I recently took it upon myself to read Charles Taliaferro and Stewart Goetz‘s work Naturalism (for sale here).  I highly recommend the book for anyone looking for a good summary of some considerations of modern philosophy on the topic of naturalism.  The work is pithy, cogent, and I think easy to follow even for those not well-versed in the technical jargon and historic arguments surrounding this traditional metaphysical debate.  I would caution, though, that I think that the book seems to me overly critical of some features of naturalism, and also to me seems to overgeneralize many characteristics which I think abound in naturalists and non-naturalists alike.

I had the great pleasure of being introduced to Taliaferro last fall, and will likely be meet him again in a few days, so I took the time to throw together a little gut-reaction response to the work Natualism (which, I rather think might be better titled “Against Naturalism”, which indicates better that the purpose of this book seems to be the construction of an argument against naturalism, rather than some merely informational and “objective” presentation of historic facts and debates).

Here is my response to their work (in either ogg vorbis or mp3 format).

If you don’t feel like taking the 15 minutes to listen, here’s the gist of my thoughts, without most of the explanatory substance:

1. Yes, I agree with Goetz and Taliaferro that naturalism as they characterize it (through examples) stands on shaky ground, but…
2. Naturalist perspectives, being based on the ever-expanding realm of scientific advancement, are not simply reductionist.  Rather, their role can expand as our empirical observations and theories about these observations expand.  My feelings on this follow from my (mildly Kuhnian, i think) view that science is a primarily pragmatic rather than epistemological endeavor.
3. Because science offers us the opportunity to challenge traditional “supernatural” explanations, it bears the possibility to act as a corrective check for, or at least calls us to critically reflect upon, our folk psychology/physics/philosophy/metaphysics/dogmas.
4. Finally, I think that a strict, parsimonious, positive naturalism is not just likely epistemically problematic–it is psychologically untenable even for its most outspoken adherence (but so is anti-naturalism in some ways).  In the long run, though, if the apparent choice is between accepting on or the other tradtional dogma (either naturalist or unnaturalist), I would just assume have both perspectives around as long as possible duking it out, as neither seems wholy cogent to me.  With the argument preserved, we can pragmatically utilize one assumption in one context generally (say, anti-naturalism for religion; naturalism for science), but allow these perspectives to challenge each other in their own contexts as well.  In this way, I hope we can either realize that these distinctions are irrelevant, or that they are somehow complimentary, or that some better alternatives exist instead–and enjoy the fruits of continued argument.

What struck me as interesting, was that when I was looking for some alternative perspectives on naturalism while writing my response, one of the first results provided by my friend Google was lil’ ol me.  Yes, on the first page of my google results was an entry that I posted in October last year, entitled “Hobbes and Modern Science v. Descartes“.  Back in October, though, I was sort of on the other side of the argument.  Back then, I was chastizing modern science for its naturalist assumptions, rather than lauding it for bringing options to the table–at least until the end of the article.  In the end, though, it seems that both today and last october, I was arguing from one side (first against naturalists, then against anti-naturalists) in order to get to the middle.  In both places, I criticized dogmatism, dualism, and hubristic assumptions that we already know what types of substances make up the entirety of the cosmos.

The major discrepancy between my old article and my new one, it seems to me, is that I was content to characterize science in my October post as presuming the sort of materialistic naturalism that Goetz and Taliaferro seem to see in it, but this week I argued that that view of science is short-sighted.  Which description is more accurate?  In a way, I think both.  I think the end paragraph of my recorded response hints at the answer.  It seems that real human beings simply don’t portray stable, context independent dispositions of this sort.  In one context, we might all predictably be naturalists (say, when you consider whether or not you should worry about a 1,000 anvil falling on you from above), and in others we may all be anti-naturalists (say, when considering our plans for the future or interpreting our emotions).  It may simply not be possible to separate these two categories in a way that is both meaningful and able to be held by a real person over time.

Also, if you’re in the Sioux Falls area, I heartily implore you to come to Charles Taliaferro’s talk at the Augustana Naturalism Symposium this week; it will make your life better.

