Copyright Nicholas Maxwell All Rights Reserved
Excerpts from reviews of Nicholas Maxwell's work
"Maxwell's theory of aim-oriented empiricism is the outstanding work on scientific change since Lakatos, and his thesis is surely correct. Scientific growth should be rationally directed through the discussion, choice, and modification of aim-incorporating blueprints rather than left to haphazard competition among research traditions seeking empirical success alone."
"Of the theories
of scientific change and rationality that I know, Maxwell's is my first
choice. It is broad in scope, closely and powerfully argued, and is in
keeping with the purpose of this book, which is to see science in its
totality. No other theory provides, as Maxwell's does in principle, for
the rational direction of the overall growth of science."
(Professor
George F. Kneller, Science as a Human Endeavor, Columbia University Press,
1978, p. 84 and p. 91.)
Extracts from Some Reviews of From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1984, pp. viii + 299. Paperback editions, 1987 and 1988.
"Maxwell's book
is a major contribution to current work on the intellectual status and
social functions of science ... [It] comes as an enormous breath of fresh
air, for here is a philosopher of science with enough backbone to offer
root and branch criticism of scientific practices and to call for their
reform."
Dr. David
Collingridge, Social Studies of Science.
This book is the
work on an unashamed idealist; but it is none the worse for that. The
author is a philosopher of science who holds the plain man's view that
philosophy should be a guide to life, not just a cure for intellectual
headaches. He believes, and argues with passion and conviction, that the
abysmal failure of science to free society from poverty, hunger and fear
is due to a fatal flaw in the accepted aim of scientific endeavour - the
acquistion and extension of knowledge ...The philosophy of wisdom commends
itself, furthermore, not only to the heart but to the head: it gives science
and scholarship a proper place in the human social order. . . Nicholas
Maxwell has breached the conventions of philosophical writing by using,
with intent, such loaded words as 'wisdom', 'suffering' and 'love'. 'That
which is of value in existence, associated with human life, is inconceivably,
unimaginably, richly diverse in character.' What an un-academic proposition
to flow from the pen of a lecturer in the philosophy of science; but what
a condemnation of the academic outlook, that this should be so. Maxwell
is advocating nothing less than a revolution (based on reason, not on
religious or Marxist doctrine) in our intellectual goals and methods of
inquiry ... There are altogether too many symptoms of malaise in our science-based
society for Nicholas Maxwell's diagnosis to be ignored."
Professor
Christopher Longuet-Higgins, Nature.
"The essential
idea is really so simple, so transparently right ... It is a profound
book, refreshingly unpretentious, and deserves to be read, refined and
implemented."
Dr. Stewart Richards,
Annals of Science.
"... a strong
effort is needed if one is to stand back and clearly state the objections
to the whole enormous tangle of misconceptions which surround the notion
of science to-day. Maxwell has made that effort in this powerful, profound
and important book."
Dr. Mary Midgley,
University Quarterly.
"A humanist
and philosopher, Maxwell presents his ideas with eloquence and conviction.
This book will appeal to persons in many different disciplines - from
science to social studies."
American Library
Association.
"This book is
a provocative and sustained argument for a 'revolution', a call for a
'sweeping, holistic change in the overall aims and methods of institutionalized
inquiry and education, from knowledge to wisdom' ... Maxwell offers solid
and convincing arguments for the exciting and important thesis that rational
research and debate among professionals concerning values and their realization
is both possible and ought to be undertaken."
Professor Jeff Foss,
Canadian Philosophical Review.
"Wisdom, as
Maxwell's own experience shows, has been outlawed from the western academic
and intellectual system ... In such a climate, Maxwell's effort to get
a hearing on behalf of wisdom is indeed praiseworthy."
Dr. Ziauddin Sardar,
Inquiry.
"Maxwell has,
I believe, written a very important book which will resonate in the years
to come. For those who are not inextricably and cynically locked into
the power and career structure of academia with its government-industrial-military
connections, this is a book to read, think about, and act on."
Dr. Brian Easlea,
Journal of Applied Philosophy.
"Maxwell's argument ... is a powerful one. His critique of the underlying empiricism of the philosophy of knowledge is coherent and well argued, as is his defence of the philosophy of wisdom. Most interesting, perhaps, from a philosophical viewpoint, is his analysis of the social and human sciences and the humanities, which have always posed problems to more orthodox philosophers, wishing to reconcile them with the natural sciences. In Maxwell's schema they pose no such problems, featuring primarily ... as methodologies, aiding our pursuit of our diverse social and personal endeavours.
"This is an
exciting and important work, which should be read by all students of the
philosophy of science. It also provides a framework for historical analysis
and should be of interest to all but the most blinkered of historians
of science and philosophy."
Dr. John Hendry,
British Journal for the History of Science.
"This book is written in simple straightforward language … The style is passionate, committed, serious; it communicates Maxwell’s conviction that we are in deep trouble, that there is a remedy available, and that it is ingrained bad intellectual habits that prevent us from improving our lot … Maxwell is raising an important and fundamental question and things are not going so well for us that we should afford the luxury of listening only to well-tempered answers."
