Book Description

Human Nature After Darwin is an original investigation of the implications of Darwinism for our understanding of ourselves and our situation. It casts new light on current Darwinian controversies, and in doing so provides an introduction to philosophical reasoning and a range of philosophical problems. Janet Radcliffe Richards claims that many current battles about Darwinism, in particular about evolutionary psychology and religion, are based on mistaken assumptions about the implications of the rival views. Her analysis of these implications provides a much-needed guide to the fundamentals of Darwinism and the so-called Darwin-wars, as well as providing a set of philosophical techniques relevant to wide areas of moral and political debate. It also raises philosophical problems of knowledge and certainly, free will and responsibility, altruism, the status of ethics, and the relevance of Darwinism to questions of ethics, politics and religion. The lucid presentation makes the book an ideal introduction to both philosophy and Darwinism, as well as a substantive contribution to topics of intense current controversy. It will be of interest to students of philosophy, science and the social sciences, and critical thinking. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

extremely disappointed in Janet Radcliffe Richards
I am a huge fan of Radcliffe Richards book "The Skeptical Feminist" which is an excellent presentation of logical arguments for feminism.

So I was extremely disappointed that Radcliffe Richards has joined the forces of Darwinian reductionism and evolutionary psychology. She claims she is simply presenting non-partisan logical arguments for Darwinian theories for our sober consideration, but her own biases come through fairly often - and she thanks a leading proponent of evolutionary psychology, Helena Cronin, in the front of the book.

Cronin wrote a paper "The Evolved Family" (available online) and in this paper she argues (based not on empirical evidence but rather on 'Darwinian logic') that since women as a group have evolved to value men almost exclusively for their income; and to prefer to spend time with their children to spending time at work, there should be a two-tiered system of employment - one for men and one for women - an official mommy track:

"Rather than taking male standards as the universal measure, or expecting both sexes to adopt androgynous working 'roles', the government should design family-friendly employment practices that reflect the different preferences of women and men."

She does not differentiate between mothers and childless women when discussing feminine preferences, so you can't tell if the Cronin plan calls for all women to be pushed into the mommy track, or just all fertile women or just women with children. And she doesn't bother to suggest a system in which a woman might plead for a special dispensation to join the male work force - perhaps the Queen could grant titles of 'honorary male.'

And it's striking how Radcliffe Richards chides those opposed to Darwinian reductionism for emotion-ridden criticisms of her side, when Cronin never mentions feminists without expressing biting contempt.

I can't believe Radcliffe Richards would countenance this radical right-wing social philosopher. Perhaps she became more conservative over the years. Feminism has lost a valuable friend.

Socrates on evolutionary ethics
If you have any interest in the ethical or political implications of evolutionary theory, read this book.

If you ever wished you could spend a week with Socrates, discussing a topic of contemporary interest, read this book.

If you have ever, are now, or intend in the future to write or talk about about evolutionary ethics, and you have not read this book, please quit wasting my time!

Overlooked
The publishers seem to have misunderstood (or at any rate, underrated) this superb book, which would profit from exposure to a wider audience.It's as if someone in a suit smelled a whiff of the lamp around here and exiled it to the ghetto of academic writing.This is a pity, but it is perhaps in part understandable.The nominal topic is "evolution," but the real subject is the activity of clear thinking.More directly -- no one excels Janet Radcliffe Richards in demonstrating how to use the tools of philosophy in the analysis or understanding of every day problems. There is an audience for this sort of thing.The publisher seems not to have found it and both auther and audience (saying nothing of the publisher) are the losers. ... Read more

Book Description

In the modern age science has been winning its centuries—old battle with religion for the mind of man. The evidence has long seemed incontrovertible: Life was merely a product of blind chance—a cosmic roll of an infinite number of dice across an eternity of time. Slowly, methodically, scientists supplied answers to mysteries insufficiently explained by theologians. Reason pushed faith off into the shadows of mythology and superstition, while atheism became a badge of wisdom. Our culture, freed from moral obligation, explored the frontiers of secularism. God was dead.

"Glynn's arguments for the existence of God put the burden of disproof on those intellectuals who think that the question has long since been settled." — Andrew M. Greeley

But now, in the twilight of the twentieth century, a startling transformation is taking place in Western scientific and intellectual thought. At its heart is the dawning realization that the universe, far from being a sea of chaos, appears instead to be an intricately tuned mechanism whose every molecule, whose every physical law, seems to have been design from the very first nanosecond of the big bang toward a single end—the creation of life. This intellectually and spiritually riveting book asks a provocative question: Is science, the long-time nemesis of the Deity, uncovering the face of God?

Patrick Glynn lays out the astonishing new evidence that caused him to turn away from the atheism he acquired as a student at Harvard and Cambridge. The facts are fascinating: Physicists are discovering an unexplainable order to the cosmos; medical researchers are reporting the extraordinary healing powers of prayer and are documenting credible accounts of near-death experiences; psychologists, who once considered belief in God to be a sign of neurosis, are finding instead that religious faith is a powerful elixir for mental health; and sociologists are now acknowledging the destructive consequences of a value-free society.

God: The Evidence argues that faith today is not grounded in ignorance. It is where reason has been leading us all along. ... Read more

Reviews (69)

Not bad, but you will want to read more
Patrick Glynn's "God: The Evidence" is a well-written and balanced book overall. It should not bore the reader and its style quite readable and well-tempered (not too academic, lest less technical readers get lost, not too simplified, lest scientists and philosophers lose patience). It really has something for anyone interested in God, science, philosophy, etc.

Ultimately, I think his analysis is correct that unlike the 1970s, where it seemed to many that scientific discoveries precluded the existence of God, today (late 1990s and now early 2000), scientific discoveries tend to be more congenial to God's existence. As a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy, I affirm his view that the materialism/mechanism of the 19th century is failing to account for many phenomena. He also had some good points about the prejudice of some scientists, in just simply dismissing Aristotle's notion of final cause, page 54, (its like saying, "I just don't like it"). When one considers much of the evidence regarding the "anthropic principle" in cosmology, it does seem as if the universe is hot-wired for life (no accident). But of course you have to decide for yourself, and Glynn does give many opposing arguments, which is nice.

So should you buy this book to prove something to yourself?

As a teacher of philosophy, I have learned that in order to prove or disprove anything to anyone at least two criteria are necessary:

(1) He/she has an open mind about the issue (no predetermined conclusions, such as some atheists and believers have) (2) There must be a starting point for the knowledge to flow from (if someone is a pure skeptic and the two of you cannot agree on a single thing like "we both know trees exist, right?", then the whole idea of proof or refutation is hopeless).

Of course extremists on both sides (fanatical bible waving literalists, and hardcore atheists will not in the least be open to this book, since they have all the answers already how could a book do anything to them?)

Ultimately, Glynn says that he does not think reason/science can give you faith, and he is correct. But it can, to echo the words of Aquinas centuries ago, remove barriers to one embracing God.

So if this topic interests you and you have a desire to integrate science/philosophy/theology, etc., Glynn's book will generally not disappoint (though you will want to read much more . . .)

