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

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

• 
  Prooost Davis

  I hesitate to recommend any book as a "must read," because, if you're like me, hearing a book described as such makes me want to avoid reading it.
  
  But I've gotta take the risk. "The Science of Liberty" is a must read.
  
  Timothy Ferris's argument is that science tends to debunk received authority, making the world freer (Ferris would say more liberal); at the same time, in a more liberal atmosphere, science flourishes. These things seemed self-evident to me, but Ferris, as a science enthusiast, takes the trouble to gather the empirical evidence to back them up.
  
  I was a little nervous when Ferris defined his own liberalism as "classical liberalism," which includes a dedication to "small government," since I always describe myself as left of center. But Ferris is no Libertarian: the government has a place in fostering fairness in people's dealings in the free market. And some government spending is helpful. What government ought not do is top-down planning of the economy (note the dismal failure of communism). And the government ought to try to stay out of the way of the scientific enterprise as much as possible, rather than deciding what science should be pursued at the service of the state.
  
  Dogma is the enemy of science, and of freedom, and "The Science of Liberty" has a chapter each on religious, political (both left and right), and even academic dogmas that have attacked science over the years.
  
  "The Science of Liberty" didn't so much recalibrate my politics as clarify to me what I value. It actually has rather a calming effect in this time of political polarization. I can actually imagine liberals and conservatives finding some common ground in its contents.
  
  If you don't appreciate my characterization of this book as a must read, let me say that the book shouldn't be missed.
• 
  Malini Sridharan

  I don't think that the author did what he set out to do at all-- he said he was going to prove that science led to liberalism-- or that he really knew what he was talking about.
  
  There's a lot of gloss and not a lot of in-depth analysis. The philosophies of many figures are distorted or just plainly misrepresented to make them fit the discussion. For instance, Copernicus's writings clearly show that wanted to make his data fit a pre-conceived notion of celestial geometry. Ferris acts as though Copernicus just made a model to fit the data without any prior philosophy. To ignore the actual working methods of pre-modern scientists in order to make them sound like more modern, liberal men is ridiculous.
  
  I was especially annoyed by the discussion of "academic anti-science." Ferris doesn't seem to understand anything that Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn had to say about the practice of science. The treatment of Popper was particularly upsetting. Popper meticulously laid out the connections between the scientific method and liberal governing in his writings and was staunch defender of both, yet was treated by Ferris as their unwitting enemy. While discussing post-modernism, Ferris chooses the farthest-out examples, fails to meaningfully link them to actual scientific philosophy, and then brushes off all modern criticism of science as similarly fatuous. He thinks that Derrida and Kuhn have something very important in common, which is just silly. Ferris doesn't want to accept that scientists can possibly be influenced by their worldview, which is just as stupid as saying that a scientist's worldview is their only influence.
  
  Science and liberal governments can change over time, and are in fact built TO change. No individual player need be the perfect scientist or politician, nor need they pretend to be such. Ferris pays lip service to this idea but doesn't really seem to understand how the tentativeness of these enterprises makes them so robust.
  
  
• 
  Gofita

  Excellent book on how liberal democracies promote science and thus overall freedom. It's basically a mini history on liberal democracy and other forms of government that haven't panned out so well. In the end science and reason promote tolerance and human rights.
• 
  David Rubenstein

  What an excellent book! Very entertaining, and full of a very unique point of view. I enjoyed most of all, the descriptions of how the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are written in language that only a scientist would use. The author's point of view is very convincing. Mainly, that nations that are founded "as an experiment"--and do not have constitutions and laws that are cast in stone forever--are bound to be most successful in the long run. Conditions change over time, and no unchanging constitution or set of laws can possibly cope with these changes. A flexible set of laws and a constitution written in such a way that allow democratic changes--these help prevent tyranny. The analogies with science are very interesting; for example, the fact that science is a process, not an end result with definitive conclusions.
• 
  Philip of Macedon

  Reading this book was enjoyable, in that I learned a lot of details and enlightening, connected threads of history I didn't already know, but it was in a sense kind of preaching to the choir. I didn't have to be convinced of Ferris's thesis, it is one I have accepted for a long time. The thesis he is supporting is almost self evident, one that doesn't have many roadblocks in its way or obstacles, as the whole of history generally supports this thesis with little or no room for disagreement. But not all obvious relationships can be stated with the assumption that they will be accepted by the general public. So Ferris takes up the job of more or less proving the thesis true, and does a great job of it.
  
