the gods of mythology must be human inventions. The Ethiopians posited black gods, while the gods of the red-haired Thracians were, unsurprisingly, red-haired. If horses and oxen had hands and could draw, he dryly remarked, they would draw their gods as great horses and oxen. Xenophanes suggested what Montaigne insisted on 2,000 years later: The exclusive authority claimed by competing religions cannot be taken seriously; their myths derive from obviously local sources, and their truth claims cancel each other out....

Montaigne, as it happens, thought that disagreements among scientists showed that science was as much a cultural construction as religion, and ought therefore to be treated with skepticism.

1 comment:

Felix said...

Carlos @ 1:22PM | 2004-02-04| permalink

Pascal quote on skepticism

"What amazes me most is to see than everyone is not amazed at his own weakness. We behave seriously ... as if everyone knew for certain where reason and justice lie. We are constantly disappointed and an absurd humility makes us blame ourselves and not the skill we always boast of having. But it is a good thing for the reputation of skepticism that there are so many people about who are not skeptics, to show that man is quite capable of the most extravagant opinions, since he is capable of believing that he is not naturally and inevitably weak, but is, on the contrary, naturally wise. Nothing strengthens the case for skepticism more that the fact that there are people who are not skeptics. If they all were, they would be wrong." (#374)

email | website



Felix @ 10:48PM | 2004-02-04| permalink

I guess ol' Blaise's convoluted wordplay makes his meaning less than clear to me. Certes, the existence of people with extravagant opinions does strengthen the case for skepticism in the same way that the existence of people who commit horrible crimes strengthens the case for anything that would mitigate the effects of those crimes. Is that the point?

email | website



Carlos @ 4:33PM | 2004-02-05| permalink

I interpreted him as saying that widespread credulity makes skepticism plausible by showing how fallible our belief forming processes are.

email | website