Hopefully, one day books like this will not be necessary, when humankind grows up spiritually. That is, when it sees all humans as spiritual brothers/sisters, ends the killing of each other over money, power, and religion, and realizes that God exists, loves us all, and is the one we seek in our hearts . . . but that will take time. Perhaps some believers will have to work as hard as the atheists to overcome their hard hearts; for some cling to an idolatrous god who damns people for not being Christian . . . others hate the idea of a creator and sacrifice/responsibility for others.).

Ex-Atheist's Case For God's Existence
I once saw the author of this book on a TV interview discussing it and the ideas behind it. I had just been flipping through the channels, and suddenly, there appeared a prominent scholar talking intellectually about science in relation to religion. For a long time I too had been coming to realize that the pre-Enlightenment "nature philosophers" of the 16th and 17th century were right, and it wasn't until materialism (Diderot, Comte) in the 18th century and positivism in the 19th century (Darwin, Nietzsche) took hold that science and religion, once inseperable, drew more and more apart and at an increasingly accelerated pace.

What I liked about this book was its clarity, its readability; the scholarly elucidations are at once essential and accessible, and the author makes his arguments effectively, using scientific facts to back them up. I found it riveting, especially the first part, the first 50 or so pages dealing with cosmology and physics. This is the strongest part of the book with the best arguments for God's existence. I'm a novelist, so I consider myself a student of human nature--anthropology, philosophy, and theology interest me and I use what I learn in my fiction, often developing my own ideas on things. "God The Evidence" has enlightened me in several areas. Highly recommended.

David Rehak
author of "A Young Girl's Crimes"

Not exactly what I expected
I'm sorry to say that this book didn't hold my attention too well, it took great effort to make it half way through, though the second half did get more interesting. I respect the author for his efforts in trying to get people to see that God does indeed exist, but on an intellectual level it's not meant for everyone. Many scientific references are made throughout the book which unfortunately I could honestly not relate to one hundred percent of the time. That said, perhaps the title mislead me into thinking I was going to read a book more about religion and less about physics, atheistic scientists, philosophers, etc.. However, the historical references were very thorough and made many crucial points. At the end of the day I found myself agreeing with alot of the author's observations on morals and the damage done to society when they are lost, as well as on other issues. I can't really give this one more than three stars though, probably due to the fact that it wasn't really what I had in mind when I purchased it.

Makes a strong argument in simple terms
This book was recommended to me by a friend I met who actually went from being an atheist to a believer in God, after reading this book. Intrigued, I went out and bought it and I couldn't put it down! Although already a believer, I really enjoyed its practical grounding and skeptical approach. It gave me a lot of scientific, psychological, and physiological fodder for defending the existence of God to others, and to myself. There was also discussion of various life-after-death experiences from a wide range of people all over the world, totally unconnected, and the conclusions that must be drawn from such things. The book was refreshing to read in that it gave me further statistical evidence of the power of religion to reform and empower individuals in life. I recommend this book to many. I have heard some scientists on TV rebuking some of the scientific claims of the author about the difficulty in finding another explanation for the order and consistency found in the Universe, but over all the book gives such conclusive and logical arguments that any weaknesses in one aspect cannot be weighted against the sheer dominance of the conclusions of the author. Also, there was interesting discussion of the powers of ALL religions, not just one sect or church, to improve lives, and to experience life-after-death reunions and joyful heaven-like realities.

Selective and Weak; A Disappointment
This book is full of assumptions and superficial assertions. Chapter one is just a precursor to weak arguments. Martin Rees's book, "Just Six Numbers" is far better and makes no assumptions about science and scientists in general and allows readers to gain insight without weak rhetoric. If Glynn knew anything about quantum mechanics he wouldn't have to write a rhetorical book defending religion (which isn't being attacked by science). One of numerous flaws in this book comes when Glynn attacks Creationists on pg. 34 to give himself credence, yet only 3 pages earlier he used an old Creationist argument of a junkyard to argue for Creation!...thus completely eliminating any credibility he could have established. His references in the back of the book show he is selective in his sources. Nowhere do I see any scientific papers having been referred to, only references to opinionated books (like his own) which are easy to attack and make a case against. NEWSFLASH! Opinion ISN'T science! Science (especially in quantum mechanics) points to a Creator and never claimed to "know everything" or claim "God is dead" as Glynn reports. I challenge him to find any scientific source that makes such claims, and no Glynn, Marx and Freud weren't scientists. Science observes what goes on around us and tries to explain those phenomena as best it can with tentative theories using God-given brain power, it does not (as Glynn mistakenly assumes) set out to disprove God.
This book is terribly disappointing and shows how poor writing can create an issue and polarize it. The struggle isn't between science and religion, it is between uninformed wannabe "scientists" and good-intentioned but uninformed Christians. This book is just part of that circular argument. Glynn should have risen above such a level. ... Read more

Book Description

Nobel Prize-winning German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) is known for the development of quantum mechanics and the principle of indeterminancy.In physics and Philosophy he explains how modern advances in science alter, and often destroy, traditional ways only when the philosophical assumptions embedded in scientific method allow for modifications when new evidence emerges.Scientific advances alone do not change a culture when it is stripped of the new knowlage that accompanies the new science. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Three Fascinating Works by Werner Heisenberg
Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (1952) makes good reading, but it is likely to be more appreciated by readers already familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of quantum theory. The scholarly introduction by F. S. C. Northrop of Yale University cautions the reader that a meticulous reading is necessary to follow Werner Heisenberg's discussion of causality, determinism, and complementarity.

For the reader new to Heisenberg I suggest first reading a collection of essays published by Seabury Press in 1983 under the title Tradition in Science. In 1989 this collection, now titled Encounters with Einstein And Other Essays on People, Places, and Particles, was republished by Princeton University Press. A few discussions are a bit technical, but they do not involve mathematics. These essays were written between 1972-1975. Heisenberg died in 1976.

Another good choice is Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics, a collection of Heisenberg's early lectures that span the turbulent period 1932-1948. Many of the key ideas discussed in his 1952 book Physics and Philosophy will be found in this earlier work.

Heisenberg believed that early Greek philosophy is closer to the ideas underlying modern physics than it was to the deterministic, objective reality defined by Newton. The story of the development of quantum theory is always fascinating, but even more so when told from the viewpoint of a major contributor to this great intellectual triumph. Bohr, Heisenberg, and other founders of the Copenhagen interpretation recognized quite early that quantum theory would have a the profound impact on man's understanding of reality.

All three of these works, Physics and Philosophy, Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics, and Encounters with Einstein, should appeal to a wide audience. Heisenberg was deeply intrigued with the philosophical implications of quantum physics (and modern particle physics) and enjoyed sharing his enthusiasm and fascination with general audiences. I highly recommend all three works.

Quantum mechanics and philosophical theories.
This book is important because Heisenberg clearly explains why quantum mechanics was fatal for great philosophical theories, and more particularly, for logical positivism and Kant.

Logical positivism affirms that all knowledge is ultimately founded in experience. This led to a postulate concerning the logical clarification of any statement about nature. But since quantum theory such a postulate cannot be fulfilled.

