Taylor prize to study violence, language
Thu, 2007-03-15 06:53
#1
Taylor prize to study violence, language
Thu, 2007-03-15 06:53
#2
Charles Taylor again at the forefront of Canadian social thought:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2fy35u]http://tinyurl.com/2fy35u[/url]
[i]Charles Taylor, 75, Canada's pre-eminent philosopher, yesterday was awarded the world's largest annual monetary prize -- more than $1.8-million -- to explore the roots of violence and the role played by language and linguistics in mankind's grasp of God.
He is the first Canadian to receive the Templeton Prize since it was established in 1972 by Sir John Templeton, an American-born British billionaire, money manager and philanthropist fascinated by spirituality and the intersection of science and religion.
In May, Prince Philip will formally bestow the award on him at a ceremony in Buckingham Palace.
The McGill University emeritus professor of philosophy told a news conference yesterday in New York, where the award was announced, that there's an urgent need for new insight into the human propensity for violence, one that takes "full account of the human striving for meaning and spiritual direction, of which the appeals to violence are a perversion."[/i]
[ 15 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Thu, 2007-03-15 09:10
#3
M. Spector
What a joke!
This Templeton guy had more money than brains.
His foundation has been handing out these millions mostly to practitioners on the fringe of science in order to finance vague and nebulous topics relating to science and religion.
Not one of these grants has ever resulted in any useful research.
Thu, 2007-03-15 11:35
#4
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Not one of these grants has ever resulted in any useful research.[/b]
Surely you would make an exception for the Rev. Billy Graham?
Thu, 2007-03-15 12:12
#5
quote:
Not one of these grants has ever resulted in any useful research.
Yeah why would anyone want to be trying to understand violence when they could be doing something really useful like designing nuclear weapons, zyclon B, Agent orange, or missle shields.
Thu, 2007-03-15 13:04
#6
I really wish cynics would just shut up for one day. It'd be great.
Thu, 2007-03-15 14:22
#7
M. Spector
I did one day.
I guess you missed it.
Thu, 2007-03-15 15:41
#8
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]I did one day.I guess you missed it.[/b]
I'm pessimistic at best [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-03-16 01:51
#9
hmmm... wacky science?
judge for yourself:
[url=http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html]http://www.templetonprize...
[ 16 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Fri, 2007-03-16 03:38
#10
The Templeton Foundation did fund a number of projects and people behind the intelligent design movement a few years ago. But then they came to the realisation that ID is more political than scientific and [url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-letters4.2feb04,1,4960042.story?co... since gone on to distance themselves from it[/url].
Also see, [url=http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=9819]The Case of the Missing Book: Setting the Record Straight on William Dembski, the Templeton Foundation, and Intelligent Design[/url]
[url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/03/templeton_answers_dembski.php... Answers Dembski[/url]
[url=http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/the_templeton_f.html]The Templeton Foundation Distances Itself from "Intelligent Design"[/url]
[ 16 March 2007: Message edited by: Snuckles ]
Fri, 2007-03-16 06:34
#11
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Geneva:
[b]hmmm... wacky science?
judge for yourself:[/b]
Thank you. I have.
None of these people used their Templeton money to produce any "Progress Toward Research or Discoveries About Spiritual Realities."
None.
Fri, 2007-03-16 07:21
#12
viewed from London:
[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2359078.ece]http://n...
Charles Taylor, 75, who won the Templeton Prize, and Ј800,000, yesterday, says lessons could be learned from terrorist acts, including the July 7 London bombings, if society focused more on understanding the role of spirituality - and how it can be misappropriated by extremists.
Professor Taylor, from Montreal, investigates people's desire to seek meaning and spiritual direction, and how this quest can sometimes end in violence. He says relying on a secular analysis of human behaviour has led Western nations to faulty conclusions and that spiritual examination is needed to combat the likes of al-Qa'ida.
"I think the reason why young children turn to violent in Gaza City is not just through socio-economic factors but also through the meaninglessness of their lives," he said yesterday. "They feel no purpose and people come along and offer them a 'cause'.
[ 16 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Fri, 2007-03-16 07:43
#13
M. Spector
I'm sure we're going to learn a great deal from the Ј800,000 worth of research Dr. Taylor will be doing on the spiritual and existential angst of the children of Gaza City.
