Year: 2015

I promised a fuller review of Nick Spencer’s “Atheism – The Origin of the Species” when I’d completed it. It’s a rather long review with plenty of spoilers and quotes here, since I’m gutting it for content I find useful, but a recommended read for anyone from Mrs Angry Atheist to Mr Tolerant Apologist and all considered points between. All human life is here, and a witty delivery makes it a good read.

Before we start, an observation, there’s a lot of “which came first” debate around when it comes to the the content of religions and their holy books. It’s trivially true that atheism preceded theism – the latter’s a thing believed, a situation that came to be, so clearly the absence preceded the existence. This is also true independent of any debates about whether world views could be characterised as humanist without or within theistic religion. So it makes perfect sense to start a history of atheism after the height of theistic belief. How theistic religious beliefs came to be is itself interesting of course – and coincidentally has been a topic of several talks and conversations recently – but it’s seems wishful thinking to believe pre-theistic belief has much to do with our current state of post-theistic atheism and humanism.

Interestingly one talk at this weekend’s BHA 2015 conference is advertised thus:

The Deep History of Atheism – Prof Tim Whitmarsh
It seems to suit everyone to agree that atheism began with the European enlightenment. The religious can treat it as a symptom of modern decadence; the new atheists can present it as the result of science and progress. But neglecting the deeper origins of atheism not only distorts history, it also denies atheists their roots, and so in a sense their very humanity. (It is, after all, easier to persecute people with no past.) In this talk, Professor Whitmarsh shows that atheism is at least as old as monotheism itself, and was treated as largely unproblematic in the pre-Christian Mediterranean world; it was the Christianisation of the Roman Empire that shunted it off the European mental map.

My point – obviously – atheism is at least as old, if not older than theism …. Both histories are informative, before and after theism; As I said in the intro, the debate over which came first is appears trivial, but it will be interesting to hear what Tim has to say about the nature of the atheism in the context of modern humanists – “their very humanity” – since humanism by any other name also preceded theism. (**)

So, to  Nick Spencer’s book. I already said I consider it an excellent read, brilliant in fact, after just a couple of chapters, and as well as the post 1500 historical content, the selections and witty, laconic turns of phrase make it thoroughly readable. Put me in mind of Gibbon at times. I’ll not repeat the quotes from previously, but take the story up in 1697.

In that year, the 20 year old Thomas Aikenhead was the last person to be hanged for blasphemy in the UK under the 1661 Blasphemy act, enacted the year after restoration of the monarchy. He was certainly “pugnacious and contemptuous” in his criticism of both the old and new testament stories of the Bible though, allegedly going to the gallows with his bible, it’s not clear he was actually atheist; However, quoting from Hunter and Wooton:

“A year before, the [Privy] Council had heard the case of one John Frazer, who made similar claims. An immediate and fulsome recantation saved him from the gallows. Aikenhead had either been less penitent or just one atheist too many.”

But the real point, being the last execution for blasphemy didn’t appear to make him a British martyr. Inns, taverns, coffee houses and restoration drama playhouses were already “dens of unregulated wit, levity, mockery [and worse] that undermined all that was serious and godly” to the puritan. “Theatre became the epitome of practical atheism.”

There follows comparison and contrast of not only the differences but the connections between French and British intellectual contributions through the ensuing periods leading to revolution, centered particularly round Baron D’Holbach’s salon table:

The list of attendees reads like a Who’s Who of eighteenth-century European radical intellectual life. In addition to Diderot there was [D’Alembert, Rousseau, Condorcet, de Condillac … [and more] … Smith, Hume, Gibbon and Wilkes.] Not all these stayed at D’Holbach’s table for very long. Some left quietly …. Others fell out spectacularly … Not all were materialists and not all were atheists, but …. the group shared an antipathy towards Christianity, particularly the authoritarian and royalist form it took in France.

There is the fascinating story of the rise and atheist nature of the various ethical & rationalist unions, societies & associations from Robert Owen’s ultimately unsuccessful 1810’s Benthamite New Lanark Mills project via the South Place Ethical Society and the Rationalist Press Association(*) to the modern-day inheritors of their traditions and agendas.

Relevant philosophical and intellectual movements and schools of thought are also reviewed. So, for example we get another example of Spencer’s turn of phrase rounding off this quote from Owen Chadwick on German scientific materialism:

“[N]othing represents better the temporary phase of popular philosophy which combined the contradiction of lowering man to the dust by showing him to be nothing but another animal, while lifting him to the skies and singing his praises as the ruler of the world.”

It was a sage observation, except for the word temporary.

Echoing sentiments I last read in Rebecca Goldstein’s “Incompleteness – the Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel” Spencer describes Russell’s bewilderment late in life, quoting from his autobiography:

“Having for years cared only for exactness and analysis, [Feeling the unendurable loneliness of the human soul, impenetrable to all except the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers have preached] I found myself filled with semi-mystical feelings about beauty … and a desire almost as profound as that of the Buddha to find some philosophy which should make human life endurable.”

Whilst acknowledging Russell’s support for atheist, secular, rational and ethical projects, I’ve always been baffled at the high regard in which he is held, given that he was philosophically undermined by the first published work of his own student Wittgenstein and totally demolished by Gödel within ten years of publishing Principia Mathematica with Whitehead. Spencer spends further pages on Wittgenstein, and the Vienna Circle that practically worshipped him despite his contempt for them – again all echoed in Goldstein, as is Wittgenstein’s own debt to Spinoza, another of Goldstein’s specialities. [My personal pet theory is that the reason Wittgenstein stepped out of philosophy – before coming back to fix the damage later – was because his Tractatus was always intended as one long joke at Russell’s expense, which was unfortunately taken-up as sincere. Like something straight out of Douglas Adams or Monty Python, but I digress.]

Quoting A J Ayer, who was very influential in popularising the Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism, asked when interviewed late in life what he now thought were the defects of Logical Positivism:

“Well, I suppose the most important defect was that nearly all of it was false.”

Later, bringing us up to date commenting on New Atheism passing its peak, indeed “dying with a whimper […] Richard Dawkins [having] discovered twitter” Spencer quotes the editor of New Humanist (*) in 2013

“Dawkins provided a case study in how not to do [atheism].” Blanket condemnations of religious groups [are] morally dubious [and counter-productive]. Religious believers [are] no less intelligent than non-believers [and no less human, I say]  and secularism [does] not mean excluding religious believers from public life. The tone and arguments could hardly [be] more different from those of the New Atheists.

After a passage highlighting more subtle intellectual contributions to the current atheism debate, highlighting John Gray and Tomas Nagel, Spencer quotes a remark by Simon Blackburn, exemplifying how such atheist “heretics” are predictably “eviscerated” by their more “orthodox” atheist critics: (I cite all four positively in these pages, Gray, Nagel, Spencer and Blackburn.):

“If there were a philosophical Vatican, [Nagel’s] book [Mind and Cosmos] would be a good candidate for being placed on the index [of banned books].”

Spencer’s final observations are true enough that humanism these days – in the sincerest form of flattery – offers naming, marriage, funeral ceremonies, but not before remarking :

Alain de Botton [who pointed the way to a New Atheist church] had suggested “atheists were better stealing from religion than mocking it”.

Religious believers debated whether it was better to be patronised or ridiculed.

Nick Spencer “Atheists – the Origin of the Species” – a recommended read.

=====

[(*) Declaration of interest: New Humanist is the title owned by the Rationalist Association, also the owner of the legacy of the original Rationalist Press Association of publishers. I’m currently a serving member of the RA board of trustees.]

[(**) Post Note: Whitmarsh arguments are primarily from non-contentious atheism contrasted with the “human” polytheistic gods of Greek and Roman antiquity. His conclusion however is pretty much identical to Jonathan Sacks the other night: In order to fix conflict between monotheistic imperialisms we need a new form of “shared belief” which is polytheistic, federal, inclusive. A redefining of religion. More later.]

So, the same morning Prof Cox attempts to enlighten the perpetually perplexed John Humphrys @BBCR4Today with his pride in being wrong, Forbes highlights the cost of working on only what evidence can demonstrate you know for sure – 7 months loss of Rosetta / Philae data. No coincidence in the banner ad headline EY (the business consultants Ernst and Young) piece is on the need for good judgement about what you might not know for sure.

Being honestly sceptical about the contingency of “known” science and open to new evidence is great for the self-correcting nature of scientific knowledge itself – but being exclusively concerned with hard evidence-based logic is a fetish real life can do without. Being overly cautious where evidence is doubtful – the cautionary principle – is irrational. Don’t ignore hard evidence and watertight logic, but don’t deny decisions we need to make without it, as we must. Ethical and political decision-making – value judgements – should not be reduced to science or the scientific method.

Science is the best method we have – for advancing scientific knowledge of the natural world. That doesn’t make it the best method for making value judgements, or mean we should attempt to replace all value judgements with a scientific model. The aims of a multi-billion space research project may be scientific, but the project is not.

Refreshing piece in New Humanist from scientist Mark Lorch, about whom I know no more that this piece. I could have written the conclusion myself:

Basically, there’s no single logical explanation for why induction works: it just does. Which means I’m left with the belief that induction works without the sound evidence to support it, i.e. I have faith in the scientific method. This realisation made me stop worrying about how people can hold religious faith and scientific beliefs simultaneously. It demonstrated to me that faith and evidence-based beliefs coexist in my mind, so in a way, I am no different from my fellow scientists who have faith in the miracles of theologies. This realisation has made me no more inclined to believe in a god. But it has given me a better understanding of religious beliefs by demonstrating that, without ever realising it, I too have a deeply-seated faith in my own (scientific) belief system.

Naturally it has sprouted a thread of predictable responses. Problem for archetypal scientists is acknowledging the concepts of faith or belief. Notice no-one said “blind-faith” – this is very much eyes-open faith, the best kind. It’s really not difficult to recognise science as a (very good and very powerful) belief system and move on to more important questions and dialogues.

Noticed the expression “Rush to Judgement” in Grauniad Higher Education piece on Tim Hunt’s resignation following the reaction to his ill-judged sexist jokey remarks and equally clumsy apology. Already much twitter backlash to the reaction – few actually wished him ill or wanted him hounded out of his job, on the whole our sisters had great fun poking creative fun at the remarks. It was a silly mistake, point made – but turns out he was effectively forced to resign by his employer UCL.

I’ve long known this expression as the title of lawyer Mark Lane’s original book on the J. F. Kennedy Assassination / Warren Commission Report (*), but felt it might have Shakespearean origins? Well no actually, it was originally recorded concerning the 1800 James Hadfield assassination attempt on George III, used by his defense lawyer Thomas Erskine, then Lord Chancellor.

James Hadfield – knew the name rang a bell; no not the space-station astronaut – when found insane, he became a famous inmate of Bethlem Royal Hospital. [Follow the Wikipedia links.] Recently opened to the public and which we visited earlier this year. Small interconnected world?

[(*) Long-standing fascination of mine; read every book, seen every film or documentary – not because I’ve ever been a conspiracy theorist, but because it is a classic example of how difficult it is to establish what is known – after the event without first-hand experience. Hence Psybertron Asks – “What, why and how do we know?”.]

The evolutionary scientists and philosophers (say, Dawkins & Dennett) seem to be predicting religion is steadily on its way out, quite independently of any immediate ills and conflicts laid at its door, people are finding less reason to believe.

Actually I think they may be wrong, but let’s hold off thinking about what might be meant by religious belief in such a future. Suffice to say for now, [after Nick Spencer] think of scepticism as the antithesis of dogma, rather than as the preferred alternative to faith.

Philosopher, theologian and ex-Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks certainly begs to differ and, interestingly, bases his argument on Darwinian evolution. Listening to him last night at Spectator Events, talking and then answering questions with Andrew Neil, made it two nights in a row I heard the human social evolution story from animism to monotheism by way of Robin Dunbar. However you treat the ideas of an actual Dunbar number being meaningful, and the realities or otherwise of group selection, that story always sounds reasonable and I’ve never found reason to challenge it. And notice it’s an entirely naturalistic view. Let’s call it the “Dunbar Cycle”. The point is if those evolutionary processes and pressures are real, where are they leading now? History is one thing but prediction, especially about the future (as the saying goes) is much less certain.

Sacks picks one line of reasoning that has been central to my agenda here since the start – communication of information. Evolution is fundamentally about transmission and replication of patterns of information, including those patterns of information we use as thinking tools to interpret and manipulate information further. Major revolutions in the Dunbar Cycle are attributable to step changes in communication – physical exploration and movement of peoples, the advent of printing, electrical and electronic telegraph, radio and TV, and now the ubiquity of the internet and social media.

“Of course current violent climate ‘has to do with’ religion
but no point setting one religion against another or against none.”

Long story short, there is a string of tweets (linked below) summarising my highlights of Sacks thesis. Just a couple of the less obvious points I’d like to further record here, before we get to the conclusion.

After psychoanalysing the psychoanalyst, Sacks concludes Freud denied his own sibling guilt, when he placed Oedipus’ maternal relationship at the core of human conflict. Sibling rivalry is the real culprit. The Abrahamic monotheisms are frankly siblings of each other. Their closeness makes the conflicts over differences all the greater.

Secondly, monotheism has evolved dualistically, if that’s not an oxymoron.

“Dualism could be the most murderous doctrine ever thought up by human-beings”

Whatever god is in these religions, it’s one good version set against an evil other. An otherness all too easily transferred to problematic rivals in any context, common enemies counter to internal group cohesion. Sacks sees this as a perversion of what monotheism originally evolved to be, a truly inclusive and receptive – loving – monism.

Again, whatever values of living stem from such a monotheistic monism, and however they are either codified in moral law of that religion, or as transferrable parables in their good books, mass communication has taken the mediation of scholars and shamen and elders, and “authoritative” spokespeople and commentators out of the loop of interpretation. Unmediated freedom of thought and communication  – totally free at point of evaluation – inevitably leads to a subjective form of moral relativism – one thing Neil did take Sacks to task over in the interview.

This is a particular problem for Islam, which has not yet had its “30 years war” to settle once and for all which internal differences to leave behind. 9/11 was one of the symptoms of suppressed conflict, but the war itself has started with the “Arab spring” and the Islamic civil war is now playing out around us. Despite the speed-of-light communications, you’d need to be an optimist, said Neil, to predict Islam reaching its “Westphalia” deal anytime soon. In fact despite highlighting the accelerated pace of (potential) evolution, Sacks himself saw this as something that will take “a generation” to reach a conclusion. [Something very reminiscent here of Thomas Kuhn and Kondratiev cycles of change in science, technology, economy and society.]

Sacks’ prediction that truly monotheistic religion will be the conclusion – some totem against which to nail our flags of value. Whether it’s called a religion, and whether it features anything recognisable as a supernatural god is of course moot. So far as “we” will need a recognisable set of values, however captured from best available interpretation and maintained conservatively as “moderator rods” in the reactionary cut and thrust of democratic freedoms of thought, expression and action – I agree already.

=====
Post Notes:

That Twitter Thread
(now dead thanks to Elon blocking the API)

The content of the “previous night” MeetUp link:

QUOTE
LAAG TALK: “One God to rule them all”
– the coevolution of theism and morality
(LAAG is/was the London Atheist Activist Group)

Alan Duval will be giving us a talk based upon his thesis on morality, and how the monotheistic god evolved. He will discuss results of his research on human evolution and development, cognition, stereotypes, morality, and so on.

Following are some books that are either sources for the presentation, or that discuss the papers that I am using as primary sources (and include related work by the same academic):

The Authoritarians – Bob Altemeyer
free PDF here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Sense and Goodness Without God – Richard Carrier

Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking – Daniel C Dennett
[Psybertron review IPOTT] [Psybertron review B2BnB]

How Many Friends Does One Person Need? – Robin Dunbar

Mind-Wise – Nicholas Epley

The Righteous Mind – Jonathan Haidt

Empathy and Moral Development – Martin Hoffman

Thinking Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman

Moral Politics – George Lakoff

Metaphors We Live By – George Lakoff & Mark Johnson

Big Gods – Ara Norenzayan

Art and the Brain – VS Ramachandran
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Brain-Journal-Consciousness-Studies/dp/0907845452/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432825219&sr=8-1&keywords=vs+ramachandran+aesthetic

Finally, Shalom Schwartz, unfortunately, has not written about his work, but a great overview can be read here: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=orpc
UNQUOTE

=====

I’ve been intending to dive into this Tim Hunt debacle, but the twitter storm is moving too fast for me to get a word in, so this is just a holding post – no extended argument here (yet).

Science needs women? Doh!

Which century are we in? Which geological period is Hunt in? All human endeavours need women in positions of equal opportunity to participate – and even that is a thinly disguised historical insult to our sisters.

For me this is not (just) a question of equality of freedoms but one of necessary diversity. We must “admit variety” to quote E. M. Forster on democratic freedom. Evolution demands it, and I’m not talking sexual reproduction. Women bring a “differently better” set of skills to the party, any party, the only party in town in fact. Life.

Vive la difference, as I may have mentioned. Jeez!

We different humans need each other.

====

[Post Note : I warned at the start of this post it was a quickie – a specific point I needed to make without deeper analysis – reacting to the twitterstorm that has since led to his resignation – sadly.

Love is such a tricky non-PC topic in professional or otherwise-to-be-taken-seriously contexts – even trickier when you are talking genders or sexuality in the first place – but if we can get over ourselves, love really is the most important thing in life bar none. Hunt did in fact just make a mistake. Yes his views on gender were probably of his time, and yes his attempt at humour was clumsy and misguided – and sadly his apology was no less clumsy – but either way, all he did was make a mistake.

Did he really need to be pilloried into a resignation?

A wonderful piece here from Sarah Bell – “Perhaps the answer is simply love?” – rather than falling in love being an awkward “emotional problem”.

A theme here: “What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding“.]

I’m reading and “reviewing” a lot, though if you’ve been following me closely over the years, the reviews are for my benefit not yours – to capture contributions to my own story. There’s a trope or meme that I often find myself reading something I wish I’d written – believe I could have written – and, after I’ve gutted the content for new angles, my review reduces to “Excellent, a recommended read” – and seriously, if you don’t already buy where I’m coming from, that’s always a serious recommendation.

It’s not that I’m selecting reads for reinforcement of my existing arguments. Far from it. I know my own mind, and I know it “prejudices” my reading – that’s just being honest. The scary thing is, whether I’m reading (boringly) predictably or (hopefully) sceptically, my mantra of “nothing new under the sun; ’twas ever thus” keeps emerging. Rabid opponents in the public eye seem barely a fag-paper apart when it comes down to it.

The Dick Taverne I’ve just read and reviewed last night, is a case in point. Excellent. Another way of saying what I believe I’m already trying to say, so obviously I recommend you read him.

However having finished Taverne, I picked-up Nick Spencer’s “Atheists, the Origin of the Species” where I left off almost exactly a month ago. I was reading Taverne because it was the book group recommendation of a group of like minds, and the name rang a bell. I’m reading Spencer for a pretty random sequence of causes. Following up on my interest in Sheldrake I just happened to find myself at Theos, and noticed the witty title, related to my interest – in evolved rationality.

Spencer’s book is “Excellent” also – think I may already have said that – but in fact it’s more than that, it’s “Brilliant”. Lots to agree with of course, but excellent witty turns of phrase, laconic understatement, and despite covering enlightenment history, where I consider myself pretty well read these days, lots of new stuff – both historical narrative and enlightened literary quotes and sources to follow-up. Brilliant and, need I say, recommended.

Not quite finished reading it, but I’ll do a fuller “review” when I’m done, though it probably exemplifies another meme, one where I could have more notes than original text by the time I’m done.

A scary take on the chilling massacre of 46 Ismailis in Pakistan last month. (Hat tip to Riz @rizwarned)

Interesting bedouin boy to world’s no.1 entrepreneur story, that instantly put me in mind of the kids fleeing Timbuktu and Samira Ahmed’s allure of the desert.

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did. (T. E. Lawrence)

It’s a wonderful world. The TEL quote was in my mind since yesterday when Branson posted his top 10 quotes on the subject of dreams which didn’t include my personal favourite.

I’m reading “The March of Unreason – Science, Democracy and the New Fundamentalism” because it’s the book selected by Central London Humanists book group for July. The name sounded familiar – it is the Dick Taverne of UK Labour / Independent / Lib-Dem politics fame, currently in The Lords. I’m reading the 2006/7 paperback edition where he reinforces in the preface that the book is primarily political and expressing his disappointment that response to its original 2005 publication focussed almost exclusively on the science aspects.

[Post note : Update on the book club event.]

Yes, a major part of his thesis is a demand for evidence-based decision-making, and reminding us that it was no coincidence that the rise of both science and democratic freedoms went hand in hand with the enlightenment. They co-evolved from the same rational thinking. Skeptical critical considerations as a better alternative to authoritarian religious dogma. Better because the human progress achieved since then is self-evident. But, there’s a but.

There is a strong counter-balancing message that early readers missed.

Taverne is very explicitly not arguing for evidence as exclusively necessary for all decisions, nor that evidential considerations are necessarily scientific – objectively repeatable and amenable to simple logical argument. Science itself is far more than that anyway – more subtly creative – but ethical and political decisions even more so. Available evidence must not be ignored and in a free democratic society reasoning must be open to challenge and criticism, but ethical political decisions – what should “we” do – depend on far more human values and judgments than are necessarily backed entirely by the evidence and objective methods.

Of course he is making the first part of the argument. A defence of science under attack from cynical, rather than truly sceptical, suspicion – the eco-warrrior, the anti-you-name-it mentality. A loss of faith in scientific claims made by technology-based business interests for example, superstitious cynical conspiracy theory dogma rather than healthy scepticism and a tendency to ignore, discount or dismiss actual evidence to the contrary. The dead-hand of the precautionary principle – a pessimism too far. And post-9/11 a significant part of that is the more dangerous rise of more fundamental religious dogma, terrorist or otherwise counter to individual freedoms. So far, so much in common with many other post-9/11 writers. I share his frustration that the “pro-science and freedoms” audience is missing the other half of the story – we’re trying to keeping the sceptics honest by also pointing out the dangers of their own unwittingly cynical dogmas.

Something wonderfully ironic about Lewis Wolpert’s wishful contribution to the cover blurb:

“An excellent defence of science”

Wake up and smell the coffee Lewis. “Defence” of science as an objective is dogma, not sceptical critical thinking. Wolpert has been a target of mine before. Guessing Wolpert was part of the disappointment Taverne refers to in his updated preface.

Although Taverne refers to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance as one of the great “bad” books of its time, “unconvincing philosophically” (in his end notes) he uses a quote exactly as used by Pirsig, to illustrate that there is nothing exclusive to science about the rational process:

“When the cause of a vehicle breakdown is uncertain,
a good mechanic will gather the facts,
formulate a theory and
carry out tests to see if it stands up,
quite unconsciously acting as any good scientist would.”

In summarising his conclusions, Taverne says:

“The argument of this book is not only that arguments which are evidence-based are valid but that we should never ignore evidence where it is relevant. Even where it is relevant I do not argue that evidence is all that matters.

For example, a wise philosopher …. [might argue] …. there is also a value judgement to be made about the deeper quality of life, which cannot be based on a verifiable or falsifiable proposition.

My main purpose therefore has not been to make exaggerated claims about the scope for applying scientific method, but to wage war [specifically] on those who ignore evidence.”

This focus does leave unasked some questions about what counts as valid evidence beyond the scope of objective science, but the deadlock breaker is free democracy. “Criticism and adaptability are the characteristics of societies that are free and prosperous.” Taverne states before quoting E. M. Forster, as several other recent reads have done:

“Two cheers for democracy.
One because it admits variety.
Two because it permits criticism.”

I think it’s key that Forster suggests two rather than the customary three cheers. The downside being the imperfection of democracy – echoed in the famous Churchillian quote. Ethical and political decisions in a free democracy can never be perfectly captured in verifiable evidence and logical propositions. I’m tempted to offer my own favourite quotation on that from Marianne Jones:

Too Blue for Logic.

My axioms were so clean-hewn,
The joins of ‘thus’ and ‘therefore’ neat
But, I admit
Life would not fit
Between straight lines
And all the cornflowers said was ‘blue,’
All summer long, so blue.
So when the sea came in and with one wave
Threatened to wash my edifice away —
I let it.

Though we all need to let go the delusion that science is the answer to everything – everything important in real life – we nevertheless ignore evidence at our peril. Taverne concludes, lest there be any doubt:

Modern liberal democracy gives more people the chance of a good life than ever before.
This would not be possible without the contribution of science.

A good read, and a great wealth of examples I’ve barely hinted at in terms of the perversions of scientific scepticism reinforced by ignorance of evidence by campaigning pressure groups and the dismissal of value judgments not reducible to science alone.

=====

[Post Note : here a recent and topical example of where irrational anti-nuclear prejudice massively undermined the value of a very expensive research project – the Rosetta / Philae comet lander mission.]