  This wasn't a mere reading of something that would reinforce the thoughts I already held, reaffirm the facts as I understand them, rather it was the reading of an excellent text that shed more light on the relationship between science and the principles of Enlightenment-derived liberalism, a story that is as blatant as the relationship between the Sun and life after you become familiar with it.
  
  Going back to the American and French Revolutions, Ferris illustrates how the two vastly differed in philosophical impulse, in the basis of their liberalism and understanding of scientific principles, resulting in the vastly different outcomes of each, as well as the legacies each would leave. He draws unsettling but obvious links between the French revolutionaries of the time and fascism, communism, and totalitarianism in general. He pushes forward through so many forces of history and episodes of scientific success and failure, with a limitless library of cause and effect between the victories and defeats of ideas and theories, weaving a spectacular web of cohesive, logical, clear-headed reasoning and examination that it never ceases to impress, and sometimes can call for pause to go over it again.
  
  His analyses of totalitarian and academic antiscience and antiliberal ideation are spot on, consistent, and borne of many decades of historical evidence. He dismantles myths about fascist Nazi science, communist Russian science, and pulls away layer after layer to help us understand precisely the myriad errors and total philosophical, economic, and social blunders that held these and other totalitarian empires back, fooled many into thinking they could succeed, and he has given a complete picture of how ideologies and dogmas, from religion to postmodernism, always hinder progress and understanding, and are enemies to true discovery.
  
  The book is part crash course history of real liberalism (as opposed to the often mislabled progressivism and leftism), part philosophy, part history of Western science.
  
  Ferris tears down a litany of bad ideas and misconceptions, raising in their place a lighthouse of best-estimation-of-truth-available. Not only does he explain with great care and clarity the events and ideas that allowed important discoveries in social and scientific knowledge, as well as the circumstances that have prevented them in other places and times, but he puts forward one of the best, most comprehensive understandings of science and its benefits to thought that I have read from a popular writer. He has a better grasp of it than many scientists.
  
  Highly recommended.
• 
  Daniel DeLappe

  "It seems we need to fight the battle for Enlightenment all over again." This quote by Salman Rushdie is perfect. This is hands down the best written and understandable science book I have read since The Demon Haunted World. This book should be taught in a mandatory Critical Thinking/History of Science class in High School. The basics-Science is not a Democratic Science, Republican Science, feminist Science, african american science or aryan brotherhood science. Science is a sytem of knowlege that when done correctly can not lie. The problem seems to be that some people can not handle the answers. Just think Dogma. Read and enjoy and read it more then once. There is alot to digest. Which is how life should be lived.
• 
  Raphael Rosen

  
  This is a profoundly interesting book. In it, Ferris argues that the more-or-less simultaneous rise of liberal democracy and modern science is not a coincidence: both thrive on the open exchange of ideas and an experimental spirit. If you like the history of ideas, this is the book for you.
• 
  Jannik Faierson

  The message of this book is clear: liberal democracy and science can only thrive in unison and thus contribute to human progress. I appreciated the interdisciplinary approach of the author: Investigating the nature of science and its implications on politics through a historical and theoretical lens. Although the book is undoubtedly well-researched, I struggled with its argumentation, structure, and language.
  
  First, Ferris presents several historical accounts, many citations, and overall a kind of narrative that aims to demonstrate the superiority of science. However, his arguments often generalize from a few examples while lacking a contrary position. Furthermore, some claims that posit the unique capabilities of science and liberty (e.g. in contrast to fascism or communism) argue from a modern vantage point and establish a superiority of liberal democracy based on the flaws of other systems. In particular, I missed a clear definition of science at the beginning since later connections from liberalism to science often seemed insubstantial. The second to last chapter best exemplifies this. Ferris argues in essence that postmodernism in academia is a misunderstanding originating from a communist joke and a fascist philosophy. Although his analyses of primary sources are sufficiently developed, the resulting argument is not strong enough to support such a harsh conclusion. Overall, I sensed a potential for bias and too bold claims in this book, which in a way also undermines his empirical and humble account of science.
  
