Bronowski's ethical argument.

[longship]

In the late 60's I became a fan of The Ascent of Man, the BBC's production of 13 essays by Jacob Bronowski, a mathematician and humanist. These video essays were a revelation. But of the 13 essays, none expressed the philosophy of science more precisely than Knowledge or Certainty.

In this one, Bronowski lays down the quantum physics in a way that no one has ever done before, nor will ever again. Furthermore, he lays down an ethical framework within science operates.

It is both a passionate and ethical argument, one in which answers can only come from a base of something like the scientific method.

Here's a quote from Bronowski's essay:

It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.

The Ascent of Man is a great collection of essays. But Bronowski really lays it all out on this one.

Just putting this out for other DUers.

[Xipe Totec]

1. I read Bronowski's book as part of a course - The History & Philosopy of Chemistry

I cracked the book open one evening after dinner, and I could not put it down. I finished it as the first rays of dawn peeked through my dorm window.

This is the best book have ever read. Bar none.

[Jim__]

2. Knowledge, certainty, and irony.

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

I find it ironic that in a program on the uncertainty of knowledge, and the danger to humanity of absolute certainty, a smirking Bronowski tells us that he detests Hegel and that, indeed, Hegel is a fool. Why is Hegel a fool? Well, at about 16:30 into the video, Bronowski tells an apocryphal story about Hegel giving an a priori proof that there can be only seven planets. This attack on Hegel is completely gratuitous. And, apparently, it is also completely wrong.

An excerpt from one source:

Aside from the hitherto discussed Hegel myths and legends, which lend themselves to some measure of categorization, there are a number of misconceptions about Hegel’s philosophy that stand on their own and need to be addressed individually. The final section of this collection is dedicated to these miscellaneous Hegel myths.

The general ignorance concerning Hegel’s natural philosophy in the inaugural dissertation, De Orbitis Planetarum, and in the second book of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences has given rise to some influential misinterpretations. His theory of the natural sciences has particularly been in disrepute because of its alleged attempt to demonstrate a priori that there were only seven planets, which proved to be particularly embarrassing given the discovery of Uranus in 1781, of which Hegel was apparently unaware. Thus, in a paradigm case of rationalism gone wild, Hegel, working with a purely non-empirical method, is thought to have wrongly deduced the necessity of the number of planets in the solar system. This myth is concisely treated by Bertrand Beaumont, who demonstrates that it has no foundation whatsoever in Hegel’s texts.

And here is a link to a more detailed explanation.

[longship]

3. Yes, and some of his science is out of date.

But the series was made in the sixties. So it doesn't bother me. Nor does his Hegel faux pas.

Neither detracts substantively from this series, IMHO, let alone the message Bronowski delivers. If you disagree, I have no problem with that.