Reply to comment

I posted this over the weekend, but it does not seem to be here! Trying again...

I was trying to reconcile our discussion of "cranes" vs "skyhooks" with earlier thoughts that had come up in class. I kept coming back to our debate regarding the differences between science and religion, which seems to parallel Dennett's distinction between a "crane" and a "skyhook." One thought that we at first seemed satisfied with was the notion that religion is a moral guideline or code, whereas science was more about disseminating apparently supportable information. We asked whether science could be a kind of religion, and if I remember correctly, our class estbalished that based on this distinction, it could not. I wonder though, about the manner in which "health" has been promoted as a kind of religion via science in our country. What we know to be unhealthy, such as obesity or smoking, has taken on moral and ethical dimestions in the United States.  We position those who are seen to have little regard for their health(despite myriad extentuating circumstances that may be out of these peoples' control) as pariahs of our health-conscious country. 

When scientific discoveries or information become affixed to moral codes, what is the "crane" and what is the "skyhook"?