  Second, this is also resembled in his structure. Historical accounts are rarely chronological and jump from one account to another without a clear reason to the reader why. This makes the argument less compelling and the writing overall messy. It felt to me as though I was researching many different sources, and got acquainted with some great analyses, but the overall argument was too feeble.
  
  And third, the language was often overly complicated, too sophisticated, and sentences too long. Furthermore, I spotted some formatting errors and was unhappy with how too many citations were crammed into the text.
  
  And I did not even mention his isolated account of science's role in countering climate change at the end of the way how modern China seems to provide a potential huge counterexample to Ferris' overall argument. Nonetheless, I have still learned a lot about history and the intricate relationship between science and politics. Although it was worth a read, it was neither very enjoyable nor worthy of recommendation.
• 
  Joe Robles

  A great book on the interplay between science and liberty. The best science comes from those places with the most freedom. Also those countries that place a premium on science, will become more democratic. Argues quite well that there needs to be a separation between science and state for the same reason that there needs to be a separation of church and state. When one interferes with the other, both suffer.
  
  A great read, though I must admit that the section that went into great detail explaining how GDP (gross domestic product) was effected by science and democracy, did make my eyes glaze over, but I still give it 5 stars.
• 
  Carol

  One of my favorite science authors, right after Richard Feynman.
  
  Quotes:
  "(This book) Maintains that the democratic revolution was sparked ....by the scientific revolution"
  
  "What (Thomas) Paine brought...was an unprecedented combination of coolheaded empirical judgement and blast-furnace rhetoric."
  
  "..a democratic nation can limp along even when its chief of state is widely understood to be a lazy, bumbling simpleton. Fallible leadership is the only kind of leadership any nation ever has. Since totalitarians cannot afford to admit this, their domains start and end in fantasy."
  
• 
  David Moore

  This was a great book that talks about how societies that foster dialog and fierce conversations, what the author calls creative conflict, have great advances in science. Without the liberty of free speech, or in cultures where it is forbidden to have a differing opinion, science and innovation are stifled.
• 
  Timothy Finucane

  Fantastic expose on the benefits of science under liberal democracy. Timothy Ferris excels at showing us why science seems to flourish under a free society, and languish under repressive regimes. A must read for anyone who loves freedom and the benefits that science brings to the world.
• 
  Suzanne

  I've had this book on my shelf practically since it came out in 2010, but in hindsight, I'm glad I waited to read it until now. With eight years of the Obama administration behind us, it provides an interesting lens with which to view modern American politics, science and where we're heading.
  
  Ferris proclaims himself a classical liberal, and proceeds to lay out his assertions that economically and socially successful societies value freedom. It is liberty itself that allows the scientific advances to flourish, according to Ferris.
  
  I greatly enjoyed the way the author delved into history and science to make his case, and generally I agree with him. As a student of political science, we were taught that political thought lay on a horizontal continuum, with fascism on one end and anarchy on the other. Today's Republicans and Democrats lay along the center, one being just right of center and the other just left of center. For years, however, both parties subscribed to classical liberalism, more or less. But Ferris proposes a new diagram to explain political thought. It is a diamond: classical liberal is at the top, conservative and progressive are on respective sides, and totalitarian is at the bottom. He explains that both conservative and progressive leanings are equidistant from both the classical liberal and totalitarianism, and therefore just as likely to be swayed by either argument.
  
