What do you think?
Rate this book
The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature
“Ferris is a master analogist who conveys his insights on the history of cosmology with a lyrical flair.” —The New York Times Book Review
In The Science of Liberty, award-winning author Timothy Ferris—called “the best popular science writer in the English language today” by the Christian Science Monitor and “the best science writer of his generation” by the Washington Post—makes a passionate case for science as the inspiration behind the rise of liberalism and democracy. In the grand tradition of such luminaries of the field as Bill Bryson, Richard Dawkins, and Oliver Sacks—as well as his own The Whole Shebang and Coming of Age in the Milky Way—Ferris has written a brilliant chronicle of how science sparked the spread of liberal democracy and transformed today’s world.
In The Science of Liberty, award-winning author Timothy Ferris—called “the best popular science writer in the English language today” by the Christian Science Monitor and “the best science writer of his generation” by the Washington Post—makes a passionate case for science as the inspiration behind the rise of liberalism and democracy. In the grand tradition of such luminaries of the field as Bill Bryson, Richard Dawkins, and Oliver Sacks—as well as his own The Whole Shebang and Coming of Age in the Milky Way—Ferris has written a brilliant chronicle of how science sparked the spread of liberal democracy and transformed today’s world.
388 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 21, 2010
99 people are currently reading
1431 people want to read
About the author
Timothy Ferris
59 books251 followersTimothy Ferris is the author of a dozen books (most recently The Science of Liberty), plus 200 articles and essays, and three documentary films—"The Creation of the Universe," “Life Beyond Earth,” and “Seeing in the Dark”—seen by over 20 million viewers.
Ferris produced the Voyager phonograph record, an artifact of human civilization containing music and sounds of Earth launched aboard the twin Voyager interstellar spacecraft.
Called “the best popular science writer in the English language” by The Christian Science Monitor and “the best science writer of his generation” by The Washington Post, Ferris has received the American Institute of Physics prize and a Guggenheim Fellowship.
A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Professor Ferris has taught in five disciplines at four universities. He is currently an emeritus professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Ferris produced the Voyager phonograph record, an artifact of human civilization containing music and sounds of Earth launched aboard the twin Voyager interstellar spacecraft.
Called “the best popular science writer in the English language” by The Christian Science Monitor and “the best science writer of his generation” by The Washington Post, Ferris has received the American Institute of Physics prize and a Guggenheim Fellowship.
A Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Professor Ferris has taught in five disciplines at four universities. He is currently an emeritus professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
March 5, 2011
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.
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.
August 22, 2010
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.
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.
September 17, 2010
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.
October 16, 2011
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.
April 18, 2022
Worst book I've read in a while.
Most of the book comprises unsubstantiated claims and unsound arguments.
Most of the book comprises unsubstantiated claims and unsound arguments.
December 23, 2021
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.
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.
June 26, 2010
"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.
July 7, 2012
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.
July 5, 2023
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.
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.
May 6, 2025
Read for a class, generally enjoyable and interesting. You can see how the work and the thinking it promotes has aged though. The author fields a prediction that China will be forced to liberalize within the next few decades if it wants to scientifically compete with the rest of the world…how’s that working out? The book shows the limits of ideology in many ways as pertains to scientific advancement, but also accepts too many of liberalism’s premises naively.
June 24, 2010
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.
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.
February 17, 2012
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."
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."
September 17, 2010
This is one of my favorite books; it was instant love as I was reading through it. It is a beautiful synthesis of scientific history and the political landscape that it needs to survive and thrive. Using examples of success and failure, Ferris strongly argues that science needs a liberalism (not politcally, per se) to be science. Basically, science and democracy go hand in hand and science cannot thrive in a non democratic state. Examples are used from the past and present to illustrate that point.
August 5, 2011
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.
August 21, 2010
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.
December 30, 2024
Ferris has an axe to grind as the title implies, and he outlines his reason for writing in the first lines. That is, science and democracy have been expanding together in the past 300 years giving us the world we have today. These two "transformations" are linked and together demand a political and social structure that assures liberty: the observance of human rights and freedom. The author divides the book into three parts. First, the historical development of science and democracy; second, the development of democratic and scientific societies to explore their effects on social policy; and third, the standing of science and democracy today in providing hope for preserving liberty in the face of anti-science, anti-intellectual, and authoritarian forces seemingly on the rise.
The historical development is a clear presentation worthy of praise, though I'm sure the author would not claim to be original in the linking of the two ideas. What is most pleasurable is the conciseness of the treatment taking the reader from the dawn of civilization into the 16th and 17th centuries. I drew from this section the idea that both democracy and science have ancient roots but could not dominate as they do today because of the limitations of social interactions. He lists five attributes of science that require a liberal-democratic environment in order for science to flourish. First, it is anti-authoritarian. Second, it is self-correcting. Third, it must draw from a diversity of sources. Fourth, it is powerful in producing economic and military strength. And fifth, science is a social activity. If any of these attributes is disabled or weakened, science is degraded, and with it, the benefits of science. Concomitantly, individual liberty and human freedom are diminished.