Kant's a priori's like space and time are viewed totally differently since quantum theory. His law of causality is no longer true for the elementary particles, because we don't know the foregoing event accurately or this event cannot be found.
Heisenberg states that it will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.

Naturally this book is not up to date. It doesn't speak about COBE or superstrings. But Heisenbergs explanation of quantum theory is second to none.

Quotable. After someone said that the quantum theory may be proved false, Bohr answered: 'We may hope that it will later turn out that sometimes 2 x 2 = 5, for this would be of great advantage for our finances'.
A great book.

Heisenberg as literary luminary, with or without physics
Qualitative, descriptive books on physics, I think, are often unsatisfying because nothing suffices like actually doing the math to appreciate the full impact and enjoyement of what physics has to offer. Yet this hasn't prevented the likes of Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, et al, from attempting to do so. Perhaps for the professional physicist such works are interesting by virtue of their historical content, but the lay reader will likely find such works wordy and boring. This book by Heisenberg transcends this milieu however, with the author's shear brilliance and eloquence an admirable spectacle in and of itself. Heisenberg is a terribly smart fellow and that comes through thoughtfully.

This book reads like a collection of essays and, perforce, some chapters could probably be left unread without great harm. Chapter 7, 'the theory of relativity,' being a case in point. No, the real beauty of this book is not in its trenchant reflections on the mechanical behavior of matter, but more on its correlation with physics as a human endeavor, and the evolution of human thought in philosophical terms, as well as language and how it expresses ideas; these themes, philosphy and language, are artfully crafted and make this book significant, not the fact that we can make atom bombs or postulate a universe.

Heisenberg emphasizes the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the observer effects the outcome of an experiment by the very act of having observed the experiment. This is of course true primarily in terms of atomic physics and not of macro events. For example, if you try to observe an electron you will have to use high energy equipment to do so, which will effect the behavior of the electron. On the other hand, if you observe a sparrow at 100 yards with a pair of binoculars you're not really going to effect the sparrow. By observing it with binoculars you won't break its neck, which is the equivalent of what happens when you observe an electron with x-rays. The idea however, that the observer, or participant, does inject a huge influence by simply participating is significant on a macro scale in linguistic terms; a notion Heisenberg effectively sets out in chapter 10, 'language and reality in modern physics.'

The varying contexts and extensive meanings of concepts and language can and do effect the outcomes of human interactions in myriads of unpredictable ways. Perhaps at a time in humanity's past we could consider language as a logical system where a person either knew what they were talking about or didn't, or was lying or telling the truth based on what they said; a no BS kind of world where wise men judged the testimony of others in courts of reason, much like what occured in witchcraft trials, or in the way the Catholic church judged Galileo for teaching Copernican ideology. We know better now days, and this is, I believe, why Heisenberg makes such a point of the Copenhagen interpretation; not to show that it applies to macro physics, but rather to show how it applies to language and psychology. It's a tough analogy but Heisenberg makes a remarkable effort that engenders contemplation and awe. After all, we still have wise men judging the testimony of others in courts of reason, a sobering thought. This stress on linguistics may seem insignificant today but was probably more germane to the time this book was written, in 1958.

If you like physics, philosophy, and psychology, not necessarily in that order, you'll probably like this book. Chapters 4 and 5 alone, the two chapters that track the birth of quantum physics philosophically, make the price of this book a worthwhile investment.

Not as the others
I like to read books by great physicists, however I don't find this very much pleasant because the books, compared to more recent books, have a erudite language and sometimes are out-of-date or are useless. However, this one, compared to books of his contemporaries Bohr and Einstein, is very nice to read and its full of nice discussions on physics and philosophy. Heisenberg started explaining quantum theory than studied how it affected the greek, cartesian, kantian philosophy and others. Now this is something very curious about this book: Heisenberg exposes one point of view of Kant's philosophy and argues that it is no longer valid using an argument that the proton is an elementary particle, and he finishes saying that obviously Kant couldn't guess how quantum theory would develop. Nor did Heisenberg: his argument fails with QCD advent. So, you can see that as we go further on this book it's important to stop sometimes to think about what Heisenberg is saying, and finally get to the conclusion that his ideas aren't true anymore. However you'll be able, after finishing this book, to understand how did the Copenhagen school was frightened about quantum theory and that modern physicists, such as Feynman and Gell-Mann, were/are not, facing quantum theory more naturally.

Heisenberg inside!
This is one of the best physics/philosophy books I've read. The reader can sense Heisenberg's feelings and thoughts throughout the book, about the development of new "revolutionary" theories in around the world. The book is a reflection/critique on human advancement, and the ultimate understanding of the innermost layer of nature and what this "really" means for humanity. It is an excellent book, written by one of the best (if not the best) physicists in the 20th century. It is well worth your money and time. ... Read more

Amazon.com

James Burke, author and public television star, returns with anotherquirky look at the way history works. In Twin Tracks, Burkeconnects "trigger events" with unexpected outcomes. For instance, theinvention of the lens-grinding lathe leads to hairdressing, and thedebut of Mozart's The Marriage of Figaroconnects to development of thestealth fighter jet. These events are tied together via two tracks, onewritten along the book's left-hand pages, and one along the right. Thenarratives meet up in the end, giving readers a clear idea that thelines of history can be quite subjective. Some of the examples even runbackward, as when Burke explains the connections between smallpox andthe Big Bang. While Burke is justifiably famous for linking historicalevents, the paths he takes, especially those involving lots ofunfamiliar names, can be tricky to follow:

In 1710 the art collection was sold to Philip, regent ofFrance, in a deal brokered by Benedetto Luti, the best painter in Romeat the time.... That year Luti took on an assistant.... By 1714 WilliamKent was painting originals.... His patron in all this was thetrillionaire Earl of Burlington.

The best way to read Twin Tracks, as with any of Burke's lovelybooks, is one chapter at a time, taking thinking breaks in between so asnot to become overwhelmed by detail. The networks he describes form amore accurate, if more challenging, picture of history's motion than anylinear sequence. --Therese Littleton ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Six degrees between ANY two events
The unexpected origins of the modern world. If you've ever played the game of "Six degrees from Kevin Bacon" you'll at least understand this book. Whether you enjoy it or not depends on how much you can focus your attention because this is one hop, skip, and jump book. The author takes an event and shows how it is connected to another event much later in time by a series of meetings, mentors, friends, coincidences, etc. Then another such series is also described with the same start and end point. Wow! Isn't that amazing! And he does this again and again and again. Like "six degrees" you find that almost anything in this world is related to almost anything if you draw our the relationships thin enough. After the third or fourth thread I was exhausted at trying to follow the bouncing ball and gave up on the book. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

How they amuse me!
This book is an outstanding work, one of a series of recent works(last 10-15years) which have revealed the fatal cracks in materialism as a viable philosophy. One can gauge its impact by how it has offended the anti-religious faith of many of the other reviewers. Against all logic they demand that the Strong Anthropic Principle in no way points to the existence of a Creator God. This is patent nonsense, a violation of the most basic principles of science: first observe, and then derive a reasonable theory to explain what you observe. They love to quote Occam's Razor when the facts seem to support them. But, when the evidence turns against them, they abandon Occam and come up with all sorts of complex and highly imaginative explanations for the nature of the Universe. They do this in order to avoid the simplest explanation there is: God did it. BTW, many of the so-called objections of the past reviewers have been handily answereed by Dr. Rodd already at his web sites. The reviewer who thought he had caught the doctor when Ross talks about the trillions of stars that exist, and then goes on to say that God creates only as much as necessary, is in for a huge disappointment. Dr. Ross shines as a brilliant intellect, and this book is one of his finest works.

