<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ruth Institute Blog &#187; Philosophy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ruthblog.org/category/philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ruthblog.org</link>
	<description>An intellectual climate favorable to marriage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:12:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What is good? What does &#8220;ought&#8221; mean?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/11/what-is-good-what-does-ought-mean/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/11/what-is-good-what-does-ought-mean/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 16:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philosopher Thaddeus Kozinski takes up these questions in his very interesting article in today&#8217;s Public Discourse.  His bottom line: &#8220;am I saying that only an ethics rooted in the divinely revealed truth of creation-as-gift and creator-as-love can coherently and adequately make sense of the universal experience of ought? Indeed I am, though I think that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/11/what-is-good-what-does-ought-mean/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to make a marriage last</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/01/how-to-make-a-marriage-last/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/01/how-to-make-a-marriage-last/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 May 2011 20:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ginny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Happy Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happy marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wanted to revisit the article on Hume&#8217;s defense of marriage.  There was some good stuff buried deep in the link: Contrary to what some romantics may think, marital happiness and conjugal human love cannot be sustained by amorous or infatuating passions, Hume says, since they are by nature unstable and fleeting. “Amorous love,” he [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/01/how-to-make-a-marriage-last/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The French Got It Right on Surrogacy</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/07/the-french-got-it-right-on-surrogacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/07/the-french-got-it-right-on-surrogacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 06:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Reproductive Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donor Conceived Persons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surrogate Mothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial reproductive technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parenting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=7044</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[from Yahoo News: France&#8217;s top court refused Wednesday to allow French citizenship for 10-year-old twin girls born to a surrogate mother in the United States, in a ruling that affirmed France&#8217;s legal ban on surrogacy. In a case straddling international legal rights and bioethics, the Court of Cassation ruled a California county went too far [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/04/07/the-french-got-it-right-on-surrogacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bored to Death</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/28/bored-to-death/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/28/bored-to-death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=6777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bored to Death is the title of an article by philosophy professor Russell Snell. He talks about boredom as the &#8220;stance toward the world most evident in the historical and social space of contemporary Western life.&#8221;  Many of us no longer find the world beautiful, or good, or of worth, and since the world and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/28/bored-to-death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Condemned to Joy</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/09/condemned-to-joy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/09/condemned-to-joy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 20:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=6491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I write this post with trembling hands.  You see my recent post on a particularly execrable high school play has inspired a histrionic conniption over at Good As You.  There&#8217;s even a threat to report me to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  I quake to think of what they&#8217;ll do to me. You see, Mr. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/09/condemned-to-joy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anencephalic Fetuses Are Subhuman &#8220;Par Excellence&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/17/anencephalic-fetuses-are-subhuman-par-excellence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/17/anencephalic-fetuses-are-subhuman-par-excellence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:14:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>leland</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Euthanasia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro Choice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=5918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How many of you are long-in-the-tooth enough to remember when pro-&#8217;choice&#8217; folks ridiculed anyone who warned that legalizing abortion-on-demand would lead to things like euthanasia&#8230; and sex selective abortions&#8230; and aborting the handicapped&#8230; or euthanizing the handicapped? Well this article, about “well-known Brazilian pro-abortion activist and anthropologist Debora Diniz” justifies all those fears, if you [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/17/anencephalic-fetuses-are-subhuman-par-excellence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aristotle’s Ethos, Pathos, and Logos &#8211; in Which Do You Excel?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/11/aristotle%e2%80%99s-ethos-pathos-and-logos-in-which-do-you-excel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/11/aristotle%e2%80%99s-ethos-pathos-and-logos-in-which-do-you-excel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JThieme</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=5246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ethos: the source&#8217;s credibility, the speaker&#8217;s/author&#8217;s authority Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument. Pathos: the emotional or motivational appeals; vivid language, emotional language and numerous sensory details. Located here. A recent blog comment by &#8220;RuthRocks&#8221; triggered a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/11/aristotle%e2%80%99s-ethos-pathos-and-logos-in-which-do-you-excel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on the Incest Case</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/05/more-on-the-incest-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/05/more-on-the-incest-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[incest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=5151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Matthew Franck writes today about how we have lost the moral vocabulary to even talk about what&#8217;s wrong with incest.  natural hierarchies, duties, and trusts are shattered by incest, even between “consenting adults.” But the recent discussions of this matter reveal how decayed is our moral vocabulary for considering it, how nearly lost is any [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/05/more-on-the-incest-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Teaching our children about morality is not optional</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/04/teaching-our-children-about-morality-is-not-optional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/04/teaching-our-children-about-morality-is-not-optional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:17:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=5060</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is a thoughtful article by Friend of Ruth, Rev. Dr. Dale Kuehne. He starts with this example, to illustrate how morally unglued we are becoming: I recently had a discussion with a Middle School student in which s/he shared that s/he was bi-sexual. Having done a fair amount of research on sexual orientation, my [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/04/teaching-our-children-about-morality-is-not-optional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stuart Schneiderman:  The Grand Pantomime</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/04/stuart-schneiderman-the-grand-pantomime/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/04/stuart-schneiderman-the-grand-pantomime/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 01:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=5055</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dr. Stuart Schneiderman has a new column out about same sex &#8220;marriage.