Prompted by the discussion of Sam Harris’s idea that science should provide for a universal moral code, I thought of this suitable reply given long ago:
[The] doctrine of right and wrong is perpetually disputed, both by the pen and the sword: whereas the doctrine of lines and figures is not so, because men care not in that subject what be truth, as a thing that crosses no man’s ambition, profit, or lust. For I doubt not, but if it had been a thing contrary to any man’s right of dominion, or to the interest of men that have dominion, that the three angles of a triangle should be equal to two angles of a square, that doctrine [would] have been, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all books of geometry suppressed, as far as he whom it concerned was able.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)
(It also provides for some interesting perspective on the current epistemological state of various academic fields that are taken seriously as a source of guidance for government policy.)
The continuing controversy over well-established facts of evolution, even though the threat they pose to religious leaders’ dominion is very indirect, would seem to prove Hobbes right.
Prompted by the discussion of Sam Harris’s idea that science should provide for a universal moral code, I thought of this suitable reply given long ago:
(It also provides for some interesting perspective on the current epistemological state of various academic fields that are taken seriously as a source of guidance for government policy.)
The continuing controversy over well-established facts of evolution, even though the threat they pose to religious leaders’ dominion is very indirect, would seem to prove Hobbes right.