  I enjoyed this book so much. I would love to sit down and have a conversation with Timothy Ferris now, with his reflections on the recent election and the changes in both political parties. I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in history, science, economics or politics.
• 
  Joe Stack

  If the author’s objective was to make the case that science inspired or fueled the rise of liberal democracy, then this book failed to meet my expectations. On the other hand, this is an excellent history of the symbiotic relationship of science & democracy, and why science thrives in a liberal (classic liberalism per the author) democracy. I think the author makes some leaps at the beginning of some chapters that are effective in getting to the main point of the chapters, but are not supported. For example, why did a large group of philosophers all of a sudden start expressing thoughts about “reason & rights?” Coincidence? Or, was it because of science as the author thinks it may have been. And another, why did the French Revolution turn to terror? The author suggests it was because the revolutionaries didn’t follow science, the scientific method of experimentation. In neither of these two examples did I find that science or lack of science convincingly supported, but these suppositions did enable the author to bring the reader into the meat of the chapters. I found the best chapters to be “Power,” “Progress,” “The Science of Wealth,” & “One World.” 4 stars to these chapters, especially “Wealth.” The last chapter, “One World,” with the author’s review of the problem with Islamism seemed to me to be a digression from the theme of this book, but then he turns to global warming and establishes the importance of science and decision making. This is a an excellent section to get a good, clear understanding of global warming, and what the term “very likely” means in science. Overall, a thoughtful, challenging book.
• 
  David

  The author does an excellent job explaining how scientific freedom and political freedom go hand in hand. He traces the path of classical liberalism and shows that empirical science only flourishes where doubt is permitted. His treatment of how poorly science fared under Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese authoritarian regimes is brilliant.
  
  The author makes a glaring omission in how Protestant Christianity provided much of the questioning worldview and political framework that enabled empirical science to take hold. Science didn't just happen by itself.
  
  I have my quibbles with some other things the author says. The book was written in 2008, so he's taking potshots at President Bush and fawning over President Obama, unaware of the painful realities ahead that utterly disprove his theories of how the US economy fares better under Democrats.
  
  It was refreshing to see a political liberal take on and lay waste to postmodernism. Science is science- observable and testable, regardless of one's ethnicity or views. Of course, I'm only saying this because I'm a Caucasian male Westerner living in a particular political and social construct, or whatever other idiotic drivel postmodernists would come up with.
  
  Not a must-read, but a probably-should-read.
• 
  Aaron Adamson

  This was a fantastic read. I felt that there were a few points of bias in this admittedly very political book, but overall it the author seems to equally provoke the progressive and conservative in his aim to demonstrate that liberal democracy (as defined by Locke and his contemporaries) is both the enabler and consequence of a scientific worldview. Ferris gives examples of both Democrats and Republicans demonstrating an unfortunate willingness to curtail the key values of classical liberalism, which he would define as freedom, education, and equal opportunity. Overall, this is a thought-provoking book that provides a unique perspective on the philosophical and political trends that have both shaped and been shaped by the advent of science.
• 
  Amarjeet Singh

  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.
• 
  Claudio D'Andrea

  Incisive exercise into the history of science and liberty. Wonderfully written and opened up my eyes about how science and liberty are entwined.
  I think the author's viewpoint is somewhat skewed toward certain democratic nations (i.e. the United States) as bright, shining polar opposites of totalitarian regimes. I would have liked to get his take on how states that are in between (e.g. social democratic countries) nurture and nourish their sciences but this is a quibble.
  I highly recommend this book.
• 
  Dan

  Science and liberty are in a feedback loop. Science needs liberty to thrive and reliance on empirical evidence leads to more liberty. Similar in theme to Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now, but written eight years earlier and more detailed references to the writing and thinking of actual enlightenment figures.
• 
  Manahil

  3.4*s
  The premise of this book is fairly straight forward but it is backed up well. The love the earlier chapters in the book with the birth of the scientific method up until the french revolution. After that, I found myself less engaged but still not checked out. This book is quite good in that it provides a nice overview of the aspects of history that relate to science.
• 
  Mafalda Cardeira

  One of the best books I have ever read. About science and religion - connect d to freedom. Couldn’t ask for a better book about this issues. Hope to find other books of this quality. Already translated to Portuguese!
• 
  Eric

  It came out ten years ago and with everything go on now it is so apt. A tome about the history of science in free and not so free societies. Recommended
• 
  Adrian Solorzano

  I read it in the college library. Well written and thought provoking.