2 Comments
Mar 29, 2023Liked by Alex Penk

Yes to all of the above. Robertson Davies pointed out, a long time ago (I think it was in “The Cunning Man”) that: “Science is the new religion of the masses, who think it means tampons and toothpaste”. I also have come to the conclusion (after some 30 years as a biologist and sometime educator), that Christopher Hitchens was correct in saying that “science” is in fact a misnomer, implying as it does possession of knowledge.

“Natural philosopher” was his preferred term, and that’s a god match for Stephen Jay Gould’s take on the subject too. Science is not a sure and certain collection of knowledge, wrote Gould. It is a system with which to test theories. As such, it should not need a priesthood, but humans do tend to spawn these. Happily, we are also capable of ethical judgement.

To suggest that science should be ethical is a category error, however. Ethics and science make good partners but should not be conflated.

Meanwhile, John Ralston Saul still makes for good reading on ethics and indeed on the subject of technocracy, against which he railed at length in the 90s. “On Equilibrium” is a good recommendation to anyone who can find a copy.

Expand full comment

Thanks Alex. You point well to the idea of sitting within the tension of the opposites. Finding ways to live with apparent dissonance until other ways arise to help us integrate diverse ways of knowing.

Expand full comment