Absolutely Wonderful!
No need to write a million word review on this book... I highly reccomend you read it for yourself. As a Bible Major in college faced with a world of science, I was excited to get to read this book in my college's Astronomy class. For some it may be hard to understand all Ross' scientific reasoning, but in the end, it's the conclusion that matters. He knows what he's talking about. He's an amazing person that God has used in many many ways.

Critics Pitch Rocks At A Straw Man
I have noticed a consistent flaw in critiques of this and other books defending the intellectual veracity of the Christian faith. Inevitably some self-proclaimed "free thinker" (who thinks exactly what every other "free thinker" thinks) creates a straw man of the book's arguments, or of Christianity in general, then proceeds to tear their weakened caricature down.

The last review is a classic example. "Elk" assembles a barrage of partial passages to support his/her/it's view that the Bible predicts doom and gloom for all who don't accept God. In doing so he/she/it yanks them out of context, pays no attention to insights from the original languages, etc. In addition, it is obvious that he/she/it has not read such great works as the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis, where the author takes the issue head on. Nor has he/she/it even bothered to review an elementary work like "Four Views Of Hell" to learn the widely divergent opinions of conservative scholars on the subject.

If you want to criticize Christianity, fine. But at least take the time to learn something about what it is you're attacking. Otherwise you'll simply display your ignorance, just as the often referred to "he/she/it" has, with remarkable clarity.

The problem of Hugh Ross
No one questions the integrity and intelligence of Hugh Ross. However, when the assumptions are wrong from the begining neither integrity nor intelligence will save one from reaching the wrong conclusions. That's the main problem with Hugh Ross.

What's wrong with the assumptions of Hugh Ross? Basically, I see two problems:

1) equating science and the Bible as autonomous sources of revelation, which is problematic in the light of the words of Jesus according to which the heavens and earth will pass away but God's word endures forever; what's more, the universe has been cursed and men are fallible;

2)equating atheistic and naturalistic uniformitiarian interpretations of the facts with the facts themselves.

It is mainly due to these faulty assumptions, and not so much to lack of knowledge, integrity or intelligence, that Hugh Ross reaches conclusions (v.g. death and suffering before sin; the garden of Eden as a big graveyard)that are totally inconsistent with the plain teaching of the Bible.

What's more, Hugh Ross misses the point that the plain meaning of the Bible is totally consistent with the plain meaning of our truly scientific empirical observations (v.g. appereance of design; irreducible complexity of molecular machines; fine tuning of the Universe; lack of transitional forms in the fossil record; evidence of catastrophism in geology).

When one desperately tries to fit the interpretations naturalistic atheistic science with a supernaturalistic theistic Bible, one ot the other will have to cede at some point. For Hugh Ross, it is the Bible that will need to be reinterpreted so as to fit science. Too bad for him.

Reply for COBRA123
First I would like to apologize to the other reviewers. This review as well as COBRA's is suppose to be about books we've read and not about a critique of someone else's review.

First I never said "all-sufficient", I said self-sufficient. And I never said that the author mentions this. I said he failed to to address this theological problem. COBRA's next two questions are somewhat rhetorical if not well though-out. As far as COBRA's last statement in section l. It is quite obvious that since the bible was written by man that as mankind and civilization evolve so will their image of God change. Many an ancient religion has become myth or at best morphed into something very different than what was originally concieved; and at worst become extinct.

In reply to questions in section 2...hmmm, I guess COBRA fell asleep on that one.

And finally in response to COBRA's statement in section 3.
The bible is clear in a number of places concerning those who don't believe in Him by following other beliefs. I'll try to keep this one as consise as possible.

Rev.14:11 The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever...
Matt.13:42 ...there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mark 9:44 Where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Luke16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torment...
Rev.20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was caste into the lake of fire.
Mark3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

My apologies to the other reviewers again. And as for COBRA123, may I suggest you stick with rating books instead of other people's reviews.

I doubt seriously that COBRA gave much thought to "her"or"his" review, as well as spelling; it's never nice to see "rude" ones out there. ... Read more

Book Description

A scientist friend asked Bruno Latour point-blank: Do you believe in reality? Taken aback by this strange query, Latour offers his meticulous response in Pandora's Hope. It is a remarkable argument for understanding the reality of science in practical terms. In this book Latour, identified by Richard Rorty as the new "bte noire of the science worshipers," gives us his most philosophically informed book since Science in Action. Through case studies of scientists in the Amazon analyzing soil and in Pasteur's lab studying the fermentation of lactic acid, he shows us the myriad steps by which events in the material world are transformed into items of scientific knowledge. Through many examples in the world of technology, we see how the material and human worlds come together and are reciprocally transformed in this process. Why, Latour asks, did the idea of an independent reality, free of human interaction, emerge in the first place? His answer to this question, harking back to the debates between Might and Right narrated by Plato, points to the real stakes in the so-called science wars: the perplexed submission of ordinary people before the warring forces of claimants to the ultimate truth. ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Great
In my mind, Latour is THE person to read in this area. Most philosophy of science seems to be stuck in the analytic tradition, and Latour is one of the tickets out! You will enjoy this text more if you have a little bit of background in philosophy (or if you are aware of the "science wars"). That said, the prose is clear and readable, and this is a good introduction to the work of Latour and to science studies in general. One issue, however: Latour insists that he will outline a method by which the number and value of articulations (of a given theory) can be ascertained...where is this method?

Those French Have a Different Word for Everything!
In Pandora's Hope, Bruno Latour is resolute in his efforts to [1] understand the mire philosophers of language have found themselves in, and [2] move on past those chimeras of epistemological impossibilities toward a richer understanding of things by scrutinizing the very practice of science and shaking loose the foundations presupposed by realist and social constructivist frameworks. This review, I will admit, is overly preoccupied by Latour's handling of "language," but Pandora's Hope covers quite well a much broader breadth of philosophical inquiry than my particular esoteric interest lets on. But since that is where my particular interests lie, let it be said that at least as an extremely strong subtext, Latour, through an exploration of the reality of science studies, relentlessly pursues the concocted philosophic divide between the world and words, and attempts to set us afoot on a more fruitful conceptual path from the dead-end correspondence theory and the resulting materialist/relativist dichotomy. If all this sounds far too heady, blame me, not Latour: for his ability to summarize in an attempt to overcome the various sprawling philosophical puzzles, his writings have a refreshing narrative flow, subtle wit, and an underlying humility that is encouraging rather than intimidating for the reader. It's not "lite" reading, but for those up for the challenge, it will be a rewarding task.

