Customer Reviews

The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In The Science of Liberty, Timothy Ferris is out to make an interesting case: that science and liberalism (small "l") go hand in hand. Namely, he wants to show (a) that science and liberalism have similar decentralized methods, and (b) it is very hard to have science without liberalism and, in turn, liberalism generally fosters scientific invention.

The first few two chapters are ones devoted to making the former case, the largely theoretical argument that science and liberalism have much in common. Both function by individuals being left free to make testable claims, test their own and others claims, and find truth by participating in this social process. This is similar to liberalism in that authority is never immune from challenge, people are left largely free to "experiment" with how best to live, and everyone can participate in the marketplace of ideas. (For perhaps the best theoretical comparison of science to liberty, check out Michael Polanyi's LOGIC OF LIBERTY, THE.)

From here, Ferris moves on to look at the historical connection between science and liberty (and that between pseudoscience and illiberalism). Chapter four ("Science of Enlightenment") and five ("American Independence") are of particular interest here as Ferris shows how many scientists championed liberty, and how many advocates of liberty championed science. Virtually all of the founders (Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, etc) studied and were enthusiastic about science. Similarly, Newton and Bacon, who wrote primarily on science, also ruminated quite a bit on liberty. John Locke studied science and was friends with Isaac Newton before writing his marvelous defense of liberalism - Two Treatises of Government).

As to the relationship between pseudoscience (or dismissal of science altogether!) and illiberalism, we look to chapters six ("The Terror) and ten ("Totalitarian Antiscience"). The first of these takes the French Revolution as its subject - a revolution that professed to understand liberty and science but seemed to understand neither. Ferris reminds us that the ideological father of the French Revolution, Jean Jacques Rousseau, denigrated both liberty and science, as did many of its major figures. Chapter ten focuses on the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Mao's China, where science tended to flounder because it was so heavily controlled; those who reached the 'wrong' conclusion (those which went against the dominant ideology) were often expurgated and, as a result, the 'science' produced in these illiberal regimes was often incompetent (think Mengele and Lysenko). Again, those interested in exploring the topic further might look at Polanyi's book cited above.

The implication here is that since science and liberalism use similar methods and rely on the same type of liberty and decentralization, totalitarian regimes face much difficulty being totalitarian while providing a scientifically-friendly environment. This also bleeds into academic life, where various forms of centralization are often advocated. Chapter eleven ("Academic Antiscience") talks about the anti-scientific tendencies that are particularly visible in humanities departments under the labels "postmodernism," "poststructuralism" and "social constructrionism." The reviewer below very correctly notes that Ferris does not rebut these academics' ideas very well. I think Ferris's intent was wholly different. Like the other 'antiscience' chapters, Ferris is showing that many of the academics who dismiss science as a subjective social construction were and are often the loudest champions of illiberalism. Heidegger was a Nazi, as was Paul de Mann. Ferris does a good job in showing that most academic denigrators of science turn out to be advocates of centralized government control either via a right or left worldview.

In short, Ferris does a good job at demonstrating that liberals have tended to be pro-science and illiberals have tended to be anti-science. Of course, one can always argue that as history is retrospective, Ferris's examples may have been cherry picked, but he seems to do a good idea at presenting the best anecdotal (what else is history?) evidence possible. My only real complaint is that he might have strengthened his case by giving a chapter on the plethora of books and articles already written that show an analogy between the scientific and liberal processes (Polayni's is one, Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies is another well-known example, as is Friedrich Hayek's COUNTER-REVOLUTION OF SCIENCE, THE.)

A great read for those who want a deeper understanding of how science and liberty help each other.

My enjoyment of science books has been sorely tempered by an allergy to dull writing. Academia, the source of most modern science, is infamous for precisely that. Years ago I discovered Timothy Ferris's "Coming of Age in the Milky Way" and loved his contagious sense of wonder, the dramatic narrative of our ongoing discovery of our place in the cosmos, and his lucid prose and ingenious analogies. I've been avidly reading his astronomy & cosmology books ever since.

"The Science of Liberty" is arguably his best book: it has all his trademark eloquence and a vastly more relevant topic. But the huge popularity of his earlier books won't repeat here. Ferris has stepped from neutral ground onto a morally charged minefield to forcefully argue that individual liberty and scientific inquiry are historically and inseparably linked, and that together they form the principal engine of human progress. Any book taking a passionate and unequivocal moral stand will provoke loud protests from someone. Neither science nor liberty have historically lacked powerful and visible enemies: religions, monarchies, dictatorships, holy terrorists, etc. Their heirs won't be reading this book. The incandescently obvious success of (small "l") liberal democracies and scientists in improving human life on our planet has forced most of its modern adversaries underground--where they chip away at the basic assumptions of science and lobby for ever tighter limits on freedom. They will hate this book and you'll surely be hearing from some of them on this page.

