A Critical Review of Massimo Pigliucci’s Books: Fallacies, Errors, and a Flawed Philosophical Project
Massimo Pigliucci—biologist, philosopher, and triple-PhD skeptic—has carved a niche as a public intellectual, blending science and philosophy to tackle life’s big questions. His books, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk (2010), Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life (2012), and How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life (2017), promise clarity in a messy world. Yet, on revisiting these works reveals a troubling pattern—fallacies galore, factual slips, and a smug dismissal of religion that undermines his lofty aims. Here’s a deep dive into why Pigliucci’s books disappoint, with sources to back the bad review.
Nonsense on Stilts (2010): A Shaky Line Between Science and Bunk
Overview: Pigliucci aims to demystify pseudoscience—UFOs, astrology—while defending science’s turf. He critiques religion’s “nonsense” (Nonsense, Ch. 6), arguing it lacks empirical grounding, unlike evolution or physics.
Fallacy #1: Straw Man—Caricaturing Religion
Pigliucci paints faith as anti-science (Nonsense, Ch. 6)—a straw man. He slams creationism but ignores theistic scientists—Newton, Mendel—who probed nature under God’s banner (Collins, The Language of God, 2006).
Pigliucci paints faith as anti-science (Nonsense, Ch. 6)—a straw man. He slams creationism but ignores theistic scientists—Newton, Mendel—who probed nature under God’s banner (Collins, The Language of God, 2006).
Critique: His “nonsense” label skips evidence—Christ’s resurrection has historical heft (Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008), with 500 witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6). Fine-tuning—α ≈ 1/137, odds 1 in 10¹²³ (Penrose, The Road to Reality, 2004)—hints at design, not bunk. “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)—Pigliucci’s caricature ducks this.
Error #1: Overstated Demarcation
He insists science demands falsifiability (Nonsense, Ch. 2), per Popper, dismissing God as untestable. But cosmology’s multiverse—his pet naturalistic fix—is equally unfalsifiable (Ellis, Scientific American, 2011).
He insists science demands falsifiability (Nonsense, Ch. 2), per Popper, dismissing God as untestable. But cosmology’s multiverse—his pet naturalistic fix—is equally unfalsifiable (Ellis, Scientific American, 2011).
Critique: Pigliucci’s double standard shines—naturalism gets a pass, theism doesn’t. DNA’s complexity (Axe, Journal of Molecular Biology, 2004) challenges chance—science probes, doesn’t preclude God. His line’s blurry, not bold.
Answers for Aristotle (2012): A Failed Synthesis
Overview: Pigliucci blends science and philosophy for meaning—neuroscience for ethics, cosmology for purpose—ditching God as a “science-stopper” (Answers, Ch. 3). He favors naturalism and Aristotle’s virtues.
Fallacy #2: False Dichotomy—Science/Philosophy vs. Faith
He pits reason against religion (Answers, Ch. 1)—a false dichotomy. Either you’re rational or superstitious, no overlap.
He pits reason against religion (Answers, Ch. 1)—a false dichotomy. Either you’re rational or superstitious, no overlap.
Critique: Faith’s rational—Aquinas’ Five Ways (Summa Theologiae) ground God in logic. Science’s how—H² = (8πG/3)ρ (Planck 2018)—pairs with theism’s why (Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma, 2006). “By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations” (Proverbs 3:19)—Pigliucci’s split’s artificial.
Error #2: Misreading Evil
Evil disproves God (Answers, Ch. 5)—tsunamis, cancer. Theodicies? “Ad hoc” (Skepticality, 2012).
Evil disproves God (Answers, Ch. 5)—tsunamis, cancer. Theodicies? “Ad hoc” (Skepticality, 2012).
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
“No reason for evil, so no God”—an appeal to ignorance. He assumes suffering’s senseless.
“No reason for evil, so no God”—an appeal to ignorance. He assumes suffering’s senseless.
Critique: Plantinga’s free will defense (God, Freedom, and Evil, 1974)—evil serves choice, growth (Romans 8:28). Tectonics that quake sustain life (Ward, Rare Earth, 2000). Job 42:2—“No purpose of Yours can be thwarted”—Pigliucci’s shrug misses this.
Fallacy #3: Begging the Question—Naturalism’s Edge
Naturalism explains all (Answers, Ch. 2)—quantum birth (ΔEΔt ≥ ħ/2, Krauss, 2012), evolution. God’s redundant.