Fri, 2007-03-16 11:55
#14
As much as it offends people, there are always going to be people who want to study philosophy, religion, and science. And there will always be people who study the philosophy of science (which I would consider one of the humanities, along with religion).
This is basically a philosophy of science and philosophy of religion prize, and both subjects are humanities. So, it's not an applied science prize. And not everyone studies applied science, or even social sciences, as much as some of us might wish otherwise.
BTW, I'm going to move this to "humanities and science" since that would be a better forum for it, I think.
[ 16 March 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2007-03-16 12:32
#15
I thought of starting the thread here,
but it seemed more of a cultural story, and Charles Taylor being an NDP stalwart added a Canadian education/ philosophy/ political angle
whatever ...
NY Times calls it a science story:
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2h69g6]http://tinyurl.com/2h69g6[/url]
[i]A Canadian philosopher who believes that spirituality is an essential part of the study of philosophy and the social sciences has won the $1.5 million Templeton Prize for advancement and research of spiritual matters.
[...]
Professor Taylor has written extensively on the sense of self and how it is defined by morals and what one considers good. People operate in the register of spiritual issues, he said, and to separate those from the humanities and social sciences leads to flawed conclusions.
“The deafness of many philosophers, social scientists and historians to the spiritual dimension can be remarkable,” Professor Taylor said in remarks prepared for delivery at the announcement of the prize at the Church Center for the United Nations in New York this morning. This is damaging because it “affects the culture of the media and educated public opinion in general.”
[... he] said his work “digs into the kinds of human motivation that don’t usually arise” in sociological studies of violence, such as the “search for meaning.”[/i]
[ 16 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Fri, 2007-03-16 12:36
#16
Here's an interesting take on Templeton's foundation:
[url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan06/horgan06_index.html]http://www....
I don't think they have any credibility.
Fri, 2007-03-16 13:51
#17
M. Spector
From 2fruition's link:
quote:
By all accounts, Sir John [Templeton] is a charming, open-minded man, who emphasizes the importance of humility in all spheres of life. But at 93, he has yielded the day-to-day leadership of the foundation to his son John Jr., a pediatric surgeon who quit his practice in 1995 to become the organization's president. [b]An evangelical Christian, "Jack" is the chairman of Let Freedom Ring Inc., which raises funds for conservative causes. He has reportedly contributed to both presidential campaigns of George Bush, whose relations with the scientific community are arguably the worst of any president in history.[/b]Nevertheless the nation's leading scientific organization — the American Association for the Advancement of Science — and scores of research universities are Templeton Foundation beneficiaries. [b]Largely as a result of Templeton grants, some 90 American medical schools now offer courses on links between health and spirituality.[/b] Templeton funds have even trickled down to atheists like the physicist Steven Weinberg, who once proclaimed during a AAAS conference sponsored by the foundation in 1999, "I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue."
Weinberg has not held his tongue as a result of pocketing Templeton cash, but other recipients have. In March 2003, I attended a Templeton-sponsored conference at Stanford University titled "Becoming Human: Brain, Mind, and Emergence" (my expenses were paid not by the foundation but by a magazine). The meeting was supposed to be a dialogue between neuroscientists, such as V.S. Ramachandran, Robert M. Sapolsky, and Antonio R. Damasio, and religious figures, including the theologian Nancey Murphy and the Australian archbishop George Pell. But the dialogue was nominal; each side listened politely to the other's presentations without really commenting on them. [b]Several areligious scientists told me privately that they did not want to challenge the beliefs of religious speakers for fear of offending them and the Templeton hosts.[/b]
Fri, 2007-03-16 23:37
#18
Some very strange bedfellows, but I'm inclined to say that if the Finders Keepers or whatever their name was decided to give money to Charles Taylor, I'd say go for it!
Fri, 2007-03-16 23:48
#19
Bad news, overall.
I'm a supporter of pushing the frontiers of science, including when it comes to addressing issues related to the super natural and spirituality and questioning conventional thought.
This is, after all, the mission of science: to keep an open mind and to learn all that is learnable, explain all that is explainable and not be afraid to question everything. Many have argued that today's mysticism could be tomorrow's science.
