If knowledge is divine, than science is religion. This is the premise behind Ferris' "Science of Liberty," an epic journey beyond how science informs liberalism as a political ideology.

Wildly entertaining, profound and poignant at times, "The Science of Liberty" charts the roots of science to the humanism of Western Enlightenment. It details how rationalists refuted the conventional discourses of Fideism, challenged contemporary interpretations of God or altogether discarded them in their pursuit of comprehending nature.

While entertaining, it is lucid and informative. Indeed, if rationalism is your Creed than "The Science of Liberty" should be your scripture. ( )

The central argument in this book is that individual freedom encourages science and that the lack individual freedom inhibits and distorts it. There is something here for everyone with preconceived notions of how things 'should' be to hate. I can't say I agreed with every point being made, but this is a book that will make you think and reexamine your assumptions. I recommend it. ( )

Really enjoyed this as I did Timothy Ferris's other book "Coming of Age in the Milky Way." Part science, part history, part philosophy this book explores the connection between advances in scientific discovery and democratic liberalism. His thesis is that one cannot exist without the other, each feeding off the other as they progress. He believes society can only prosper in such an environment.

Most of the book cites examples that illustrate this, from Newton to the present day. He explores the relative freedom of liberal democratic societies comparing them with those that have tried to suppress it. He cites fascism, communism, religious fanaticism and postmodernism as culprits that inhibit this progress. Each he says, substitutes scientific objectivity with a relativism that encourages abuses of power and causes backwardness.

He levels some of his most pointed criticisms at the wave of postmodern deconstruction that has become fashionable at academic institutions in the 20th century. He views this trend with alarm as scholars make claims about the relativism of scientific discovery; asserting there is no objective scientific truth, and that any discovery that makes that claim is inherently tainted by the bias of the discoverer. A notion he views as beyond ridiculous - and dangerous. By assuming all scientific discovery is thus subject to disproof, students aren't encouraged to actually learn the science they have been trained to criticize.

Ferris even takes on one of the most influential works describing the history of science - Thomas Kuhn's landmark work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn's assertion in that work is that scientific truth is not based on objective criteria, but is defined by the consensus of the scientific community. As such it consists not only of objective observation, but of the subjective perceptions of those forming that consensus. Discovery that comes into conflict with this consensus and breaks through it to form a new consensus are said to have initiated "paradigm shifts" - a term Kuhn coined to describe this sudden and successful change in that consensus. Since scientific truth cannot be ascertained objectively, there can be no such thing as an assertion of scientific truth.

Ferris views this as nonsense and simply another way to inject relativism and subjectivity into perceptions of scientific discovery. In this way those who have agendas other than the search for truth can assert that flaws in the scientific method are no different than flaws in any other system. They can thus conform their view of scientific discovery with whatever ideology they have constructed (e.g. "Socialist Science").

He also describes the ideological spectrum as a triangle. Instead of progressive and conservative at two ends of a line, they populate two vertices of a triangle, with liberalism at the other. As societies implement policies they move along these vertices toward more or less liberalism...and that these shifts can validly come from either the progressive or conservative side. Liberal democratic societies thus oscillate between them constantly trying to find the right balance of freedom and regulation to maximize progress. (this is a very quick and crude explanation of what Ferris describes in the book).

All of this is very well written in a smooth and non technical way. While reading it I found I suddenly understood concepts I had only a dim comprehension of before. It's only weakness in my opinion is the scrupulous effort made to balance any criticism of conservative ideology with one of progressivism...even if that attempt was strained. I also think he is too dismissive of criticisms of globalization, income inequality, and corporate power.

Highly recommended!

( )

skimmed this come back with more time - makes the case for science as the inspiration behind the rise of liberalism and democracy ( )

Timothy Ferris is an enthusiastic student and synthesizer of others' primary research. This means he paints inevitably broad strokes and makes necessary selections from vast specialist literatures. It also means that he, like most of us, occasionally stumbles with inaccurate facts or infelicitous summaries of complex ideas. (Two examples occurring to this reviewer are a minor misstatement about the effects of neutron bombs and a brief discussion of Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions that might be a little misleading. But whether neutron bombs destroy property has no bearing on Ferris' thesis and the argument would be little improved by adding more of Kuhn's ideas about the usefulness of "normal science" between "revolutions." A selection was made; take it as you find it.) But Ferris is honest and thus provides fairly detailed notes, which enable the reader to do two things that substantially increase the value of the book: check his work and use his synthesis as a reference piece. Readers who fail to understand this particular genre (not specialized, not exhaustive, argumentative but transparent) will criticize it unfairly on points that make no difference to its viability.

That prefatory caveat (and high-horsey admonition to other reviewers) aside, The Science of Liberty tells a story that needs to be told more often: science and liberalism (the lowercase variety) go hand-in-hand to promote freedom and well-being by systematically and constitutionally rejecting ideology and dogma. Even better, Ferris narrates his argument, from the Milesians to global warming and Islamist terrorism, with easy clarity. Science thrives when and where people are free to think, investigate, and communicate without state restrictions; thriving science promotes technological benefits; and creative investigations of our world are further enabled where well-being is enhanced by those benefits. Meanwhile, the virtuous habits of doubting what is received while emphasizing the provisionality of what is given promote the development of a more tolerant and humane world. And, finally, the universal accessibility science makes its benefits more broadly shareable than those of ideology and dogma, which thrive on parochialism. His argument comes, essentially, to this: science without liberty withers away, while the values that science promotes can only bolster liberty; the two together form something like a positive feedback loop.

Near the end of the book, a chapter each is devoted to two forms of what Ferris calls "antiscience": totalitarianism and postmodern pseudo-intellectualism. The "pseudo-" is not his, but Ferris would surely not disagree; he calls it "Academic Antiscience," but observes that the postmodern critique, insofar as it is valuable, states only obvious trivialities (that scientific findings are provisional, that scientists cannot claim pure objectivity, etc.) and has elsewhere called the rest of it "pernicious nonsense." On totalitarianism, page after page of examples from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China support his argument: ideology and dogma promoted to political authority stifle scientific research surely and with stunning consciousness of motive in their implementation.

The broad, underlying point of The Science of Liberty might have been stated more clearly. Ferris suggests, without saying it clearly and succinctly, that science and liberalism are, if not the most "natural" mode of human existence (and what does "natural" mean, anyway?), the surest path to well-being and self-realization. It is a bold argument (and one of the blurbs on the back of the dust jacket says that "He boldly goes where no science writer has gone before") but one that deserves to be considered. ( )