Latour for beginners
Latour has written a clear introduction to his current position in the field of STS-studies. Chapter after chapter, patiently, he clarifies the basic premises of his work. Whatever one thinks about Latour's radical redifinition of the field of science and technology studies, this is an enjoyable book: clear and well written.

A clear statement of Latour's position
Latour has written a clear introduction to his current position in the field of STS-studies. Chapter after chapter, patiently, he clarifies the basic premises of his work. Whatever one thinks about Latour's radical redifinition of field of STS, this is an enjoyable book.

Not One For The Purists
You have to admire Bruno Latour's persistence in the face of often vicious misunderstanding of what he's about. In many ways the core insights he has brought to the study of science have been available to readers for almost 20 years, yet it is still necessary for him to constantly reframe arguments to try and get the points across. This book shows once again the profound seriousness of his philosophical approach, based in the work of Serres, Deleuze and Whitehead amongst many others, and yet it seems inevitable that its lucid style and empirical foundation will find 'academic' philosophers once again all at sea (and substituting the usual bile for genuine understanding). This is Latour at his most sober, pleading for common sense in an area that is surely the intellectual world's biggest reservoir of wishful mysticism - the relationship between representation and reality. It's not just philosophers who find this banal question interesting, but also scientists, who increasingly adopt the same impoverished schema as those in science studies have developed over the years to judge (not understand) what scientists do. This is one of the great strengths of Latour's book and overall approach, how he respects the work and procedures of both sides, using neither to be reductionist about the other. What emerges is a science fully implicated in the 'social' world, and a social world just as implicated in the world of facts and theories - no puritanical separation, but also not a simple reflection of one in the other either. It will confuse and anger philosophers and scientists alike, but only to the extent that they have disciplinary empires to protect - Latour is interested in the world, and not constant petty claims about who understands it best. ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Lessons in scientific anarchism
Philosophy of science can be fun at times. This book proves it. Feyerabend wanted to shock the scientific community when he wrote it, and was very good at it.

What are the main theses of the book? First, "the" scientific method does not exist. Scientists have to invent new methodologies on their way to discovery. Second, sometimes progress requires theories that contradict facts as scientists perceive them. Third, sometimes it requires irrational arguments in order to get your point across in science. Fourth, science does not deserve a special status in a social debate.

To many scientists, these ideas would sound provocative even expressed in the politest of manners. But that was not Feyerabend's style. On the contrary, Feyerabend overdid many of his statements ("The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes"), and he made rude remarks. Some of his statements are not very well supported by arguments. That, of course, is hardly surprising for someone who defends some irrationality in science. But it will not convince a hard-boiled rationalist. Also, Feyerabend's exaggerations made it easier for his critics to criticize him.

And still, Feyerabend knew what he was talking about. Scientists are indeed sloppier and more irrational than they pretend to be. Galilei's statement that the earth rotates around its axis did contradict the "fact" that nobody ever noticed any influence of this rotation. And it was not science that first pointed out the dangers of environmental pollution.

Conclusion: Against Method is a classic, and it deserves it. It's a very interesting book for those who know how to read it.

A wonderful polemical critique of scientific reductionism
Anyone who expects an academic, theory building and hence myopic interpretation of history, especially in the context of scientific discovery and the nature of scientific fact and laws, would be well-advised to look elsewhere.

This book is a humorous, multi-sided and relentless attack on accepted notions and interpretations of consistency and progress, achieved through a single method (such as rationality or logic), in the area of human knowledge. Feyerabend denies method supremacy over contextual and meaning rich subjective thinking, and marshals the facts of history to establish the lack of any single method or well-defined body (such as science) in the growth of human knowledge.

What Howard Zinn did to conventional history with "A People's History of the United States", Feyerabend here accomplishes with regards to the history of science and rationalism. In doing so, he opens the door not for sloppy thinking, but for colorful and context rich thought and expression.

Troubliing to say the least!
Paul Feyerabend, in writing this book during the anti-authoritarian, hippie infested, mid 60's was, like Kuhn, just asking for heavy misinterpretation. This should make us want to read the book all the more. Feyerabend, as you will discover, is NOT anti-science, Feyerabend is NOT anti-reason and for god's sake, FEYERABEND IS NOT A SUBJECTIVIST! What he is advocating is scientific anarchism, meaning: science does not proceed by any set of rules, criterion or methods. So, as may suprise you, Feyerabend is not even that contraversial.

Feyerabend supports himself like this. Science operates from theories which inextricably use observation, preconcieved theories (like "the earth is moving right now"), language and subject-dependent vantage point. Since none of these are completely, or ever could be, accurate, no theory can ever be proved, and so many theories would be refuted because of changing paradigms, preconceptiois and world-views affecting all of the above, science would never make any progress. Thus, if there are any rules, they are pragmatic hence science is purely instrumental meaning it can only be judged in retrospect and rules only exist situationally. All may be broken.

So how is Feyerabend not contraversial? Between Popper (all theories are inextricable from preconceptions that sometimes are shown erroneous), Dewey (science is pragmatic and instrumental) and Kuhn (paradigm shifts mark heavy changes in science and because of their scope, make scientific change excruciating and unreliable), all of these Feyerabendian critiques have been made before. The other detriment is that while he makes strategic points against method, it would've helped his credibility if he guided us to a new starting point. If we can only judge science in retrospect, but still can't even be sure that are preconceptions won't get in the way, than how could we even do THAT. An attempt at an answer (even in guess form) would have been nice.

To his credit, the book is written well (certainly not difficult to read), is thought provoking (this coming from a Popperian) and does make some good adjustments to what came before. Popper's insistence that theories, when replacing others, need to be at least as explanative as the old ones. Feyerabend smartly answers with a quick retort - 'Why? Why couldn't a new theory solve most of the problems so well, that we use it assuming the rest will be figured out in due course?' There is also a brilliant post-script where Feyerabend advocates 'seperation of science and state' and makes a beautiful case for science education that teaches many 'hows' instead of many 'whats'. Also his "postscript on relativism" and three prefaces (original, third edition and chinese edition) give a much deserved slap in the face to those that still look at Feyerabend as a relativist and non-believer in science. They need to read this book like they should've the first time. You should read it too.

Anything goes - but where?
"How can an enterprise depend on culture in so many ways, and yet produce such solid results? Most answers to this question are either incomplete or incoherent. Physicists take the fact for granted. Movements that view quantum mechanics as a turning-point in thought - and that include fly-by-night mystics, prophets of a New Age, and relativists of all sorts - get aroused by the cultural component and forget predictions and technology."

What deeply untrendy, lab-coated person wrote that? None other than Paul Feyerabend, in 1992.

'Against Method', the book that made his name, is dense, quirky and deliberately provocative, in parts a good read, but never intended to be taken as solemn holy writ. The joke is that some people do just that. Those who use the very technology he was talking about to propagate the latest fashions in radical relativism are like the man who told a famous philosopher that he had been a solipsist all his life and was surprised not to have met anyone who agreed with him.

