Yes, I see that in this case I was using “elan vital” as a stand-in example for “postulating an ontologically basic entity that just so happens to validate preconceived categories.”
It was an overstatement to say that elan vital makes no predictions, and I thank you for pointing that out. However, I think the average person probably heard the theory and just took it as a confirmation of a stereotypical non-materialist worldview, i.e. a curiosity-stopper.
However, I think the average person probably heard the theory and just took it as a confirmation of a stereotypical non-materialist worldview, i.e. a curiosity-stopper.
Do you think this is significantly different from the average person’s interaction with modern scientific theories?
Probably not, but it takes a much more significant degree of willful misinterpretation somewhere along the line to construe modern scientific theories as supporting non-materialist worldviews.
I suppose that’s probably right—I guess people are more likely to think “science supports a materialistic worldview (but can’t explain everything)” (except when, like, quantum mechanics or superstrings or whatever come into play). So, less “non-materialst”, but still an appreciable degree of “curiosity stopping”. Hmm.
Yes, I see that in this case I was using “elan vital” as a stand-in example for “postulating an ontologically basic entity that just so happens to validate preconceived categories.”
It was an overstatement to say that elan vital makes no predictions, and I thank you for pointing that out. However, I think the average person probably heard the theory and just took it as a confirmation of a stereotypical non-materialist worldview, i.e. a curiosity-stopper.
Do you think this is significantly different from the average person’s interaction with modern scientific theories?
Probably not, but it takes a much more significant degree of willful misinterpretation somewhere along the line to construe modern scientific theories as supporting non-materialist worldviews.
I suppose that’s probably right—I guess people are more likely to think “science supports a materialistic worldview (but can’t explain everything)” (except when, like, quantum mechanics or superstrings or whatever come into play). So, less “non-materialst”, but still an appreciable degree of “curiosity stopping”. Hmm.