Naturalism explains all (Answers, Ch. 2)—quantum birth (ΔEΔt ≥ ħ/2, Krauss, 2012), evolution. God’s redundant.
Critique: He assumes naturalism—why those laws? Abiogenesis odds (1 in 10⁷⁷, Axe, 2004) defy chance. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1)—a cause trumps a fluke.
How to Be a Stoic (2017): A Thin Moral Compass
Overview: Pigliucci revives Stoicism—virtue via reason (How to Be, Ch. 1)—as life’s guide, rejecting religion’s “dogma.” He leans on Epictetus and neuroscience (How to Be, Ch. 4).
Fallacy #4: Category Error—Science as Ethics
He ties virtue to brain science—oxytocin for trust (Nature, 2005)—a category error. Facts don’t yield oughts (Hume).
He ties virtue to brain science—oxytocin for trust (Nature, 2005)—a category error. Facts don’t yield oughts (Hume).
Critique: Neuroscience maps what is (Greene, Moral Tribes, 2013)—not why trust matters. “Love your neighbor” (Matthew 22:39) grounds ethics in God; Pigliucci’s Stoicism floats—why courage over mercy? Objective “oughts” (Romans 2:15) need a source he skips.
Error #3: Underplaying Faith’s Depth
Religion’s “dogmatic” (How to Be, Ch. 3)—Stoicism’s rational. He ignores Christianity’s Stoic echoes—patience, justice.
Religion’s “dogmatic” (How to Be, Ch. 3)—Stoicism’s rational. He ignores Christianity’s Stoic echoes—patience, justice.
Fallacy: Hasty Generalization
“Dogma” tars all faith—a hasty generalization. Christ’s historicity (Craig, 2008) isn’t blind.
“Dogma” tars all faith—a hasty generalization. Christ’s historicity (Craig, 2008) isn’t blind.
Critique: Stoicism’s calm apes “peace that surpasses understanding” (Philippians 4:7)—Pigliucci borrows without credit. The Bible’s spine—Jericho (Wood, Biblical Archaeology Review, 1990)—beats Vedic vagueness (Flood, 1996).
Overarching Flaws: A Bad Trilogy
Fallacy #5: Appeal to Authority—Philosophy’s Primacy
Across all three, Pigliucci crowns philosophy (Skepticality, 2012)—science and faith bow. An appeal to authority—why his turf?
Across all three, Pigliucci crowns philosophy (Skepticality, 2012)—science and faith bow. An appeal to authority—why his turf?
Critique: Fine-tuning (Davies, 2006) and resurrection (Craig, 2008) blend science and faith—philosophy interprets, not rules. “Test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)—no monopoly here.
Error #4: Overreliance on Skepticism
His Pyrrhonian doubt (Philosophy Garden, 2023)—question all—stalls. If nothing’s affirmed, why naturalism?
His Pyrrhonian doubt (Philosophy Garden, 2023)—question all—stalls. If nothing’s affirmed, why naturalism?
Critique: Doubt’s a tool—evidence like entropy’s low start (Penrose, Cycles of Time, 2010) points to purpose. “Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7)—Pigliucci’s “maybe” ducks data.
Why They’re Bad Books: A Critique
Pigliucci’s trilogy—Nonsense on Stilts, Answers for Aristotle, How to Be a Stoic—flops hard. Fallacies—straw man, false dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, begging the question, category error, hasty generalization, appeal to authority—riddle his prose. Errors—misreading evil, overstating science, underplaying faith, shaky demarcation—compound the mess. His naturalism’s thin—fine-tuning (Davies), DNA (Axe), morality (Romans 2:15)—where theism’s thick. As Lent deepens, these books feel like a missed chance—smart guy, weak case.
Sources:
- Pigliucci, Massimo. Nonsense on Stilts. 2010.
- Pigliucci, Massimo. Answers for Aristotle. 2012.
- Pigliucci, Massimo. How to Be a Stoic. 2017.
- Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma. 2006.
- Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality. 2004 & Cycles of Time. 2010.
- Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. 1974.
- Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. 2008.
- Axe, Douglas. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2004.
- Ward, Peter & Brownlee, Donald. Rare Earth. 2000.
- Collins, Francis. The Language of God. 2006.
- Greene, Joshua. Moral Tribes. 2013.
- Krauss, Lawrence. A Universe from Nothing. 2012.
- Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae.
- Bible (RSV): Genesis 1:1-31, Psalm 19:1, Romans 2:15, etc.
This post delivers a scathing review of Pigliucci’s books, detailing fallacies and errors with robust counterarguments and sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.