Synopsis
Six eminent scientists and thinkers explore and explain how we can bridge the gap between the values of science and human values.. In this collection, introduced by Jonathan Re, six eminent scientists and thinkers explore and explain how we can bridge the gap between the values of science and human values.Richard Dawkins, in a powerful critique of cultural relativism, restates the scientists belief that there is something almost sacred about natures universal truths. Environmental campaigner George Monbiot points out that biotechnology is not merely a description of natures waysits a force in commerce and politics. Nicholas Humphrey denies the assumption that questions of morality are distinct from those of science. John D. Barrow describes how scientific interest has recently shifted from Newtonian laws to the study of chaos. Daniel C. Dennett gives a sturdy defense of the faith in truth which he takes to be the distinctive creed of the scientist. In the wide-ranging philosophical survey which concludes the volume, Mary Midgley argues against the idea of omnicompetent science.
In this collection, introduced by Jonathan Re, six eminent scientists and thinkers explore and explain how we can bridge the gap between the values of science and human values.Richard Dawkins, in a powerful critique of cultural relativism, restates the scientists belief that there is something almost sacred about natures universal truths.Environmental campaigner George Monbiot points out that however successful it may be as an objective description of natures ways, biotechnology is also a force in commerce and politics.Nicholas Humphrey denies the assumption that questions of morality are distinct from those of science. For him, science is itself a moral good and therefore a fundamental human right.John D. Barrow describes how scientific interest has recently shifted from simple and universal laws of nature of the kind formulated by Newton, to the study of complexity and chaos. Daniel C. Dennett, like Dawkins, gives a sturdy defense of the faith in truth which he takes to be the distinctive creed of the scientist. He presents this faith as a distillation of a universal human ability to tell the difference between appearance and reality.In the wide-ranging philosophical survey which concludes the volume, Mary Midgley argues against precisely this idea of omnicompetent science.
It is one of three unfortunate myths of the European Enlightenment, she argues, alongside the myth of social contract and the myth of progress.