However, reading up on these kooks, I see neither pushing the limits of science nor questioning conventional wisdom. Rather, I see whole bunch of money that got unjustly sucked out of the economy and centralized under one pork-chopper's control being thrown away on useless endeavours not to prove or learn anything, but to reinforce already unsubstantiated and not very honest beliefs.
The fund is run by Templeton's son--a right-wing "evangelical Christian" flake who puts money into "conservative causes"--exactly the types who are among the most vitriolic opponents of freedom of thought, scientific ethics and methods and public education--not mention long-established masters of religious bigotry and intolerance.
If you look at [url=http://www.templetonprize.org/purpose.html]their web site, [/url]it starts off sounding fairly honest and sincere about exploring and explaining the super natural in factual verifiable ways.
But by the third paragraph you run into dubious stuff like:
quote:
Instead, this award is intended to encourage the concept that resources and manpower are needed to accelerate progress in spiritual discoveries, which can help humans to learn more than a hundredfold more about divinity.
Divinity? How do they already know there is actually such a thing? No one has factually or scientifically proved its existence. So, these frauds are just assuming it exists without any fact. That's about as scientific as the tooth fairy.
Then this:
quote:
The Prize is intended to help people see the infinity of the Universal Spirit still creating the galaxies and all living things and the variety of ways in which the Creator is revealing himself to different people. We hope all religions may become more dynamic and inspirational.
So is this a scientific organization or a religious one? One thing is Christian Science. But this is outright charlatanism.
The ideas of God and divinity are not, and never have been, intended to be proven or disproven scientifically. Any ethical religious scholar will tell you they are based on faith--something that people developed thousands of years ago as way of gaining confidence and self-assurance in the face of often extreme adversity. And they are still being used for this today.
But it's clear these pukes are trying to confuse faith and science in the most malicious ways in order to advance the usual right-wing corporatist agenda that oppresses us all.
[ 16 March 2007: Message edited by: Steppenwolf Allende ]
Sat, 2007-03-17 00:17
#20
but it's charles taylor...
Sat, 2007-03-17 02:13
#21
[b]...it's clear these pukes are trying to confuse faith and science in the most malicious ways in order to advance the usual right-wing corporatist agenda that oppresses us all. ....[/b]
including ultra-right-wing Charles Taylor, former intellectual dean of social democracy in Canada and NDP challenger to the Liberal Pierre Trudeau?? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[url=http://tinyurl.com/2bc2k9]http://tinyurl.com/2bc2k9[/url]
-- thanks for the tip! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[i] [After Oxford, and] back home in Quebec, the gangly, soft-spoken Taylor - now married with five daughters - tested the political waters. He ran unsuccessfully for the New Democratic Party four times, once against the young Pierre Trudeau in 1965, before settling down at McGill.
There, he delved deeper into the concepts that still preoccupy him - our sense of identity, the struggle to balance individual and collective rights, and understanding when the needs of groups within a society require protection. Taylor endorsed the notion of Quebec as a distinct society, and believes citizens should have a more active role in how democracies run.[/i]
and,
from a review in Amazon of Taylor's "Modern Social Imaginaries":
Review
[i] "[T]his book reaffirms Charles Taylor’s status as Canada’s version of Richard Rorty. This is not only because he is a public intellectual with a gift for being able to discuss matters as diverse as multiculturalism, Aristotle and God, but because he mines the Nietzschean strains of European political thought — here represented in the image of society as a single horizontal plane, and a long excurses on secular time — and argues for their basic affinities with the principles of North American liberalism and pragmatism".
--Stephen Crocker, Canadian Journal of Sociology Online[/i]
Yes, a real right-wing flamethrower !! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
.
[ 17 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Sat, 2007-03-17 09:58
#22
quote:
including ultra-right-wing Charles Taylor, former intellectual dean of social democracy in Canada and NDP challenger to the Liberal Pierre Trudeau??
Hey witty. I never said anything about Charles Taylor. I know he isn't a religious right nut bar.
That begs the question of why he would want to have anything to do with the Templeton. Then again, as others have said, they were willing to give him a huge wad of cash to do something.
I hope he uses it wisely and productively.
