Even if ancient cultures had very precise (mathematical, observational) understanding of the the natural world as well as religious myths and rituals that they performed alongside that understanding, is Frank’s book a faithful attempt at addressing the problems of the epistemology (theory of knowledge) of science that has developed since then?
Does he more aim to just mold and change engrained popular opinion on the subject; re-focusing the debate away from creationist/darwinist dualism?
It’s interesting to hear two such bright people discuss such ideas. Your thoughts are welcome.
Here’s a quote I put up last week…from Albert Einstein discussing Hume and Kant, among other ideas, in his Remarks On Bertrand Russell’s Theory Of Knowledge:
“The following, however, appears to me to be correct in Kant’s statement of the problem: in thinking we use, with a certain “right,” concepts to which there is no access from the materials of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical point of view.
As a matter of fact, I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all — when viewed logically — the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences.”
Also On This Site: Hilary Putnam on the philosophy of science found here, do we keep building and building our scientific edifice?: Bryan Magee’s Talking Philosophy On YouTube…Bertrand Russell was a fan of the accomplishments of Pythagoras, but no fan of the Pythagorean cult: Ron Csillag In The Toronto Star: Math + Religion=Trouble...From Scientific American: Was Einstein Wrong?