A prefatory note: The title isn't meant to imply that liberty or liberal governance is a science. The author means to show that science and liberty were siblings born of common parents. Much of the book details the intertwined emergence of human rights and scientific experimentation with original observations, and unusual examples. It reveals in anecdotes & capsule biographies the conspicuous overlap of in proponents of liberty and iconic early scientists--even the odd lapses of overlap. A paraphrase from Lewis Thomas sets a basic pillar of this thesis: "...the greatest discovery of modern science was of the dimensions, not of cosmic space and time, but of human ignorance." (My note: That perceived ignorance was enormous then, and is growing rather than shrinking. The notion that all worth knowing is already known is as old as humanity, and thrives today--not just in Waziristan.)

The common ground of science and democracy is broad: the inherent messiness, the need for freedoms of association, speech, inquiry and press, the diffusion of authority through consensus, the permanent mutability of judgment. These are repellent to people who prefer direct acts of dictatorial intervention, unchallengeable moral axioms, or permanent (capital"T") Truths. We easily imagine the stereotype forms of this opposition, but Ferris extends his criticism of illiberal ideas beyond the usual suspects. Coercive agendas are reentering modern politics in force. In America the Republican & Democratic parties both include majority factions who see ideas they wish suppressed, research they wish limited, trade they want prevented, liberties they want canceled.

Ferris has his own chart of contemporary politics. He proposes replacing the 1-dimensional Left/Right paradigm with a 2-D space showing the political spectrum shown as a triangle: Left & Right on the bottom corners, labeled "Progressive" & "Conservative" with (small "l") "liberal" at the upper apex. (This denotes liberalism in its original sense, a principled devotion to individual freedom, before before the word evolved to describe advocacy of a progressively expanding sphere of regulatory governance. (Ferris could as well have named his apex corner "Libertarian" and left the Liberal label on the left.) Later on he appends a second lower triangle to this 3-D graph to accommodate a "Totalitarian" corner at bottom center (thus forming a de facto square--an idea suggested long ago by a Libertarian writer whose name I've forgotten).

His relatively light chastisement "progressives" and "conservatives" is prudent and sensible: most of them support science in general and most pay at least occasional lip service to liberty. The gloves come off when exposing dictatorships (expected) and the radical anti-science fringe and police state-friendly professors within academia (not as expected), particularly the "deconstructionists" and the countless academic cranks who've made profitable careers attacking science, liberty, & virtually anything associated with Western Civilization. There's a good bibliography if you're skeptical of his descriptions of academic intolerance.

Clarity of prose is a fair indicator of clarity of mind. A good idea can be presented boringly, but a bad idea clearly expressed won't travel far. Compare the transparent clarity of this book with obfuscatory jargon of "Postmodern" academic neo-medievalists and you'll know why they write so opaquely--and what makes this book by contrast so well thought out, so utterly wise, necessary, and best of all, so wonderfully readable.

Good stuff... Those who enjoy and appreciate science should gain some valuable insight from the Science of Liberty regarding the many forks-in-the-roads that have brought us to where we are today. I beg to differ with the reviewer that characterized this book as "a sleeper". I found myself fascinated with the scholarly yet eminently readable history covered in the book that puts the topic into perspective with current events.

Not long ago I would have passed this book by - simply on the basis of its title and content. The engaging style of writing and fascinating topics covered kept me interested from beginning to end. I particularly enjoyed the many historical references and background that the book covers. Much of it I had a smattering of background in but the author was very good at delivering insightful snippets that brought history to life.

While not everyone will agree with Mr. Ferris, he makes a compelling argument for the value of science in promoting liberty and the general improvement in the quality of life for all those nations that embrace freedom in scientific endeavors. I for one agree with his observations and conclusions.