As science provided means for military dominance and economic benefits, various political systems were experienced, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, Nazism, communism, and 'Islamism'. The flourishing of both liberty and science can be observed in these various political systems, even if all of them feature forms of democracy. Ferris' argument is that as liberty is encumbered, so is science. The cultures that fail to encourage science become increasingly authoritarian, sterile, and weakened.
A chapter on 'The Science of Wealth' explores the links between wealth, liberty, and virtue. "Economic growth makes a society more open, tolerant, and democratic." Individual liberty cannot be experienced in poverty, and the wealth arisen from applied science has done more to alleviate poverty than any political system. Free trade and commerce facilitates exchange of ideas and an understanding between trading partners and in principle 'peace and prosperity.'
And yet, our recent history includes mass starvations, horrific wars, and the existential threats of nuclear wars and climate change. Ferris cautions that while science provided the means for nuclear weapons and environmental destruction, abandonment of science in favor of religion, authoritarianism, and anti-intellectualism does nothing to address societal ills. Furthermore, the ideas competing with reason and science, the so-called 'post modernism' are unsupportive of objectivity and openness. Ferris makes a compelling case for academic institutions being entities that are sometimes perversely anti-intellectual, closed-minded, and defending of authoritarianism. The last line in the book sums it up: "If we keep our heads, usee our heads, nourish learning, tend the fires of freedom, and treat one another with justice and compassion, our descendants may say of us that we had the vision to do science, and the courage to live by liberty."
The historical development is a clear presentation worthy of praise, though I'm sure the author would not claim to be original in the linking of the two ideas. What is most pleasurable is the conciseness of the treatment taking the reader from the dawn of civilization into the 16th and 17th centuries. I drew from this section the idea that both democracy and science have ancient roots but could not dominate as they do today because of the limitations of social interactions. He lists five attributes of science that require a liberal-democratic environment in order for science to flourish. First, it is anti-authoritarian. Second, it is self-correcting. Third, it must draw from a diversity of sources. Fourth, it is powerful in producing economic and military strength. And fifth, science is a social activity. If any of these attributes is disabled or weakened, science is degraded, and with it, the benefits of science. Concomitantly, individual liberty and human freedom are diminished.
As science provided means for military dominance and economic benefits, various political systems were experienced, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, Nazism, communism, and 'Islamism'. The flourishing of both liberty and science can be observed in these various political systems, even if all of them feature forms of democracy. Ferris' argument is that as liberty is encumbered, so is science. The cultures that fail to encourage science become increasingly authoritarian, sterile, and weakened.
A chapter on 'The Science of Wealth' explores the links between wealth, liberty, and virtue. "Economic growth makes a society more open, tolerant, and democratic." Individual liberty cannot be experienced in poverty, and the wealth arisen from applied science has done more to alleviate poverty than any political system. Free trade and commerce facilitates exchange of ideas and an understanding between trading partners and in principle 'peace and prosperity.'
And yet, our recent history includes mass starvations, horrific wars, and the existential threats of nuclear wars and climate change. Ferris cautions that while science provided the means for nuclear weapons and environmental destruction, abandonment of science in favor of religion, authoritarianism, and anti-intellectualism does nothing to address societal ills. Furthermore, the ideas competing with reason and science, the so-called 'post modernism' are unsupportive of objectivity and openness. Ferris makes a compelling case for academic institutions being entities that are sometimes perversely anti-intellectual, closed-minded, and defending of authoritarianism. The last line in the book sums it up: "If we keep our heads, usee our heads, nourish learning, tend the fires of freedom, and treat one another with justice and compassion, our descendants may say of us that we had the vision to do science, and the courage to live by liberty."
February 5, 2017
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.
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.
June 7, 2019
We are fortunate today that so many have escaped hunger and disease and live in societies that are wealthy and safe, and the main reasons for this are science, technology, and liberty. Science and freedom created a “virtuous cycle” that continues to improve lives today. Ferris’ two-dimensional political spectrum reminds me of the Nolan chart, showing that authoritarians are neither right or left wing, and are bad for both human rights and scientific progress. I particularly liked some of the following points from this book:
There really is wisdom in crowds: large groups of people are better at predicting quantifiable results than experts.
Beginning in the 1700's, technological innovation allowed many to become prosperous, where before only those with inherited land or titles could be.
Ben Franklin was once a slave owner but realized over time that if slaves seemed to dawdle, lie or steal, it was a product of their being enslaved and not a reason to be enslaved. Reflecting on his observations (as a good scientist would), he changed his views and later in life became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.
