The Science Delusion by Curtis White, begins by referring to the “clash” between evangelicals and scientists which is characterized by “New Atheist” authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.  White finds the New Atheists to be arrogant and self-satisfied, and I don’t think he is alone in his opinion.  But his complaints about science go farther than these authors.

White’s main complaint seems to be that scientists are trying to explain phenomena that used to be the exclusive domain of philosophers.  He seems particularly annoyed that scientists find science delightful and amazing even as they proclaim that there is no “meaning of life”.  He insists science writers could only be consistent if they deny feeling emotional reactions to their work, which seems bizarre to me.  White claims science says we are “just” matter and “mere congeries of meat”, even while quoting physicist Richard Feynman as saying “nothing is ‘mere'”.  White is particularly annoyed with Feynman, who plays bongos and says living things can be understood as atoms acting according to the laws of physics; as if juxtaposing the two things is insulting.  He faults scientists for failing to be curious about what their own “feeling of awe” means.

White traces modern science to the Enlightenment but prefers the counter-Enlightenment Romantics without really defining either philosophy.  Perhaps the short book (110 pages) does not allow room for much explanation.

White cites examples that show scientists are fallible human beings and then claims “science” refuse to admit this.  I have found evidence that scientists know they are fallible humans; one of my favorite quotes is from evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (whom White quotes in the book) that “science must be understood as a gutsy, human enterprise, not the work of robots.”

I think White misunderstands science and most scientists.  There is an ideology called “scientism” that claims discovering facts will solve every personal and political policy issue, but you can find better places to read about it.

Note:  When I review a book, I simply read the book as I find it on the shelf.  There is an interesting post about The Science Delusion that goes beyond the book to include an interview with the author.  The author, apparently, feels that reviewers have missed the point of his book and failed to recognize the satirical tone he intended.  I particularly was fascinated by this exchange:

Interviewer:  You mentioned that you don’t really write your essays to convince anyone of anything, that you’re instead writing to provide aid and comfort to people who already agree with you.

Author:  Writing to change your opponent’s position is a mostly hopeless task… Does anyone read [an article] who is not already convinced by its… point of view? Not many… My native audience tends to be among artists, lefty intellectuals, humanists, and other species of the socially dispossessed.

Read the entire post at  boingboing.net