Science

143 Pages·2014·0.96 MB·English

by  Steve Fuller

Science
THE ART OF LIVING SERIES
Series Editor: Mark Vernon

From Plato to Bertrand Russell philosophers have engaged wide audiences on
matters of life and death. The Art of Living series aims to open up philosophy’s
riches to a wider public once again. Taking its lead from the concerns of the
ancient Greek philosophers, the series asks the question “How should we live?”.
Authors draw on their own personal reflections to write philosophy that seeks to
enrich, stimulate and challenge the reader’s thoughts about their own life.
Clothes John Harvey
Commitment Piers Benn
Death Todd May
Deception Ziyad Marar
Distraction Damon Young
Faith Theo Hobson
Fame Mark Rowlands
Forgiveness Eve Garrard and David McNaughton
Hunger Raymond Tallis
Illness Havi Carel
Me Mel Thompson
Middle Age Christopher Hamilton
Money Eric Lonergan
Pets Erica Fudge
Science Steve Fuller
Sport Colin McGinn
Wellbeing Mark Vernon
Work Lars Svendsen
Science

Steve Fuller
First Published 2010 by Acumen
Published 2014 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business
© Steve Fuller, 2010
This book is copyright under the Berne
Convention. No reproduction without permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any
electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and
recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Notices
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and
using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or
methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom
they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any
liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or
otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the
material herein.
ISBN: 978-1-84465-204-4 (pbk)
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication
Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Typeset in Warnock Pro.
Contents

Introduction
1. The gospel according to Dr Strangelove
2. Can science live with its past?
3. Styles of living scientifically: a tale of three nations
4. We are all scientists now: the rise of Protscience
5. The scientific ethic and the spirit of literalism
6. What has atheism – old or new – ever done for science?
7. Science as an instrument of divine justice
8. Scientific progress as secular providence
9. Science poised between changing the future and undoing the past
10. Further reading
Index
Science is a way of life that can flourish only when men are free to have faith.
Norbert Wiener
Introduction

The thesis of this book may be summarized in one sentence: the art of living
scientifically involves taking theology much more seriously than either
practising scientists or religious believers are inclined to do. The “Good News” I
bring comes courtesy of Dr Strangelove, who graces the title of the first chapter.
Here I present the book’s overarching argument: that our continuing faith in
science in the face of its actual history is best understood as the secular residue
of a religiously inspired belief in Divine Providence. Little surprise, then, that
Darwinists have been conspicuously silent about evolutionary accounts of the
significance that humans have attached to science, given the increasing level of
risk to which science has exposed us as a species. Indeed, I argue in Chapter 6
that the history of atheism, Darwinism’s spiritual sidekick, would be the last
place to seek a long-standing, consistent faith in science.
But before reaching that point, several chapters are concerned with
understanding the nature of the drive to live “scientifically”. The drive’s sources
are various but ultimately traceable to the Abrahamic religions. In our own
times, claims to live scientific lives have been marked by a spirit of dissent from
established scientific authorities, which I collectively call “Protscience” (i.e.
“Protestant Science”). Just as the original Protestant Reformers were often
maliciously portrayed as atheists, purveyors of “alternative” forms of science
today are also unjustifiably tarred as “anti-science”. In both the original religious
and the more recent scientific cases, the dissenters aim to recover the original
animating spirit of a common enterprise that has been subverted in its
institutionalization. The final three chapters address rather directly what the
overriding belief in scientific progress says about us as a species, especially in
terms of how humanity might develop. In this context, I explore what it might
mean to “undo the past” and “change the future” especially in light of advances
in our understanding of molecular biology and facility in biotechnology. Clearly
such matters bear significantly on the terms in which we humans might recover
from our “fallen” state.
Let me first thank Mark Vernon for inviting me to contribute to this very
interesting and important series, especially on the topic he proposed, “science” I
published a book with Open University Press and University of Minnesota Press
bearing the same title in 1997. While that book was not consulted in writing this
one, my fundamental philosophical views have not substantially changed –
although they are now expressed differently, reflecting the significant changes in
science, politics and religion that have occurred in the interim. I also thank Mark
for suggesting that I rename what I originally christened “Protescience”:
Protscience. I like this term because its punk sound conveys a defiant stance
against establishment science (as it does in Christian slang). But equally I like
the rhyme of “Prot” with “Trot”, as in “Trotskyite” since I take science’s
progressive future to require a return to its original theological impulse, even if
that means subverting or otherwise criticizing the current scientific
establishment in search of a more inclusive universal truth. Those familiar with
the history of Marxism will appreciate the fear and loathing I invite by this
comparison, as Trotskyites tend to be typecast as agents of negativity and
confusion for their endless claims about “betrayal of the revolution” that only
seem to serve to destabilize already existing socialist regimes. However, if we
wanted to make our lives as easy as possible, we would not have placed such
great store by the pursuit of science in the first place.
Perhaps related to this point, I must apologise to Mark for not following
another of his suggestions, namely, to present more criticism of contemporary
intelligent design theory. My refusal here bears on my attitude towards
scepticism, which I see as wholly destructive of scientific progress if not applied,
as it were, “homoeo-pathically” I take this to be the animus behind Karl
Popper’s famed appeal to “falsifiability” in science, which places
methodological limits on sceptical questioning. Scepticism is important to the
scientist only as a journey-mapping device that forces her to consider whether
her efforts have taken her as far towards her destination as she thinks. It is not
designed to discourage the scientific journey itself, something that scepticism
has repeatedly done if not tempered. Even if intelligent design theory appears to
enjoy less scientific support than neo-Darwinisn, it is nevertheless more likely to
promote faith in the scientific enterprise than neo-Darwinism itself. Indeed, from
the long view of history, neo-Darwinism’s dominance may be judged a Pyrrhic
victory for science.
This point is most relevant to Chapter 6, which argues that when atheism is