Is he gone yet? Whew!

The book I referred to yesterday is Moral Minds by Marc Hauser. I’ll leave you with this as I head off into the sunrise.

Hauser’s premise is simple enough. As one might accept that there is an instinct for language in human beings, an innate evolved mechanism that enables language, he would suggest that there is also an instinct for morality. The book starts off with some elementary discussion of philosophical moral mechanics, but suggests that these don’t really explain some innate responses we may have. I haven’t read far enough into it yet to either accept or reject his thesis, but you’ve got to admit that it’s interesting. And he’s a pretty good writer, to boot.

As the VCA well knows, I am a firm believer in the convergence (consilience, if you prefer) of the social and physical sciences. That is, philosophy is about the meaning of life, the meaning of thought, etc. Science is about the same things. But whereas philosophy’s success or failure at explaining its subjects rests solely on the (science of) logic, science’s success or failure is demonstrated through the physical process of method and proof. Language study is a good example of this. While philosophers can postulate any damned thing as an explanation for language, there is really no ground for their explanations except guesswork supported by logical extensions. Scientists, on the other hand, while they can postulate any damned thing as an explanation for language, can then test the postulations with physical experiment and explorations. While no matter how you slice it the philosophers are using words (language) as their tools, an obvious limitation when the subject is linguistics, the scientists are using, say, CAT scans and 30 years of bonobo experiments, etc. I’ll take Pinker any day over any philosopher you care to mention on the subject of language, even though I may believe that what the given philosopher says is true. The difference is that Pinker offers proofs. But at the end, since they are both studying the same things, they should ultimately come together to work for the solutions to the questions. The philosophers, with their wild-ass but nevertheless perceptive and creative intuitions, could be getting much of it right, and the scientists, with their down-to-earth tools and measurements, can prove or disprove the philosophers. If the goal is truth, then perhaps using all the means of achieving truth makes sense, and, in some cases, using diverse means may be absolutely necessary.

Anyhow, I’m curious to see how Hauser will make his case. I guess I am a little doubtful that I’ll accept it, but that’s just a gut reaction. The other book I’m curious about and just ordered is The First Word by Christine Kenneally. I heard her talking to Lopate this morning and was hooked, plus the Times gave it a pretty good review.

So, see you in a week or so.