Mary Midgley wastes our time, once again

At least we can dismiss her latest fluff in the first sentence:

Is physical science - as some people say - omnicompetent? Can it (that is) answer all possible questions?

"As some people say" is one of the more perniciously lazy phrases in the English language. And setting up a straw man as the starting premise of an article is not encouraging. The answer to both is no. We don't know all possible questions, and science is just a tool. A very successful tool, but one with no alternative in sight (and Midgley certainly offers none).

To be fair, Midgley goes on to chatter about some very unfortunate hyperbole from Nicholas Humphrey, who seems to think we're close to solving all of science's questions, which is also an extraordinarily silly statement to make. But I can safely say that her questions are still ridiculous.

More like this

In other news, philosopher Mary Midgley offers some thoughts on the proper way to respond to ID. The title: A Plague on Both Their Houses.
When I critized Mary Midgley the other day for her sloppy critique of Nicholas Humphrey, I also pointed out that Humphrey had apparently indulged in some unfortunate hyperbole himself, saying
I read this headline — "Mary Midgley argues that opponents of intelligent design are driving people to accept it" — and my first thought was that surely some editor had mangled the sense of an interview.
Gasoline and diesel engines operate using very different philosophies. In a gas engine, a spark ignites a compressed fuel-air mixture; in a diesel, air is compressed and gets very hot, and fuel is injected, resulting in ignition.