Outside the madhouse there is a distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. Feyerabend's 'solid argument', based on the usual historical case-studies (Copernicus, Galileo etc.), applies at best to the context of discovery, which, as staid old Popper pointed out long ago, can be and often is anarchic. Feyerabend goes much further and asserts that the context of justification is anarchic too, or rather that the traditional epistemic distinction is illusory. This is the crucial step, after which, indeed, anything goes. As far as I can see he adduces no convincing argument for it. (Why should he? If he's right - or if his assertion is right, which may be a different matter - then propaganda is as good as rational argument.) Quite a lot of people believe this. If they tell you it's smart to blur the distinction, or insist that none can be defined, relax - you won't have to go to the local witch doctor next time you get a bad dose of flu, or call in a voodoo priest to fix your computer. Those smart people don't do that; they're not that sort of relativist.

Cheap shot, I hear you say. So read this book, read Laudan's 'Science and Relativism', read Stove's shocker 'Scientific Irrationalism' (hide it from your friends inside a copy of Deleuze & Guattari); then make up your own mind. One caveat: if you find Kuhn's 'Structure' hard going, you'll likely find this even harder. It isn't a laugh a minute, whatever the fans say.

"Always remember that the demonstrations and the rhetorics used do not express any 'deep convictions' of mine. They merely show how easy it is to lead people by the nose ..." - Feyerabend.

Anything Goes
Feyerabend was probably the first philosopher of science who really stated that science as it is practised by scientists themselves is NOT an enterprise which can be strictly constructed or even fully described in any conventional methodical way such as the philosophies of positivism and even rationality or idealism for that matter propose. As is true for any human enterprise, no matter how strongly this is denied by the popular science press, it is, as Feyerabend puts it, an anarchaic enterprise, this does not mean random chaos or a process with no order rather he refers to the fact that scientists just as authors of great literature or poets, pursue their subject via many paths rather than the strict methodologies which are supposed to define science, in fact these methodologies fail to be `...capable of accounting for such a maze of interactions'. Einstein is noted as saying that `The external conditions which are set for the scientist by the facts of experience do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted, in the construction of his conceptual world, by the adherence to an epistemological system'. Feyerabend goes on to say that `The attempt...to discover the secrets of nature and of man, entails, therefore, the rejection of all universal standards and of all rigid traditions.' So starts his book "Against Method" and through detailed analysis of the scientists and the phenomenon in question Feyerabend proceeds to demolish any assertions which compress science into a box which stands alone outside of all other influences such as religion, history, culture or philosophy.

The idea that irrational means are used by scientists to form theories and understand phenomena is stressed. Similarly the fact that an observation is made does not necessarily imply the theory which follows eg the moon seen through Galeleos eyes. Also, reason is sometimes discarded in favour of new, seemingly unreasonable, ideas which explain the phenomenon and finally science itself becomes a kind of tradition in its own way. The blindness of the usual ways of thinking about science as expressed in the popular press is made clear and it is shown science is not and never has been or will be the only true way of understanding the universe.

Feyerabend's book is very entertaining given the radical and playfull nature of the man himself (see `Killing Time', his autobiography), nonetheless it is very well researched and his argument is solid. He does not shirk his academic responsibilities but rather writes as he thinks is best in order to explain his ideas without necessarily having to write in a cold or overly rational way.

Feyerabend also includes excerpts from his experience of famous scientists during his life such as the radical Felix Ehrenhaft, the young Popper full of vitality or Wittgenstein. He further explores his own misgivings when teaching people of cultures other than his own eg native Americans, Mexicans and so on and his own understanding that he had no real right to say his own phiosophical view or rather the one pushed by his society was any better than theirs or that intellectual procedures which approach a problem through concepts are the right way to go. Feyerabend stresses that the phrase "anything goes" is far more relavent to the progress of human knowledge and science.

An excellent book written with style ... Read more

Book Description

Insight and Industry examines the "careers" of four major technologies that have reshaped medicine by allowing new forms of insight into the human interior. Blume's studies of ultrasound, thermography, computerized tomography, and nuclear magnetic resonance reveal the many ways in which manufacturers, medical personnel, and patients affect both the form and the use of innovative technologies.

Blume explores alternative models for analyzing the process of technological development and diffusion. He then uses the general model he has constructed to guide the four case studies, showing in particular how and why each new vision developed or did not develop an audience and support group. A concluding chapter builds on the four studies and examines the possibility of actively shaping the process of future technological development in medicine.

Insight and Industry is valuable both as a straightforward comparative study of the four diagnostic imaging techniques and as a significant contribution to the literature on technology and innovation. Blume's interpretive framework allows us to explore important questions such as what factors are implicated in the process of the technologization of medicine, why new technology in medicine so often seems to mean more rather than less expensive treatment, how technologies become specific to certain applications, why we have some technologies and not others, and how processes of technological innovation in medicine may differ from those in other areas of social practices.

Stuart S. Blume is Professor and Chairman of the Department of Science Dynamics at the University of Amsterdam. ... Read more

Book Description

Two books have been particularly influential in contemporary philosophy of science: Karl R. Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, and Thomas S. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both agree upon the importance of revolutions in science, but differ about the role of criticism in science's revolutionary growth. This volume arose out of a symposium on Kuhn's work, with Popper in the chair, at an international colloquium held in London in 1965. The book begins with Kuhn's statement of his position followed by seven essays offering criticism and analysis, and finally by Kuhn's reply. The book will interest senior undergraduates and graduate students of the philosophy and history of science, as well as professional philosophers, philosophically inclined scientists, and some psychologists and sociologists. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

If you want to understand Kuhn: buy it.
I've been a big Kuhn fan for years. I thought I understood his ideas, too, until I read this book. This gem is a debate among some of the most interesting philosophers of science in the twentieth century-- all trying to make sense of Kuhn, most concluding that his ideas are deeply flawed.

The criticism helped me advance my own interpretation of Kuhn, but it was Kuhn's reply to the criticism that brought the whole thing into technicolor 3D. I could hardly have learned more if I had the man in my living room.

-- James

Nice collection of Essays
This is a collection of "essays" about T.S. Kuhn's distiction between normal science and revolutionary science. Various philosophers, including Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, criticize various aspects of Kuhn's argument. Finally Kuhn presents a reply to his critics. ... Read more

Book Description

In recent years a noticeable trend toward harmonizing the distinct worldviews of science and religion has become increasingly popular. Despite marked public interest, many leading scientists remain skeptical that there is much common ground between scientific knowledge and religious belief. Indeed, they are often antagonistic. Can an accommodation be reached after centuries of conflict?

Among the topics discussed are the Big Bang and the origin of the universe, intelligent design and creationism versus evolution, the nature of the soul, near-death experiences, communication with the dead, why people believe in God, and the relationship between religion and ethics.