Also, I tried to stream my recorded response to Naturalism, but it does not seem to work for me.  Try it, if it shows up for you:

As a disclaimer to this review, I ought to mention that Steve Long’s book is the first I’ve read on the subject of rock climbing, and I am an extremely callow climber. That said, my general inexperience as in the subject might be helpful for others interested in gaining introductory insights into climbing, and my review might also elucidate whether this book is too elementary for more experienced climbers.

The book has an ambitious, remarkably broad set range of topics discussed–including history of the sport, genre divisions in rock climbing, safety techniques, travel and climbing-site specific information, tips on picking out equipment, instructions on climbing maneauvers, tips on diet and exercise, notes on competitions, and much more. Considering both the eagerness of the project and the slightly-larger-than-pocket size of the text, it should not be unexpected that while the general topic of climbing is discussed in a very complete fashion, some specific individual topics are exceptionally abbreviated discussions.

Overall, the book seems inclusive, outlining most of the climbing approaches and equipment which i would have anticipated or hoped for, plus a few which i did not. The book is chock-full of illustrations, diagrams, photographs, and the like, which to me seem an absolute necessity for any adequate hands-off presentation of climbing technique. There were a few places in the text where perhaps a superfluous (but often aesthetically inviting) photo of a glorious rock face with an attached climber or a diagram for an exceedingly simple technique or a redundant tip bubble might have been omitted in order that the abridged description of a procedure might be made more clear. However, in general these tended to add clarity to my novice understanding of materials, procedures, setup, safety, knots, equipment, and the like.

There were two sections which I felt were particularly well-constructed–namely “essential safety skills” and “key techniques”. Each seemed helpful, descriptive, comprehensive, and–with several notable exceptions–left me with relatively few unanswered questions compared to many of the other sections. Thankfully, these two sections seemed to make up the real meat of the books, such that the best information was available from the largest and most interesting portions of the work. To me, the simplest of diagrams and photographs–those intending to portray only one idea, technique, or feature–were by far the most helpful. Grip techniques were very clear, as well as most of the vital diagrams describing safe anchoring techniques for cams, webbing, rope, pitons, and the like. I found some diagrams attempting to explain, for example, rope techniques which became confusing by attempting to illustrate full sequences of connections in a diagram without proper correlating explanations.

The most salient pitfalls of the text are with overall clarity and organization. Most notably, I think that readers as green or greener than myself might experience some difficulty with climbing techniques or terms not being properly described before they are used in the book. Some very basic terms in climbing have quite different jargoned meanings from their status quo definitions, and many of these–protection, jug, second, natural, and psych come to mind immediately–are defined much later than they are first used (and in some cases, never defined at all, even in the glossary). Perhaps the guide is not intended for those of us too callow to recognize these terms or techniques, but if this is the case, then it is a mistake for the work to define them–as it often does–later on. Prusik, for example, is used multiple times at the beginning of the book, but is not defined in the glossary and not explained in the book until page 48. Likewise, jug is needed to understand a suggested exercise on page 91, but is not defined until page 94. Psyching is used on page 82, but explained on 85. Conversely, sometimes terms or procedures are defined redundantly; the munter hitch, for example, is described in nearly the same words on both pages 53 and 64. Additionally, some portions simply seem out-of-place. Rigging a repel, ascending and descending, and constructing a prusik are relegated to the back of the book, away from the other sections on other related in-climb techniques. Sometimes a bit more information might have been provided, such as diagrams (page 57 could have used one concerning threads) or simply further description (page 53 mentions some configurations being “weak” for equipment, but does not describe them). I thought that the sections on techniques and safety skills might have benefited from the addition of a brief section consolidating and describing the fundamental ideas of loading, directionality, and force.

These weak points should not entirely overshadow the benefits of the book, however. By the end of the work, many of the questions and problems and confusions that were left by individual sections were largely answered. Unfortunately, this was often only after they were mentioned elsewhere in the book, such that a full understanding of equipment and procedure might require two readings for some novices. In general, instruction is succinct and clear, and the information is relevant. True, the book could use enough editing to warrant a second edition, but it is certainly an excellent source of information in its current form.