TOP 100 SCIENCE SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Response: No, I don't believe science holds all the answers to our existence Our consciousness paves the way for our spirituality, but there's little consensusIn finger-wagging style, Mary Midgley warns that "serious scientists know that their enquiries are endless; any answers always raise a swarm of new questions" (Serious scientists know that they cannot explain all the major puzzles of existence, 28 August). But who ever said otherwise? Well, I did apparently.She quotes from my 1995 book, Soul Searching, selecting passages to back her assertion that I believe that science can provide "a sufficient explanation for everything that is or might be". What she fails to say is that in these passages I was describing how things looked to overconfident natural philosophers at the end of the 18th century, and how this set the stage for a Romantic reaction and in particular for spiritualism and psychical research.True, I wrote that "two hundred years later this ambitious [Enlightenment] programme for a self-sufficient science has succeeded beyond the dreams of its inventors. Across great swaths of nature ... the major puzzles of existence have been pulled to pieces in the hands ... of all-conquering and -consuming scientific rationality."But I went on: "Yet equally, two hundred years later, the majority of ordinary people have remained as faithful as ever to the earlier ways of thinking." And this was precisely my point. For most people scientific explanation remains unsatisfying. Indeed almost everybody has a Midgley – and a Newton – inside them, protesting that there has to be more to life, the universe and everything than we can ever know.Midgley asserts: "Humphrey is convinced that something called science has indeed solved the mind-body problem." But if she had read further she would have found me saying: "All but a few contemporary psychologists agree that there will eventually prove to be some sort of satisfactory theory of mind-brain relationship … But at present there really is very little consensus about the form, let alone the substance, of this theory-to-come."However, Midgley, it seems, has no interest in such a scientific theory anyway. For her, "our problem here is to understand the relation between our inner and outer life … and how to face life as a whole". Strangely enough, I entirely agree. In my own more recent writing, such as Seeing Red, I have begun to argue that the explanation for why consciousness evolved lies in its very mysteriousness and the effect this has on our world-view.Since Midgley has quoted at such length from a book I wrote 15 years ago, let me answer with these words from the cover of my new book Soul Dust: "Consciousness, [Humphrey] argues, is nothing less than a magical-mystery show that we stage for ourselves inside our own heads. This self-made show lights up the world for us and makes us feel special and transcendent. Thus consciousness paves the way for spirituality, and allows us, as human beings, to reap the rewards, and anxieties, of living in what Humphrey calls the 'soul niche'." I invite Mary Midgley to review it.ReligionPhilosophyAtheismControversies in scienceNicholas Humphreyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Tourists told to keep distance from mating turtles Tourists visiting Western Australia's Pilbara are being told to give mating turtles plenty of space. abc.net.au |
Climate Responses: Primal Easy, Ethical Hard Adapting to climate change is visceral and easy; mitigating gases contributing to it is a matter of ethics, and hard. feeds.nytimes.com |
Scientists lobby parliament to halt cuts Researchers fear science has been branded an expense instead of an investment in the future, says Dr Hilary LeeversIt's rare to see the largest committee room at the House of Commons packed with constituents demanding to meet their MPs. It's rarer still for those constituents to be mild-mannered scientists and engineers.But that's exactly what we had yesterday when well over 100 constituents came to parliament to lobby their MPs about the importance of science funding.Many of them had never been to parliament before, and some had come from as far afield as Norwich and Pembrokeshire, to do so.One slight hiccup was that Vince Cable couldn't make it – he was in the chamber of the Commons making a statement on the Browne review and student finance. But more than 20 MPs came to listen to their constituents concerns, and yet more sent along their staff.The lobby was organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) as part of the Science is Vital campaign – to show the political price that would be paid for cuts to the UK's research funding, and to drive home core messages about what such cuts would mean.Bluntly, there are two ways we can get rid of the deficit: cutting spending, or building growth. CaSE is worried that, due to an inexplicable misunderstanding, the Treasury has put investment in science and engineering in the wrong pile. Money spent on science and engineering is an investment for the future, with a historically proven high rate of return, rather than a "spend" that should be up for cuts. Cuts to science and engineering would be the ultimate false economy.The lobby complements the raw mass of nearly 35,000 signatures on the Science is Vital petition, and the crowd of more than 2,000 people who attended the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury last Saturday.The petition has attracted high profile signatures from the science and engineering community, including the current and future presidents of the Royal Society, university vice-chancellors, industry leaders and high profile figures like Professor Brian Cox.But it is perhaps the people who are not scientists and engineers that make the petition more powerful – these include priests and police officers, musicians and artists, doctors and nurses. It also includes many who are looking to science for an answer, like the sufferers of motor neurone disease or cancer, and those who care for them or have been bereaved.The need to support and capitalise upon the UK's strength in science and engineering should not be politically divisive, not least because of their ability to drive economic growth.Indeed, the lobby, petition and a corresponding parliamentary early day motion that MPs can sign to show their support (66 have already done so), have all secured cross-party backing.And there was a good representation of MPs across the political spectrum at the lobby yesterday. Three MPs hosted the event: Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat) and David Morris (Conservative) who spoke at the lobby, and Chi Onwurah (Labour), who arrived just after being elected to Labour's shadow team for Business, Innovation and Skills.Dr Jenny Rohn, spokesperson for Science is Vital, and Imran Khan, director of Campaign for Science & Engineering, both spoke about the importance of securing science and engineering for the UK's future prosperity, and Professor Colin Blakemore made an impassioned call for a reinvigoration of our support for research.Professor Adrian Smith, the director general for Science and Research and one of the most important civil servants for science and engineering, attended the lobby and read out a statement from Cable conveying his and David Willetts's views.Cable said his colleagues across Whitehall and the Treasury valued the productivity and efficiency of UK research and the success of its universities. But there was a worrying inconsistency between rationale and policy: "It is not possible to predict the benefits of specific pieces of research in advance, or to anticipate the growth sectors of the future in which to invest the marginal pound. However, we will have no choice but to prioritise even more than we do now in what is a fiercely competitive environment for funding."He warned that "not every academic, department or institution can necessarily continue to expect public research funding". He ended: "Science, research and innovation are vital to this country's future growth, and we must plan a future together that makes the most of the UK's competitive advantages in these financially difficult times."Both Smith and Huppert said they had been asked to report the lobby to Cable. We are confident that the huge number of people who came into the heart of our parliamentary democracy to emphasise why they think science is vital means the message will get through to Cable, and from him to the cabinet negotiations.If you missed the lobby, there is still time to make your views known to your MPs – write to them and try to meet them in parliament or their local surgeries – it is their responsibility to hear your views. It is vitally important that MPs understand the essential role that science and engineering need to play in building the UK's future prosperity. That's true not only in advance of the publication of the comprehensive spending review's publication on 20 October, but is also critical for the battles we will keep having to fight for science and engineering in the future.Hilary Leevers is assistant director of the Campaign for Science and EngineeringScience policySpending review 2010Tax and spendingguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Iran fuels first nuclear reactor Iran begins fuelling its first nuclear power station at Bushehr, despite Western unease over its nuclear ambitions. bbc.co.uk |