How Science Is Losing Its Humanity


The Closing of the Scientific Mind is a plea for scientists to celebrate and enhance humanity rather than belittle human life.  Author David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale. His book Subjectivism: The Mind from Inside will be published by Norton later this year.  Excerpts below.

The huge cultural authority science has acquired over the past century imposes large duties on every scientist. Scientists have acquired the power to impress and intimidate every time they open their mouths, and it is their responsibility to keep this power in mind no matter what they say or do. Too many have forgotten their obligation to approach with due respect the scholarly, artistic, religious, humanistic work that has always been mankind’s main spiritual support. Scientists are (on average) no more likely to understand this work than the man in the street is to understand quantum physics. But science used to know enough to approach cautiously and admire from outside, and to build its own work on a deep belief in human dignity. No longer.

Belittling Humanity.

Today science and the “philosophy of mind”—its thoughtful assistant, which is sometimes smarter than the boss—are threatening Western culture with the exact opposite of humanism. Call it roboticism. Man is the measure of all things, Protagoras said. Today we add, and computers are the measure of all men.

Many scientists are proud of having booted man off his throne at the center of the universe and reduced him to just one more creature—an especially annoying one—in the great intergalactic zoo. That is their right. But when scientists use this locker-room braggadocio to belittle the human viewpoint, to belittle human life and values and virtues and civilization and moral, spiritual, and religious discoveries, which is all we human beings possess or ever will, they have outrun their own empiricism. They are abusing their cultural standing. Science has become an international bully.

The Closing of the Scientific Mind.

That science should face crises in the early 21st century is inevitable. Power corrupts, and science today is the Catholic Church around the start of the 16th century: used to having its own way and dealing with heretics by excommunication, not argument.

Science is caught up, also, in the same educational breakdown that has brought so many other proud fields low. Science needs reasoned argument and constant skepticism and open-mindedness. But our leading universities have dedicated themselves to stamping them out—at least in all political areas. We routinely provide superb technical educations in science, mathematics, and technology to brilliant undergraduates and doctoral students. But if those same students have been taught since kindergarten that you are not permitted to question the doctrine of man-made global warming, or the line that men and women are interchangeable, or the multiculturalist idea that all cultures and nations are equally good (except for Western nations and cultures, which are worse), how will they ever become reasonable, skeptical scientists? They’ve been reared on the idea that questioning official doctrine is wrong, gauche, just unacceptable in polite society. (And if you are president of Harvard, it can get you fired.)

Beset by all this mold and fungus and corruption, science has continued to produce deep and brilliant work. Most scientists are skeptical about their own fields and hold their colleagues to rigorous standards. Recent years have seen remarkable advances in experimental and applied physics, planetary exploration and astronomy, genetics, physiology, synthetic materials, computing, and all sorts of other areas.

But we do have problems, and the struggle of subjective humanism against roboticism is one of the most important.

The moral claims urged on man by Judeo-Christian principles and his other religious and philosophical traditions have nothing to do with Earth’s being the center of the solar system or having been created in six days, or with the real or imagined absence of rational life elsewhere in the universe. The best and deepest moral laws we know tell us to revere human life and, above all, to be human: to treat all creatures, our fellow humans and the world at large, humanely. To behave like a human being (Yiddish: mensch) is to realize our best selves.

No other creature has a best self.

This is the real danger of anti-subjectivism, in an age where the collapse of religious education among Western elites has already made a whole generation morally wobbly. When scientists casually toss our human-centered worldview in the trash with the used coffee cups, they are re-smashing the sacred tablets, not in blind rage as Moses did, but in casual, ignorant indifference to the fate of mankind.

A world that is intimidated by science and bored sick with cynical, empty “postmodernism” desperately needs a new subjectivist, humanist, individualist worldview. We need science and scholarship and art and spiritual life to be fully human. The last three are withering, and almost no one understands the first.

At first, roboticism was just an intellectual school. Today it is a social disease. Some young people want to be robots (I’m serious); they eagerly await electronic chips to be implanted in their brains so they will be smarter and better informed than anyone else (except for all their friends who have had the same chips implanted). Or they want to see the world through computer glasses that superimpose messages on poor naked nature. They are terrorist hostages in love with the terrorists.

All our striving for what is good and just and beautiful and sacred, for what gives meaning to human life and makes us (as Scripture says) “just a little lower than the angels,” and a little better than rats and cats, is invisible to the roboticist worldview. In the roboticist future, we will become what we believe ourselves to be: dogs with iPhones. The world needs a new subjectivist humanism now—not just scattered protests but a growing movement, a cry from the heart.

Footnote:  A related post provides additional background:  Head, Heart and Science


  1. craigm350 · June 13, 2017

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.


  2. Pingback: How Science Is Losing Its Humanity | Principia Scientific International
  3. Trevor collins · June 14, 2017

    Nothing to do with the Catholic Church……regards, from New Zealand…Trevor.


  4. tengoku1 · June 14, 2017

    I’ve been making this type of comment for quite a few years now – that the modern Evolutionist/Global Warming regime is copying the tactics the Roman Catholic Church used to quash opposing views in the Dark Ages.


  5. Pingback: PowerLinks 06.19.17 – Acton Institute PowerBlog
  6. Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: July 3, 2017 - Master Resource
  7. Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – July 3rd 2017 | PA Pundits - International
  8. basicrulesoflife · July 5, 2017

    In order to give the information processing machines (IPM) the choices, their behavior has to be connected with values. In order to orient the IPM to some goal, their behavior must be evaluated and reward and punishment must be used. Most known contemporary IPM – Homo sapiens’ – main problem is due to the fact that rewards and punishments are outdated completely and without hope, they are not appropriate for contemporary conditions of life we have created (E.O. Wilson). For example, genetically inherited rewards and punishments of Homo sapiens are not appropriate for fulfilling the highest value and task of Homo sapiens – to get Cosmos conscious (Carl Sagan). These inherited needs, rewards and punishments are even hazardous: they push humanity to self-destruction.
    Instead of realizing this great task, responsibility and possibility, many scientists toss up fantasies about ‘quantum consciousness’ (Dr. Daniel Siegel) and Platonic world (Roger Penrose), where all information is in some way ‘stored’, and scientists somehow and sometimes manage to ‘read’ it.
    Imants Vilks,


    • Ron Clutz · July 6, 2017

      Thanks for that context for looking at this issue. What do you see as the way forward for the human-machine interface?


  9. Hunter · July 26, 2017

    As bad as the Catholic church was in many ways, it was good in many others. It held itself subservient to an outside authority. The mess of the emerging disorder rejects any outside authority and seems committed to the final step in existentialism: an end to existence.


  10. Pingback: How Science Is Losing Its Humanity – Nurse's Note
  11. Pingback: VoteFraud.News – New Human New Earth Communities
  12. Pingback: Wither the GOP? – Climate-

Leave a Reply to Hunter Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s