The central thesis of this work which connects scientific method and research with political democracy and liberalism is one which seems to me right. The non- authoritarian character of science, the focus on experiment and testing by empirical reality, the valuing of individual freedom, and willingness to make use of all potential talent, the capacity for self- correction, the remarkable power and capacity of Science and Technology to transform the world and improve the human condition, seem to fit well with the emphasis on Democracy, political freedom,individual liberty. Ferris' argument as I understand it is even stronger for he does not see a complementary connection only but also a causative one. The scientific mind and temperament of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic is contrasted with the authoritarian mind - set of absolutist French Revolutionaries. In a sense Ferris is getting at here an idea which has been developed at least in some degree by thinkers diverse as Karl Popper and Eric Hoffer, There is an opposition between the closed- minded fixed answer way of seeing the world and the open- minded experimental way. The latter is the way of the democracies and the former is the way of the Totalitarians whether they be in the political world or in the academic.
In all this I see Ferris as on the side of the angels. I do not know enough to really either defend or take issue with the body of his historical story. I too tend to sympathize with his strong critique of the Post- Modern nonsensists,
But I do wonder and am troubled by where Humanity as a whole now is in relation to the developments which have been described. Does the rise of scientific researches which involve very vast collaborative efforts really make room still for the work of individual genius? Have we perhaps reached a stage in Scientific Development where the individual creator is necessarily going to be marginalized, especially as there is work to create kinds of machine- minds which many believe will have powers far beyond the human? Is the fairly rosy picture of increasing Democracy politically really what is happening in the world, or is still a relatively small part of humanity which has true liberty and is involved in the truly creative scientific work? While clearly the argument for the overall benefit of scientific and technological progress of humanity is strong, there are also those possibilities and scenarios which indicate how through scientific and technical means mankind has done and will do incredible harm not only to the terrestial environment but to the very essence of what humanity is?
Briefly, it seems to me nothing is guaranteed . Francis Fukyama was a bit optimistic. And whether mankind will move in the direction of increased knowledge increased well- being and freedom is too a real question.
It would be tragic for us all if the development traced here, the development of scientific progress and political freedom proves not to be a continuous and ongoing one, but one which only describes a brief human interval of a few hundred years.

This proved to be such an engaging book that at times I found myself engaging in a heated argument with the author, hollering at the (unresponsive) book, "but what about..." or "but you're forgetting about....!" That alone wins it an extra star in my ranking, although Ferris's own occasional selective approach to scientific "evidence" for his conclusions continues to trouble me.

The argument at the heart of the book is deceptively simple: that political freedom and democracy is inextricably linked to the existence of a society in which scientists are free to question and experiment. That process of doubt and repeated attempts to make something better through experimentation is at the heart of the creation of modern democratic regimes, he argues -- which are the best option for the greatest number of citizens, he claims -- as well as at the heart of scientific progress, which also enriches the lives of those citizens. Both are 'liberal' in the classic sense of the word (not the sense in which it is usually employed in US political discourse.)

By far the best parts of the book are those Ferris devotes to history. I found myself laughing aloud at his scathing indictment of Rousseau (and sharing it, heartily), and reading with interest his thoughts on Newton, Locke and the differences between the French and American revolutions (even though the latter draw heavily on arguments made in Susan Dunn's excellent analysis, Sister Revolutions: French Lightning, American Light.) It's when he tries to extrapolate from his analysis of the past and apply it (in a surprisingly deterministic manner for someone who claims to disdain determinism) where I found myself rolling my eyes. A case in point: in his efforts to challenge dogmatic thinking (and dogma generally), Ferris takes aim at religion, which rarely encourages doubt, or at least puts it firmly in second place to faith. Fair enough. But then, he goes a step farther, trying to debunk the idea that religion can cause people to behave better by pointing out that the prison and death row populations are exponentially more religious than those of the broader community. That may well be, but Ferris seems to cheerfully discard the realization that just as there are few atheists in foxholes, so in prison it's an advantage to be religious, whether it gives a prisoner the strength to get through the day, an improved chance at parole, or just an extra hour or two out of his cell in the prison chapel once a week. That's an example of the too-often shaky logical underpinnings for Ferris's arguments, which are intriguing enough in their own right. He focuses on the atrocities committed in the name of totalitarian regimes, while overlooking the casualties incurred in the name of science and scientific research. (Just off the top of my head: thalidomide?) There are countless places in this narrative where I questioned the evidence he chose to support a point (or was bemused by the fact that he overlooked contradictory evidence.)

Despite that, this was a provocative book that made me think about these issues, and caused me to engage in a furious debate with myself (the book, alas, proving unresponsive when it came to a dialogue.) For that reason alone, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in intellectual history and political thought, although I'd encourage readers to examine Ferris's claims with just the kind of skeptical eye that he claims is essential in both scientific and political experimentation. There are some interesting ideas in here that deserve to be better supported and to win a broader audience.

