0006 From the prior blog, I know that evolution3 is the normal context for Turbon’s article. The logics of the normal context include exclusion, complement and alignment. One normal context will tend to exclude, complement or align with another.
Turbon’s abstract ends with a plea that is not re-iterated in the body of the article. As scientists labor to “cook up” human natural history, they must strive to ensure that the essence of human evolution does not become “indigestible”.
0007 What on earth does this mean?
Do humans evolve to grasp metaphors?
Or, do humans adapt into the niche of grasping essentials?
0008 Does scientific inquiry into our natural history3 exclude human intuition3?
Of course it3 does.
A simple substitution shows as much, as shown below.
0008 To me, the crux of Daniel Turbon’s entire article is captured by the last sentence of the abstract.The normal context of human intuition3 (guided by philosophy) ought to be able to digest what the normal context of evolution3 (guided by science) provides.