Free markets and free trade or “globalization” have reduced poverty throughout the world.
The Soviet Union beat the US into space with Sputnik primarily because the US had ground forces in western Europe and a dominant navy and so did not prioritize developing ICBMs, which the Russians felt compelled to do. Meanwhile, their “socialist science” led to crop failures which “spread across Russian farmlands like a blight.”
While Nazi Germany never came close to producing a nuclear weapon, the Soviets developed their nukes “on a river of espionage opened up by the Lend-Lease Act.”
There really is wisdom in crowds: large groups of people are better at predicting quantifiable results than experts.
Beginning in the 1700's, technological innovation allowed many to become prosperous, where before only those with inherited land or titles could be.
Ben Franklin was once a slave owner but realized over time that if slaves seemed to dawdle, lie or steal, it was a product of their being enslaved and not a reason to be enslaved. Reflecting on his observations (as a good scientist would), he changed his views and later in life became president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.
Free markets and free trade or “globalization” have reduced poverty throughout the world.
The Soviet Union beat the US into space with Sputnik primarily because the US had ground forces in western Europe and a dominant navy and so did not prioritize developing ICBMs, which the Russians felt compelled to do. Meanwhile, their “socialist science” led to crop failures which “spread across Russian farmlands like a blight.”
While Nazi Germany never came close to producing a nuclear weapon, the Soviets developed their nukes “on a river of espionage opened up by the Lend-Lease Act.”
June 18, 2019
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.
January 21, 2019
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.
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.
November 4, 2017
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.
May 19, 2020
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.
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.
September 21, 2020
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.
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.
April 25, 2018
Disappointed in this book. It seemed to start with the idea that greater liberty produces greater scientific achievements and then works to find examples to support that. It also does not take into account the scientific advances of, for instance, ancien regime France. I thought it was most persuasive when it was discussing the unscientific Nazi and Soviet regimes.
December 12, 2019
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.
September 24, 2020
a compelling look at the relationship between science, liberty and democracy. makes the case that science kicked off the enlightenment and the democratic revolution. also that countries need a certain minimum income of $3000 to $6000 per per person per year for democracy not to fail. many examples of where lack of science and democracy has caused failure to thrive and grow.
July 25, 2022
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.
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.
April 27, 2010
“Ferris is a master at explaining things clearly” – Los Angeles Times
I enjoyed the book, but not because of its clear explanations. For example: “The Golden Rule-“ Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” or, as Kant put it, “Act only on those maxims that you can at the same time will should become a universal law”. These are not the same ethical philosophies. This was just the last instance in the book (page 289 or 291) where I had to do a double take, scratch my head, and think he’s not even paying attention to what he’s writing. I believe he is a science writer so the blatant mistakes I noticed in philosophy and economics are somewhat forgivable, but I had to wonder how accurate his statements about history and politics were, both of which I know less about. It seemed that his explanation of the political differences between the French and American revolutions came up short. However, when he wrote about science it was almost always great.
I read the last chapter on global warming, paying particular attention to how he handled the science, which is supposed to be his expertise. I thought he explained it well, but I also thought he exaggerated much of the science. For example, this statement at the beginning of the climate change discussion made me wonder how honest he was going to be, “Its [climate change:] essentials are not terribly complicated.” He then goes on to describe how complicated the essentials are; at least I saw some complications. He did ask the honest question about what we should sacrifice for future generations, something few alarmists ever bring up. But he left out a lot of the political and economic complications, and didn’t even mention the Copenhagen consensus when he talked about the costs and benefits.
I also saw him on CSPAN, and he brushed over the complications of climate change there too, not even addressing the illiberal attitudes of some of the scientists in the recent Climategate scandals. He made a snarky comment about the issue, and that was it. What a missed opportunity to emphasize his thesis. He didn’t have to disavow climate change to make some good points about science and liberty. In fact the true believers should be much more upset about all this than the skeptics.
The main point of the book, that science and liberty go hand in hand, was well supported with interesting anecdotes and quotes, and that was what made the book enjoyable. However, before I was halfway through the book I knew the author’s political biases. That shouldn’t happen in a book like this. I sometimes wonder it the publishers tell the authors to consider their mostly progressive readership when writing or if it just comes naturally to them. Ferris would likely object to any reader’s accusation of bias, insisting he has no bias since he’s a true liberal. But how is it possible that I knew his politics after reading just half the book?
It could be my own extreme sensitivity to the failings of progressives discussing liberty. It could be my general cynicism toward progressives. It could also be that I am blinded by my own biases. I am “very likely”* or “90%” sure Ferris is a progressive, despite criticisms of some progressive ideas. He hit the post modernists hard in one chapter, but I think they have become fair game in any book about science. He also praised a number of the free market economists which would upset a lot of his readers if they actually knew the economic views of these classical liberals. At least he upset all political ideologues. I’m not upset; it was still a good book.
