I wish I could remember which of you recommended The Knowledge Machine to me because talking with its author Michael Strevens was the most pleasant serendipity. I had his book on my desk when I logged into the National Academy of Science’s committee on misinformation and saw his smiling face. Around 24:28 minutes in Strevens says science COULD NEVA be totalitarian and Idk if this is true. I think this depends mainly on the definition of science. Reductionist science as it stands could not but a mutated Swiss Army knife kind of thing, could do some damage, and honestly, this is my worry about labeling complexity as a science. However, talking with people like Erik gives me some assurance since he admits that science may always be incomplete. I think the reductionist scientists are a bit more ignorant about these dangers than those who are studying complexity, but both have enough hubris to think they can do better.
I also feel like a big chunk of the episode was Strevens and I going back and forth on our scientific/existential/philosophical anxieties. I’m not complaining. It was great. He was incredibly easy to talk to and is one of those kinds of academics that makes me miss being on campus. I hope our conversation brings you as much fun as it did me!
Time Stamps
This BIg Nerve Question:
What could be some unexplored misconceptions about science that need to be rectified to enhance its value?
This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some really tough questions click the linked question and start playing!
More resources:
Share this post