RS06 - Fluffy Thinking
Release date: April 11, 2010
Fluffy Thinking is a peculiar type of uncritical thinking that sounds sophisticated, and is next to impossible to criticize frontally both because it barely has anything to do with empirical evidence, and because it is hard to articulate what, exactly, these people are saying. These people include scientific luminaries like Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies. Also, Karen Armstrong, author of "The Case for God", and Krista Tippett, author of "Einstein's God" and host of National Public Radio's "Speaking of Faith", where scientific notions are regularly distorted and mixed up with barely intelligible mystical “insights” that are put forward as profound truths.
The question is not only whether there is anything interesting in what these people are saying, but rather the much more difficult issue of why it is that smart individuals, who make their living thinking and writing about science and philosophy, are attracted by fluffy thinking.
Comment on the episode teaser.
Julia's pick: "The Book of Genesis Illustrated"
Massimo's pick: The Omnipotence Paradox
5 Comments
Reader Comments (5)
This is a great topic and was quite looking forward to listening to this podcast. After a cursory listen, however, I'm still not sure how to define "fluffy thinking". Most of the podcast seemed to be lists of examples, and not a mention of what fluffy thinking is. The only exception that I noticed was Julia's brief mention of the use/mention fallacy @ ~21:00. Did I miss a more... solid explanation of what fluffy thinking is?
I'm delighted to see this specific form of uncritical thinking identified, however vaguely, as a topic of criticism. It seems to me, though, that the adjective "fluffy" has entirely the wrong connotations. Its first connotation is lightness rather than indefiniteness; and that is not at all a characteristic of the kind of thinking that you mean to criticize. There is nothing light about the pseudo-profundities of Deepak Chopra or of French post-modernist philosophers. "Woolly thinking" or "fuzzy thinking" would be a more apt term, it seems to me.
Finally got a chance to listen to this podcast...great show! Love the format, the interplay of the hosts, topics, etc. And the length is perfect, at least for this episode. Obviously different topics or interviews may warrant longer shows. Keep up the great work.
Regarding the "omnipotence paradox", I heard of one possible resolution to it, but I can't remember where from. An omnipotent being could create something more powerful than itself, but only by also rendering itself no longer omnipotent. So the god could create a burrito it couldn't eat, but it would also have to renounce it's omnipotence from that point on. Presumably omnipotence would include the power to discard that power.
Also, great episode.
I just finished listening to Neil Denny's recent interview of ASU's Paul Davies on the Little Atoms podcast. At around the 18-minute mark, Davies let loose with his observation that true science only came about because of a monotheistic religious worldview and that had an "asteriod hit Paris in 1100, we would never had true science." Well, now we know. Amazing stuff.
Yes, I know...I shouldn't expect anything different given that he's a Templeton Prize recipient. Give it a listen if your in the mood to get your hackles up.