The book challenged me to reassess my belief that you cannot be a progressive liberal, although I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of the author. The chart Ferris provides in the book supports my position (see below). Progressive goals eventually crowd out liberalism. Contradictions arise between the progressive need to use government to enforce change and liberal need to allow individual choice. Passages where this happened to Ferris were more subtle before the final chapter on climate change. The pretense fell apart at the end of his book with the one sided analysis of global warming. He started the book by putting the science in the politics of liberty, but ended the book by putting progressive politics into science. He didn’t have to go down the progressive path. A liberal can understand the truth of climate change, and still remain open to other ideas which challenge or question some of the more outlandish claims of the alarmists. Ferris was channeling Al Gore in the final chapter, not climate scientists.
Liberal
X
/ \
Ferris / \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Progressive / \ Conservative
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Totalitarian
Ferris is off his own chart
* Ferris explains in his book why the IPCC statement “very likely” is 90% assurance
I enjoyed the book, but not because of its clear explanations. For example: “The Golden Rule-“ Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” or, as Kant put it, “Act only on those maxims that you can at the same time will should become a universal law”. These are not the same ethical philosophies. This was just the last instance in the book (page 289 or 291) where I had to do a double take, scratch my head, and think he’s not even paying attention to what he’s writing. I believe he is a science writer so the blatant mistakes I noticed in philosophy and economics are somewhat forgivable, but I had to wonder how accurate his statements about history and politics were, both of which I know less about. It seemed that his explanation of the political differences between the French and American revolutions came up short. However, when he wrote about science it was almost always great.
I read the last chapter on global warming, paying particular attention to how he handled the science, which is supposed to be his expertise. I thought he explained it well, but I also thought he exaggerated much of the science. For example, this statement at the beginning of the climate change discussion made me wonder how honest he was going to be, “Its [climate change:] essentials are not terribly complicated.” He then goes on to describe how complicated the essentials are; at least I saw some complications. He did ask the honest question about what we should sacrifice for future generations, something few alarmists ever bring up. But he left out a lot of the political and economic complications, and didn’t even mention the Copenhagen consensus when he talked about the costs and benefits.
I also saw him on CSPAN, and he brushed over the complications of climate change there too, not even addressing the illiberal attitudes of some of the scientists in the recent Climategate scandals. He made a snarky comment about the issue, and that was it. What a missed opportunity to emphasize his thesis. He didn’t have to disavow climate change to make some good points about science and liberty. In fact the true believers should be much more upset about all this than the skeptics.
The main point of the book, that science and liberty go hand in hand, was well supported with interesting anecdotes and quotes, and that was what made the book enjoyable. However, before I was halfway through the book I knew the author’s political biases. That shouldn’t happen in a book like this. I sometimes wonder it the publishers tell the authors to consider their mostly progressive readership when writing or if it just comes naturally to them. Ferris would likely object to any reader’s accusation of bias, insisting he has no bias since he’s a true liberal. But how is it possible that I knew his politics after reading just half the book?
It could be my own extreme sensitivity to the failings of progressives discussing liberty. It could be my general cynicism toward progressives. It could also be that I am blinded by my own biases. I am “very likely”* or “90%” sure Ferris is a progressive, despite criticisms of some progressive ideas. He hit the post modernists hard in one chapter, but I think they have become fair game in any book about science. He also praised a number of the free market economists which would upset a lot of his readers if they actually knew the economic views of these classical liberals. At least he upset all political ideologues. I’m not upset; it was still a good book.
The book challenged me to reassess my belief that you cannot be a progressive liberal, although I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of the author. The chart Ferris provides in the book supports my position (see below). Progressive goals eventually crowd out liberalism. Contradictions arise between the progressive need to use government to enforce change and liberal need to allow individual choice. Passages where this happened to Ferris were more subtle before the final chapter on climate change. The pretense fell apart at the end of his book with the one sided analysis of global warming. He started the book by putting the science in the politics of liberty, but ended the book by putting progressive politics into science. He didn’t have to go down the progressive path. A liberal can understand the truth of climate change, and still remain open to other ideas which challenge or question some of the more outlandish claims of the alarmists. Ferris was channeling Al Gore in the final chapter, not climate scientists.
Liberal
X
/ \
Ferris / \
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Progressive / \ Conservative
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Totalitarian
Ferris is off his own chart
* Ferris explains in his book why the IPCC statement “very likely” is 90% assurance
November 26, 2017
Timothy Ferris is a science writer. Which is to say he writes about science in such a way as to make it understandable and interesting the the non-scientist. This book is about the need for liberty for science to flourish.
January 7, 2018
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!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews