Sunday 31 October, 11.45am until 1.15pm, Lecture Theatre 1
Traditionally, priests served as the arbiters of right and wrong, advising and passing judgement on moral issues. Scientists, on the other hand, were supposed to divest themselves of their moral stance in order to observe and record the world in an objective manner. Increasingly, however, some believe that what science can tell us may not be limited to the definitions we once thought. Science is a system of inquiry with great power in observing and describing the natural world. It has had great success in discovering and explaining phenomena in vastly different areas – from the causes of disease, to the composition of the atom, and the origins of life. Science and scientists continually expand, revise and discard their explanations by carrying out experiments and observations, checking their hypotheses against empirical measurements and rejecting any which fail to describe the results satisfactorily. This process of continually questioning and re-evaluating is one of science’s great strengths and is vital for it to progress – science is always sceptical, never claiming to have found ‘The Truth’, but rather always seeking to test its conclusions. Science operates on the philosophical principle that the world is understandable by humans, and that it is a worthwhile endeavour for us to do so.
There is disagreement about where the limits of scientific enquiry lie, however. The President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, recently suggested that a full understanding of consciousness may never be obtained because ‘some aspects of reality… might elude us simply because they’re beyond human brains’. On the other hand, ‘New Atheist’ writer Sam Harris has suggested that science now allows us to answer moral questions, which were traditionally seen as the preserve of the philosopher or moralist rather than being subject to scientific experiment. Politicians and activists too, rather than argue on an ideological basis, often now point to scientific evidence as the justification and driving force behind their demands for new policies. Scientific reason is posed as the antidote to irrational, emotive argument and populist unreason.
So where do the limits of science lie? Is the world too much for our ‘monkey brains’ to comprehend fully? Can it ever explain consciousness, let alone reveal the very clockwork of the Universe? Or can science solve once and for all our moral conundrums and remove the need for political disagreements? Just what can and can’t science tell us?
Listen to session audio:
|Dr Daniel Glaser|
head, special projects, public engagement, Wellcome Trust; honorary senior research fellow, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London
science editor, The Times; author, 50 Genetics Ideas You Really Need to Know
novelist, essayist and translator; author of Teach Us to Sit Still: a sceptic’s search for health and healing and Dreams of Rivers and Seas; associate professor of English and translation, IULM University, Milan
principal designate, East London Science School; author, What is science education for?; co-author, Sir Richard Sykes Review of school examinations and A defence of subject-based education; director, The Physics Factory
|Professor Simon Wessely|
head, department of psychological medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
graduate medical student; freelance writer on pharmaceuticals, healthcare and science; co-founder, Sheffield Salon
Rather than consulting Aristotle or Kant (let alone the Bible or the Koran) about what is necessary for humans to flourish, why not go to the sciences that study conscious mental life?Kwame Anthony Appiah, New York Times, 2 October 2010
By Prof Hawking’s account, understanding human behaviour is merely a computational problem. If we could make those trillions of calculations, people would cease to be a puzzle. But would they?Michael Skapinker, Financial Times, 14 September 2010
There is no room in the universe of Hawking or most other scientists for the activist God of the BibleJulian Baggini, Independent, 4 September 2010
Stephen Hawking is wrong about the existence of God. He has simply refuted his own earlier mistaken theologyJonathan Sacks, The Times, 4 September 2010
Never has so much money poured into scientific research—yet the results add up to surprisingly little. Have we finally come to the end of what science can tell us?James Le Fanu, Prospect, 21 July 2010
The experience of consciousness seems incommunicable and ineffable. Yet science can hope to explain how it arisesSue Blackmore, Guardian, 12 July 2010
The BBC's reverence for genes, space and bugs gives its Reith lecturer a claim to public money based on faith, not reasonSimon Jenkins, Guardian, 25 June 2010
Our brains are limited. It may take a posthuman species to work out the big questions.Martin Rees, The Times, 31 May 2010
Scientists have advanced brain research deep into territory usually occupied by philosophers. Can their findings act as a guide to public policy?Dan Jones, Prospect, 24 February 2010
It is beguiling to think brain science can help us tell right from wrong—and unlikely tooGuy Kahane, Prospect, 24 February 2010
Experimental results are beginning to shed light on the psychological foundations of our moral beliefsDan Jones, Prospect, 27 April 2008
An Edge ConferenceSam Harris, Edge
Frankenstein's Daughters: from science fiction to science fact?
"Disagreement has never felt more important and more enjoyable than at Battle of Ideas."
Jess Search, Chief executive, Channel 4 BRITDOC Foundation