Pinker vs. Lherer
Steven Pinker and Jonah Lherer have opposing views on the idea of reductionism. Pinker believes that is a psychologist from Harvard University, and studies language and cognition. He says “But to explain a complex happening in terms of deeper principles is not to discard its richness.” In this quote, Pinker explains his thoughts on reductionism. He says that reductionism does not mean to take away from what it is trying to explain, it is trying to explain something in a simpler way to help explain it better. On the other hand, Lherer has the opposite opinion of what reductionism does. He says “… reductionism has failed to solve our emergent mind” and “[novels] feel true because they capture a layer of reality that reductionism cannot.” In this, Lherer denounces reductionism, and explains that it cannot accomplish what it is supposed to because it takes away too much from the idea. Each author has different views on reductionism, and whether or not it is suitable to use it.
Pinker world-to-text illustration
In our world, we need to take science into the consideration of morals and values. Steven Pinker believes that the arts do have a role in science, and that the arts can help out science. He says “Intellectual problems… are being illuminated by insights from the sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution.” This quote shows that Pinker believes that morals and intellectual ability can be advanced by the discoveries in science. While Pinker believes this, it is a new idea to the world. Our current views tell us that science and the arts of morals and values are separate. This is where Pinker and the world view differ. Pinker tries to offer a new outlook on how science can apply to our world today.
I’m not sure if I can see how Pinker’s quote illustrates how he believes that art can help science. Pinker’s essay is tough because he doesn’t explicitly take a stand on a relationship between art and science. He DOES take a strong stand on what he sees as science’s value in today’s world.