You think that David Gelernter presented some troubling considerations for modern science? You might recall he mentioned Thomas Nagel and his new book that created such a furor on the academic left, since he is–or was, an icon of the left.
Nagel, University Professor and renowned philosopher at NYU (university professor is the highest academic rank I know of, he can, literally lecture on any subject he desires on the Campus) wrote Mind and Cosmos last year and sent the atheists and Darwinists and some others on the academic left into orbit.
Nagel asked questions about consciousness and evolution that got the left’s panties in a twist for sure, and they tried to excommunicate him from the snotty elite comfortable and confident salon. Richard Dawkins, Darwinist atheist, was apoplectic. Nagel is still an atheistic leftist, but he asked the questions because he asks questions, that’s what he does, and when he can’t find a satisfactory answer, he says so.
Nagel said there are things we don’t understand and since he couldn’t understand them and he couldn’t find anyone who could explain them, he was going to consider evolution a question, not an answer and consciousness a cunundrum beyond our limited ability to understand. (Sound like Gelernter?)
Nice going Thomas, mysteries, complexities? Questions about consciousness and evolution, and complexity beyond our ability to investigate or understand?
I do biology–medical problem solving biology, but biology nonetheless and I can live with complexity and uncertainty, in fact I welcome it, since it obscures the measure of my ignorance.