It’s a charge Mr. Nagel has met with before. In 2009 he caused a when he praised Stephen C. Meyer’s in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” in The Times “Signature Literary Supplement of London. This came hot on the heels of Mr. Nagel’s 2008 scholarly article the federal court decision, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, banning the teaching of intelligent design in public school biology classes. (“The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it may be,” Mr. Nagel wrote, resulted in a counter-orthodoxy, supported by bad arguments.”) “has Mr. depiction of a universe waking up” through the emergence of “gradually consciousness can sound oddly mystical the atheist analytic philosopher’s version of — not religious.” And even some readers who admire Mr. Nagel’s philosophical boldness “spiritual, see a very fuzzy line between his natural teleology and the creator God of theists like the Christian philosopher (who reviewed Mr. Nagel’s book favorably in , throwing more red meat to his detractors). In his conclusion Mr. Nagel declares that the present consensus” on evolution “right-thinking come to seem laughable in a generation or two.” But few of his colleagues seem to see “will much sign that a radical paradigm shift is imminent, let alone necessary. perfectly fair game for philosophers to say scientists are wrong about stuff,” Mr. Sober said. “It’s depends on whether the arguments are good.” “Everything is a provocative philosopher, and his book will interest people,” he continued. But when it “Tom to changing actual science, he said, a hiccup.” “it’s Do You Only Have a Brain? On Thomas Nagel The Nation and October 3, 2012 | Thomas Nagel, a professor of philosophy and of law at New York University, has made his reputation over the last fifty years as a leading contributor to moral and political philosophy, with occasional forays into the philosophy of mind. Most famously, and most relevant to his new book, Mind and Cosmos, he wrote an influential paper in the 1970s with the memorable title
It’s a charge Mr. Nagel has met with before. In 2009 he caused a when he praised Stephen C. Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design” in The Times Literary Supplement of London. This came hot on the heels of Mr. Nagel’s 2008 scholarly article the federal court decision, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, banning the teaching of intelligent design in public school biology classes. (“The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it may be,” Mr. Nagel wrote, “has resulted in a counter-orthodoxy, supported by bad arguments.”) Mr. depiction of a universe “gradually waking up” through the emergence of consciousness can sound oddly mystical — the atheist analytic philosopher’s version of “spiritual, not religious.” And even some readers who admire Mr. Nagel’s philosophical boldness see a very fuzzy line between his natural teleology and the creator God of theists like the Christian philosopher (who reviewed Mr. Nagel’s book favorably in , throwing more red meat to his detractors). In his conclusion Mr. Nagel declares that the present “right-thinking consensus” on evolution “will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.” But few of his colleagues seem to see much sign that a radical paradigm shift is imminent, let alone necessary. “It’s perfectly fair game for philosophers to say scientists are wrong about stuff,” Mr. Sober said. “Everything depends on whether the arguments are good.” “Tom is a provocative philosopher, and his book will interest people,” he continued. But when it to changing actual science, he said, “it’s a hiccup.” Do You Only Have a Brain? On Thomas Nagel The Nation and October 3, 2012 | Thomas Nagel, a professor of philosophy and of law at New York University, has made his reputation over the last fifty years as a leading contributor to moral and political philosophy, with occasional forays into the philosophy of mind. Most famously, and most relevant to his new book, Mind and Cosmos, he wrote an influential paper in the 1970s with the memorable title