&#8221; What is a funeral when no one died? It is theatre. What is a dinner where you go through the motions of eating without there being any food? It is pantomime. Same-sex marriage is a fiction. Even if everyone believes that the fiction [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/01/04/stuart-schneiderman-the-grand-pantomime/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Marriage merely a social construct?</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/29/is-marriage-merely-a-social-construct/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/29/is-marriage-merely-a-social-construct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 22:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privatize marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=4969</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over at the Public Discourse Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis, young proteges of Robby George, respond to Prof Andrew Koppleman&#8217;s claim that marriage is nothing but a social construct. They get the better of Prof Koppleman, but there is one point I would add, for the benefit of the libertarians who come around this site. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/29/is-marriage-merely-a-social-construct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why We Need an Incest Taboo</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/22/why-we-need-an-incest-taboo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/22/why-we-need-an-incest-taboo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 06:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[incest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=4938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Albert Mohler weighs in on the incest controversy that we have already discussed on this blog. I want to add one point that I haven&#8217;t seen anyone raise. People seem to think that the &#8220;ick&#8221; factor is not significant because it cannot be entirely explained on rational grounds. (Mohler&#8217;s quote from Wm. Saletan is to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/22/why-we-need-an-incest-taboo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Original Meaning, Privileges and Immunities, Fundamental Rights and Other Legal Magic Words</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/15/original-meaning-privileges-and-immunities-fundamental-rights-and-other-legal-magic-words/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/15/original-meaning-privileges-and-immunities-fundamental-rights-and-other-legal-magic-words/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=4849</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So this morning, I’m reading the Hoover Institution’s Policy Review on the treadmill at 24 Hour Fitness, “Who’s Afraid of Original Meaning?” by George Thomas of Claremont McKenna College. I won’t pretend that I understand the twists and turns of his argument about why Scalia’s interpretation of Original Meaning isn’t as original as it should [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/12/15/original-meaning-privileges-and-immunities-fundamental-rights-and-other-legal-magic-words/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Never Enough: The Utility of Impossible Objectives</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/10/27/never-enough-the-utility-of-impossible-objectives/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/10/27/never-enough-the-utility-of-impossible-objectives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay lobby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marxism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=4362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been reading the new book, Never Enough, by William Voegeli at Claremont McKenna College, with great interest. His theme is that the advocates of the welfare state have never been able to give a coherent account of the proper size and scope of their ambitions. How much assistance to the poor is enough? [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/10/27/never-enough-the-utility-of-impossible-objectives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Standing on the Threshhold of an Inconceivable Age</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/10/09/standing-on-the-threshhold-of-an-inconceivable-age-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/10/09/standing-on-the-threshhold-of-an-inconceivable-age-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[love]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[happiness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=4162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here is an excellent talk on sex and happiness Standing on the Threshold of an Inconceivable Age: Sexuality in the 21st Century, by Reverend Dale S. Kuehne from Alexander Hamilton Institute on Vimeo. This is about an hour long, but there is alot of good food for thought here.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/10/09/standing-on-the-threshhold-of-an-inconceivable-age-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cardinal Mahoney: Judge Walker got it Wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/08/06/cardinal-mahoney-judge-walker-got-it-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/08/06/cardinal-mahoney-judge-walker-got-it-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Catholic Church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philsophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am pleasantly surprised by this statement from Cardinal Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahoney is not usually known for making strong statements on what are usually considered &#8220;social conservative&#8221; issues. &#8220;Social justice&#8221; issues, yes. But life and marriage&#8211; not as much. So listen to this: Today it was announced that U.S. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/08/06/cardinal-mahoney-judge-walker-got-it-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The fraudulent principle of “liberal neutrality:&#8221; from Prof Ed Feser</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/08/06/the-fraudulent-principle-of-%e2%80%9cliberal-neutrality-from-prof-ed-feser/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/08/06/the-fraudulent-principle-of-%e2%80%9cliberal-neutrality-from-prof-ed-feser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8 Trial]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philosophy professor and prolific author Dr. Ed Feser has a lenghthy post on the Prop 8 overturn. I&#8217;m just picking out some highlights. I suggest you read the whole thing. The dialogue in the comments is worth looking at also. 1. Judge Walker’s decision, he tells us, is based on the principle that the state [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/08/06/the-fraudulent-principle-of-%e2%80%9cliberal-neutrality-from-prof-ed-feser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Libertarian View of Gay Marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/01/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/01/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same Sex Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libertarians]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=3051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, I didn&#8217;t write it. Someone who calls herself Jane Galt wrote it. It is really, really good. I will just quote the beginning. You should really read the whole thing. Here goes: A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the otherUnlike most [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/07/01/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sexual Liberation does not liberate</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/07/sexual-liberation-does-not-liberate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/07/sexual-liberation-does-not-liberate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marxism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Correctness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=2680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I want to thank Ari Mendelson for finding and posting this very important 22 minute video on the history of political correctness. And I want to thanks the Free Congress Foundation for making this. This video is important to the Ruth Institute because it shows the connection between Marxism and the Sexual Revolution. Marxism has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/06/07/sexual-liberation-does-not-liberate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blinded by Scientism</title>
		<link>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/03/10/blinded-by-scientism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/03/10/blinded-by-scientism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Roback Morse</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ed Feser has a provocative article about scientism, which he defines this way: Scientism is the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. His critique is that Despite its adherents’ pose of rationality, scientism has a serious problem: it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/03/10/blinded-by-scientism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 10/24 queries in 0.026 seconds using disk

Served from: www.ruthblog.org @ 2012-02-10 21:36:57 -->