Sat, 2007-03-17 14:50
#23
N.Beltov
Taylor is an important Canadian academic social thinker. Once I finish enough of Hegel I will definitely read Taylor's [i]magnum opus[/i] about that thinker. However, I've always viewed him with the thoroughly justified skepticism of a leftist ... ever since he came to UVic, almost 25 years ago now, and showed his ugly disdain for social analysis based on a partisanship for working people. I don't believe that he is on our side ... and I've seen nothing since to convince me otherwise. You can learn a lot by seeing someone in person ... and how they defend their ideas.
[ 17 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Sat, 2007-03-17 22:17
#24
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b]I hope he uses it wisely and productively.[/b]
Um, yeah. Like the Globe and Mail says, he's been awarded the money "to explore the roots of violence and the role played by language and linguistics in mankind's grasp of God."
If anything wise or productive comes out of this grant, it will be a first for the Templeton Foundation.
Sun, 2007-03-18 00:18
#25
I'm sorry but Science and the supernatural are two seperate things... They can not be reconciled with each other...
One is based on rational thought and the other is based on irrational thought....
Sun, 2007-03-18 09:19
#26
The Toronto Star was willing to hear more about Taylor and his prize.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/192906]http://www.thestar.com/opi...
Sun, 2007-03-18 12:09
#27
quote:
I'm sorry but Science and the supernatural are two seperate things... They can not be reconciled with each other...
It is tiresome that the discourse concerning these issues is frequently reduced to the adolescent snickering of the usual science guys with their sophomoric false dichotomies Science-rational, true ,good, productive/useful Philosophy/humanities-irrational, false, bad, unproductive/useless. The assumption is one need take a position either for or against science.
It is a strange relationship and attachment the adolescent male (they are almost always male) has towards science.
Science is a tool and it is not unusual for adolescent boys to fetishize their tools
Power tools or tools of power(knowledge) and masculinity, the attachment to these constructions is generally utilized to stave of feelings of insecurity and powerlessness. It also represents the classical logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
quote:
One is based on rational thought and the other is based on irrational thought....
Yet another false dichotomy. Human experience cannot be separated into rational/irrational humans(as demonstrated by cognitive science)are emotional/rational beings emotion and reason are dual processes that do not exist in isolation. We are also physical and spiritual beings and in using the term spiritual does not necessitate anything supernatural. The spiritual dimension of human experience is the genuine need for connection and meaning in our lives. The need and expression for connection and meaning can be manifest in a number of ways. To reduce all expression of the spiritual to literalist or fundamentalist caricature is both irrational and intellectually lazy.
Sun, 2007-03-18 13:00
#28
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]Human experience cannot be separated into rational/irrational humans(as demonstrated by cognitive science)are emotional/rational beings emotion and reason are dual processes that do not exist in isolation.[/b]
An appeal to "cognitive science"? Isn't cognitive science one of the creations of those sophomoric adolescent male scientist geeks you love to disparage? Isn't cognitive science based on experimentation, observation, and rational deduction, as opposed to emotion and spirituality?
But hey, if it suits the purposes of your polemic, why not use science to debunk science?
Sun, 2007-03-18 13:22
#29
quote:
An appeal to "cognitive science"? Isn't cognitive science one of the creations of those sophomoric adolescent male scientist geeks you love to disparage? Isn't cognitive science based on experimentation, observation, and rational deduction, as opposed to emotion and spirituality?
But hey, if it suits the purposes of your polemic, why not use science to debunk science?
I am not "debunking" science. I have no problem with science.
To me science is a tool and like any tools it has its uses and limitations. Being aware of its limitations is not the same as dismissing its usefulness.
Furthermore saying one is either for or against it is as absurd as saying that someone is either for or against a circular saw.
Similarly those who feel they need to defend science might wish to construct a treatise in defence of the ball peen hammer.
I am making a distinction between those who understand the uses and limits of science from those who irrationally fetishize it. I am also challenging the common assumption that science can be separated from it's philosophical assumptions. The lack of awareness concerning the philosophical foundations of scientific theory and practice leads to bad science ( most apparent in the fields of psychiatry and economics, as well as other social sciences).
[ 18 March 2007: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]