When asked why liberty is good and why freedom works, one could get a variety of responses. Many could be based an individual's philosophical or religious point of view. Few explanations, however, cite scientific discovery as the single most important reason why liberty works. Ferris provides an analysis on various political positions ranging from "progressive" to "conservative" to "liberal". The political spectrum he describes forms a triangle rather than a single line upon which all political positions must fall. This effectively illustrates the tendencies for all three political positions to venture towards or away from "liberalism".

Ferris starts by summarizing the progress made during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods and the correlation between liberal open-minded dialog and scientific discovery. The reader can easily see the evidence showing the scientific inspiration of Jefferson, Franklin, and other prominent proponents of liberty. Ferris then addresses the particulars of why the French Revolution not only failed but also produced the antithesis of what may have been the sincere intentions of the revolutionaries. He also attacks the myths of totalitarian pseudoscience with ferocity proving how the open dialog required for scientific discovery are incompatible with the dictator's absolutism. Ferris also addresses current "anti-science" in the academic, religious, and philosophical spheres challenging the reader to think critically about how issues are being faced today.

Ferris masterfully articulates the way the scientific method of thought inspires cultures of liberty. The reader need not have a scientific background in order to appreciate the scientific inspirations that lead Sir Isaac Newton to support liberty. Though personally entertaining, Ferris is sometimes cynical in is criticisms of anti-scientific views which could be used against him in reputing his argument. I would recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand the democratic experiment beyond the usual rhetoric found today.

This is a provocative, well written book from a popular science writer with a novelist's narrative skill. I have very much enjoyed Ferris' earlier work, including Coming of Age in the Milky Way(great title) and The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Reportbut this is his best book.

In this he moves beyond his field of astronomy, but continues a "big picture" approach. He traces the development of science and the advent of democratic liberalism and demonstrates that essentially, you can't have one without the other. True, honest scientific research requires that people are free to reach any conclusion supported by the evidence.

The book covers a thousand years of history and moves across numerous scientific disciplines, but Ferris is up to the task. I thought the sections dealing with the French Revolution were the strongest, but the chapters on the development of the atomic bomb were also very well done.

Normally, I would have a problem with a book like this, which does not have a unifying "hero". But Ferris' writing skillis are considerable and we get numerous mini portraits of the characters.

This is an instant classic. A historical survey of science, philosophy and politics with the thesis that the scientific empirical, experimental approach is the fountainhead of progress and liberal democracy. Did you know that most of our founding fathers were not only philosophers but also scientists? Very well written, full of interesting stories, it is also a great defense of freedom and science.

One of George W. Bush's decidedly lessor known quotes is perhaps his most interesting, specifically: "As democracy spreads, so will peace."

While the course of history does seem idiosyncratic, one cannot help but wonder whether the Bush quote, along with the similar sounding Ferris thesis that is the subject of this book are more than mere pleasant myths.

In his usual compelling style, Ferris takes us on a 291 page journey through history and philosophy showing that where societies have been more committed to democratic principles, they've also been conducive to the same type of culture that fosters investigatory science.

Namely, they topple the sacred cows that questions may find their own answers through empirical testing. Good science does seem to require free and open discussion and it also does seem to have a corrosive effect on artificially imposed authority.

As I read this book, I couldn't help but remember the Thomas Kuhn masterpiece, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Interestingly enough, while Kuhn embraced many of the high sounding ideas about the scientific ideal Ferris discusses in this book, he also reminded readers of the very real human limitations of the scientists who actually advance the course of science. Importantly, Kuhn observed that as they grew older, even scientists would become regid in their application of old rules. He suggested that science proceeded "one funeral at a time" in that sometimes it required the death of greatly respected scientists in order for new ideas to get their fair hearing.

What this means is that maybe there's something inherent and significant about this "one funeral at a time" rule. Perhaps, as I suggested earlier, Ferris' "mere pleasant myth" is true but maybe even the course of scientific progress has its own speed limit, its Kuhn limit.

Regardless of the foregoing, this is a great, thought provoking book, a view of history through the lens of science. Like all of Ferris' work, I'd highly recommend it, as always, being great food for thought.

Wonderfully written, interesting, clear headed and inspiring. What that everyone on earth would read and understand the ideas in this book.