In this stimulating collection of articles on the subject, the editors have assembled the thoughts of scientists from various disciplines. Included are works by such distinguished authors as Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Owen Gingerich, Stephen Jay Gould, James Lovelock, Steven Pinker, Eugenie Scott, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Weinberg, and many other eminent scientists and scholars. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

We have the power to brainwash, but which propaganda?
This is an interesting set of blow by blow essays (at least for a Martian anthropologist studying earth science), supposedly on science and religion, but really on the Darwin debate, with the inspiration of Galileo in the background. It also includes an essay by the ID theorist William Dembski who informs us he volunteered to join M. Shermer's Skeptic to be the resident skeptic on evolution. Since Mr. Dembski is quite unacceptable (one of those people who believe weird things) for this, I should volunteer myself, think of all the free snacks.
The book opens with the standard metanarrative of science's triumph over superstition from Galileo forth, in the raised eyebrow condescending mode ("aren't we smart, why do all these people resist?"). But somehow it has never sunk in that modern science is a failure in its mission and derailed with Darwin as it entered the field of naturalistic metaphysics.
In some ways, the tone here is fine. Scientists, after all, armed with four forces for a theory of everything are now beset with a fifth, the Templeton Prize money, which has lead to so many books with the word 'god' in the title, big business.
The refusal to compromise here is admirable, but the problem is not religion, but bad science, and the mystery of why the science world view cannot deal with even the ID initiative.
My next door neighbour is a Buddhist, and I showed him the book: Yep! 'religion' means Christianity. He is a physics student but said he was fed up with being classified as 'crazy' by a legitimating science world view. One would have thought Foucault had sunk in here. Science should know better than to let 'religion' mean monotheism.
Good book anyway, with material by Gould on the magisteria that aren't supposed to overlap, Dawkins, Dennett, Lovelock, and Arthur C. Clarke, plus essays by the ediotr Paul Kurtz from Skeptical Enquirer.
Modern science is a failure and has turned the best and brightest into idiots, run roughshod over the human sciences with the result that we are given two flavors, scientism and fundamentalism. That would seem inexplicable, until you realize that corresponds to the two largest budgets for propaganda around.
The moral is that there are many ways around the science/religion divide, but both sides are satisfied with this status quo 'debate'.

A thought-provoking collection of essays
I attended the "Science and Religion" symposium held in Atlanta in 2001 and it was excellent. But this book is much more than a mere summary of the symposium. The book also includes many contributions by authors who did not attend, such as a chapter on Nonoverlapping Magisteria by the late Stephen Jay Gould and a chapter on Intelligent design by William A. Dembski.

At issue is whether religion and science have anything to say to each other and what happens when they tread on each other's turf. It has been argued that science has no business intruding into the realm of religion. But the nature of "science" is poorly understood by many people. It is not a body of knowledge, but rather a means of acquiring knowledge. Some religious claims cannot be be addressed by science because no means are available to investigate them. But on those issues where a means does exist, science has consistently forced religion to retreat and revise itself.

This book should be required reading by any school granting degrees in science, and it should be placed in every high school library.

Mythology versus Reality: Can they both be true?
Science and religion are NOT "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Religion does make claims that science can neither rebut nor even investigate. But it also makes claims that can be and have been disproven. Either the transportation of a Catholic saint/goddess directly to the sky without passing GO and without collecting $... was a verifiable fact of history, or it did not happen. The dogma that a god played a role in the origin of the universe is religion, and as such is not subject to scientific investigation. The claim that the universe is less than ten thousand years old has nothing to do with religion. It is bad science.
But dogmatic religion is one thing. The belief that the universe was intelligently designed, but not necessarily by the god of religion, is something else. Arguments for Intelligent Design are presented by believers, and rebutted by scientists.
Why is belief in religion so much higher among the less educated, and so much lower among natural scientists? More than one author offers a credible answer.
Other books have considered the question of whether science and religion are compatible, but never so effectively. While "Science and Religion" will not cure incurables, it will give the pragmatically religious something to think about. Buy it or borrow it, but read it. ... Read more

Book Description

A council of leading scientists and philosophers offers wise and provocative insights into the ethical implications of one of the most momentous developments of all-cloning.

Few avenues of scientific inquiry raise more thorny ethical questions than the cloning of human beings, a radical way to control our DNA. In August 2001, in conjunction with his decision to permit limited federal funding for stem-cell research, President George W. Bush created the President's Council on Bioethics to address the ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation. .Over the past year the Council, whose members comprise an all-star team of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, humanists, and theologians, has discussed and debated the pros and cons of cloning, whether in the service of producing children or as an aid to scientific research. The questions the Council members confronted do not have easy answers, and they did not seek to hide their differences behind an artificial consensus.Rather, the Council decided to allow each side to make its own best case, so that the American people can think about and debate these questions, which go to the heart of what it means to be a human being.Just as the dawn of the atomic age created ethical dilemmas for the United States, cloning presents us with similar quandaries that we are sure to wrestle with for decades to come. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Very powerful.
I am a science major and philosophy minor and I have found this book very provocative, well written and useful.

A collection of opinions with no firm ethical foundation.
The subject of human cloning has gained considerable press recently, due mainly to claims made by various individuals in successfully producing a human clone. These claims have remained unjustified, due to the refusal of these individuals to permit their scientific verification. The successful birth of a healthy human clone would be a major achievement, both from a scientific standpoint, and from an ethical one. It would give humans yet another option of how they are to reproduce themselves, and far from demeaning or devaluing human life, would actually celebrate it. There is no question that the first human clones will be viewed as somewhat of a novelty by many, but like all other humans born as the result of advances in technology, such as in vitro fertilization, they will be accepted as another unique and valuable addition to the human species, deserving of every legal right and every measure of respect.

Having unique fingerprints does not distinguish us as individuals, only our achievements do. It is the total contributions we have made in the entire span of our lives that distinguishes us as individuals. But Leon Kass, the main author of this book, and the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, has chosen the fingerprint as its focal point. Indeed, in the first sentence in the forward, he states that "the fingerprint has rich biological and moral significance", and that it "signifies our unique personal identity." It is ironic perhaps that he has chosen to address the issue of human cloning by beginning with a purely physical characterization of human individuality. Why worry about how different we are from others anyway? If a handful of clones, all with the same fingerprints, make brilliant contributions to humanity, should we not celebrate this? And if a physical attribute is needed to differentiate us as individuals, then should not human clones be regarded as unique by reference to the way they came into this world, i.e. by asexual reproduction?

The main virtue of this book is that it omits the vituperation that frequently accompanies discussion of genetic engineering and human cloning. It addresses the main issues calmly, without hype and without personal attacks against those who advocate the genetic engineering of or cloning of human beings. It does however present a very narrow view of the ethical philosophy behind the technology of genetic engineering. The authors cannot seem to find a sound ethical framework in which to speak. Utilitarian considerations behind reproductive cloning for example are abandoned, and are to be replaced with a "different frame of reference". The Council Members (interesting use of capital letters here) though never articulate in detail just what this ethical "frame of reference" is, but only seek a "deeper meaning" in that act of human procreation, which in their view will then give meaning to the raising of children.

The reproductive cloning of humans has, interestingly, a certain shock value for the council members (no caps are needed). It, to them, is the "most unusual, consequential, and most morally important" of the ways of bringing children into the world. Why indeed is this so? If the council members were suddenly to find several children in the world that were brought into the world as a result of cloning, would they find these children that much different than any other children born as the result of "ordinary" reproduction? The actions taken to produce cloned children are certainly different than taken to produce "ordinary" children, but will the children themselves be any different in terms of their humanity? Cloned children will play in the sand box, get into fights with each other, face the same struggles, and require the same kind of nurturing as any other children. The moral significance of the actions taken to voluntarily produce children shrink in comparison to their value as humans.

It is perhaps ironic that the council members believe that sexual procreation gives each human being a "sense of individual identity". They inadvertently express a belief that genetic structure is primarily responsible for making humans unique as individuals. Genes and not life experiences and the accumulated wisdom obtained from these experiences are believed by the council members to have great weight in determining our uniqueness as individuals. They don't believe in total genetic determinism though, as further analysis of the book reveals, but their emphasis on the genetic makeup is actually quite surprising given their anti-cloning stance. It is usually the technophilic pro-cloning groups who over-emphasize the role of genetics. One can safely bet though that both the council members and these groups would forget their differences if they saw a lovely cloned human child in a crib, one that is deserving of all the warmth and care that should be given to any other human on this planet.

Stem cell research has complicated the cloning debate, and with the announcement last month of promising work involving pluripotent human embryonic stem cell cells derived from a cloned blastocyst, and with the reorganization of the President's Council of Bioethics to make it more anti-cloning and anti-stem cell in its beliefs, one can certainly expect much more contention in the near future. Scientists, geneticists, and genetic engineers must make sure their work and its ethical justification are not left to the sometimes myopic and unjustified opinions such as can be found in this book. The members of the Council of Bioethics do not speak for everyone, and any authority regarding scientific or ethical matters imputed to them is incorrect. Any advice they give is purely their own personal opinion, a result of their own biases and personal history. As such it does not have moral or legal binding for anyone.

A Different Perspective on Cloning and Stem Cell Research
I found this report to be invaluable in determining where some in the scientific community and many politicians and bureacrats stand on the subject of cloning and stem cell research.

If you favor such research, for whatever reason, whether it be the development of tissues for the cures of disease or for other reasons, the Human Cloning and Human Dignity report will definitely give you an idea regarding the ideology of those who composed the report. The position of many of the members is common and frequently theological in nature, with much of the discussion concerning the subject of the earliest cell divisions, before recognizable human features have developed.

The position against human cloning in the report is recognizable, honest, and thorough so someone hoping to change public opinion in favor of cloning and stem cell research can determine what they need to do to address public opinion on the subject.

I found the report very informative.

A Balanced Appraisal
This book is the result of a special inquiry ordered by US President Bush to examine these contentious issues. Late in 2001 he announced the formation of a bioethics council to weigh into the many related issues involved in the cloning debate. Chaired by bioethicist Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, a panel of experts was quickly convened, and after 6 months of research and reflection, this final report was presented to the President in July 2002.

This 350-page book presents the findings of the Council. The Council was comprised of 18 experts in science, medicine, public policy and ethics. Some were secular, some religious. Some were fully against any form of human cloning - even for research purposes - while others were much more open to therapeutic research involving embryos, whether deliberately created for that purpose, or "surplus" from assisted reproduction programs. The majority however seem quite concerned about all types of human cloning.

The report begins with an overview of the debate, including scientific, historical and ethical components. Terminology is also clearly defined. Then the pros and cons of the ethics of reproductive cloning are examined in detailed. Similarly, the ethics of therapeutic cloning, both for and against, are closely discussed.

The book concludes with public policy options and recommendations. Finally, thirteen Council members contribute personal statements on the proceedings. These include William Hurlbut, Charles Krauthammer, Gilbert Meilaender and William May. In these statements the various authors are allowed to express personal preferences, disagreements, or endorsements of the Council report. Many of these alone are worth the price of the book.

But as I mentioned, the great majority of Council members seem to have a strong ethical basis on which they make their pronouncements. Thus the report, while allowing various sides to be heard, often gives room for extensive moral reasoning and reflection.

For example, in the discussion on cloning for research, the Council acknowledges that we should not ignore the needs of the suffering, but even this must be kept in balance: "the relief of suffering, though a great good, is not the greatest good". It continues, "As highly as we value health and longer life, we know that life itself loses its value if we care only for how long we live, and not also for how we live."

On the issue of the moral status of the human embryo, again, differing points of view are expressed. But it does deserve special respect, and should not be treated as a means to another's end. It is more than a clump of cells, and it clearly is the means by which all of us began. The report recommends that all embryo research be subject to a new and thorough review and be part of a larger regulatory scheme.

Because this report is a collection of viewpoints, and an assemblage of differing options and proposals, it cannot come out with clear-cut and definite conclusions. But the overall direction and tone of the report is one of balance, prudence and caution. It realises the limitations of science and medicine, and recognises the importance of a comprehensive ethical underpinning of any discussion on the issue. It thus makes for an important contribution to the overall debate.

Save Your Money
This document is the first (and currently only) report of President Bush's 17-member Council on Bioethics. The issue is whether it is in society's best interest to continue research to develop perfectly transplant-tolerant tissues by exploiting the capability of stem cells to differentiate into cells of any tissue type. This includes liquid "tissue" such as blood and lymph cells, which hold promise for curing leukemias and lymphomas.

The members of the Council, all political appointees, split 10 to 7 against cloning for the purposes of research toward cures of disease. Not surprisingly, those members currently working as doctors or scientists tended to favor further research, including the development of new stem cell lines, as will ultimately be necessary for transplant tolerance, should research lead to new cures.

For some, the ethical problem arises because stem cells require the production of an egg, which, in principle, has the potential to become an adult human being. However, the 10 members making up the opposing majority tended to favor what some have called "slippery slope thinking." They worry about where man's efforts to play God will ultimately lead. In the report they draw an analogy between their doubts about continuing stem cell research using newly cloned cells, and drinking from a glass of wine whose rich color might conceal a spider.

The Council's Chairman states that the report fairly reflects the diverse views expressed by council members, for and against, during 6 months of inquiry, and I have no reason to quarrel with that assessment. However, I do not find the opposition of these two different world views -- which is essentially a difference between optimism and pessimism with respect to man's ability to control the worst impulses of those empowered by scientific success -- to constitute a particularly enlightening debate. To me, it evades the real question of whether the greater immorality is to deny the potential of the human life of a developing egg, or to deny the potential of a cure for a deadly disease. ... Read more

Book Description

Amazon.com

Medicine has always contained elements of mythology and mysticism. Various ancient civilizations believed that the spleen and uterus moved around in the body when so motivated, that the heart was the center of thought and the liver the source of mood, and that internal organs were independent creatures with their own agendas. Dr. Sherwin Nuland, who has been performing surgery on these organs for four decades, here presents the amazing story of how superstition trumped science for most of medical history. For example, an early 17th-century Christian monk named Jean Baptiste van Helmont believed that the stomach was the center of human anatomy--the locus of the soul, in fact. His proof? That a punch t