Professor John Kekes, Inquiry
"… a major source of priorities, funds and graduates’ jobs in ‘pure science’ is military … this aspect of science is deemed irrelevant by the overwhelming majority of those who research, teach, sociologize, philosophise or moralize about science. What are we to make of such a phenomenon? It is in part a political situation, in its causes and effects; but it is also philosophical, and this is Nick Maxwell’s point of focus. Such a gigantic co-operative endeavour of concealment, amounting to a huge deception, could be accomplished naturally by all educated, humane participants, a ‘conspiracy needing no conspirators’, only because their ‘philosophy of knowledge’ envelops them in the assurance that their directors, paymasters and employers have nothing to do with the real thing – the research. This, to me, is the heart of Maxwell’s message."
Dr. Jerry Ravetz, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
"Because Maxwell so obviously understands and loves science as practiced, say, by an Einstein, his criticisms of current science seem to arise out of a sadness at missed opportunities rather than hostility … I found Maxwell’s exposition and critique of the current state of establishment science to be clear and convincing … Maxwell is right to remind us that in an age of Star Wars and impending ecological disaster, talk of the positive potential of means-oriented science can easily become an escapist fantasy."
Professor Noretta Koertge, Isis
"In this book, Nicholas Maxwell argues powerfully for an intellectual “revolution” transforming all branches of science and technology. Unlike such revolutions as those described by Thomas Kuhn, which affect knowledge about some aspect of the physical world, Maxwell’s revolution involves radical changes in the aims, methods, and products of scientific inquiry, changes that will give priority to the personal and social problems that people face in their efforts to achieve what is valuable and desirable."
Professor George Kneller, Canadian Journal of Education
"[T]here is...much
of interest and, yes, much of value in this book...Maxwell is one of those
rare professional philosophers who sees a problem in the divorce between
thought and life which has characterized much of modern philosophy (and
on both sides of the English channel, not merely in the so-called "analytic"
tradition"); he wishes to see thought applied to life and used to
improve it. As a result, many of the issues he raises are of the first
importance. . . He has . . produced a work which should give all philosophers
and philosophically-minded scientists cause for reflection on their various
endeavors; in particular, it should give philosophers who are content
to be specialists a few sleepless nights."
Professor Steven
Yates, Metaphilosophy.
Extract from Review of From Knowledge to Wisdom, 2nd Edition, Pentire Press, 2007.
“Any philosopher or other person who seeks wisdom should read this book. Any educator who loves education--especially those in leadership positions--should read this book. Anyone who wants to understand an important source of modern human malaise should read this book. And anyone trying to figure out why, in a world that produces so many technical wonders, there is such an immense "wisdom gap" should read this book. In From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities, Second Edition . . . Nicholas Maxwell presents a compelling, wise, humane, and timely argument for a shift in our fundamental "aim of inquiry" from that of knowledge to that of wisdom.”
Jeff Huggins Metapsychology
Extracts from Reviews of The Comprehensibility of the Universe, Oxford University Press, 1998; Paperback edition January 2003.
'Nicholas Maxwell's
ambitious aim is to reform not only our philosophical understanding of
science but the methodology of scientists themselves ... Maxwell's aim
oriented empiricism [is] intelligible and persuasive ... the main ideas
are important and appealing ... an important contribution to the philosophy
of physics.'
J. J. C. Smart,
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
'Maxwell ... has
shown that it is absurd to believe that science can proceed without some
basic assumptions about the comprehensibility of the universe ... Throughout
his book, Maxwell has meticulously argued for the superiority of his view
by providing detailed examples from the history of physics and mathematics
... The Comprehensibility of the Universe attempts to resurrect an ideal
of modern philosophy: to make rational sense of science by offering a
philosophical program for improving our knowledge and understanding of
the universe. It is a consistent plea for articulating the metaphysical
presuppositions of modern science and offers a cure for the theoretical
schizophrenia resulting from acceptance of incoherent principles at the
base of scientific theory.'
Leemon McHenry,
Mind
'Maxwell has clearly
spent a lifetime thinking about these matters and passionately seeks a
philosophical conception of science that will aid in the development of
an intelligible physical worldview. He has much of interest to say about
the development of physical thought since Newton. His comprehensive coverage
and sophisticated treatment of basic problems within the philosophy of
science make the book well worth studying for philosophers of science
as well as for scientists interested in philosophical and methodological
matters pertaining to science.'
Cory F. Juhl, International
Philosophical Quarterly
'Maxwell does not
downplay the ambition of his project. His arguments are intended to do
no less than "change the nature of science" by explicitly integrating
metaphysics into scientific practice … Maxwell performs a heroic
feat in making the physics accessible to the non-physicist ... Philosophically,
there is much here to stimulate and provoke. In particular, there are
rewarding comparisons to be made between the functional roles assigned
to Maxwell's metaphysical "blueprints" and Thomas Kuhn's paradigms,
as well as between Maxwell's description of theoretical development and
Imre Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes … those
who share Maxwell's intuitions about progress, even those uncommitted
to "theories of everything", will find encouragement here for
thinking about how one does justice to such a possibility.'
Anjan Chakravartty, The Times Higher Education Supplement
'This admirably ambitious
book contains more thought-provoking material than can even be mentioned
here. Maxwell's treatment of the descriptive problem of simplicity, and
his novel proposals about quantum mechanics deserve special note. In his
view the simplicity of a theory is (and should be) judged by the degree
to which it exemplifies the current blueprint of physicalism, that blueprint
determining the terminology in which the theory and its rivals should
be compared. This means that the simplicity of a theory amounts to the
unity of its ontology, a view that allows Maxwell to offer an explanation
of our conflicting intuitions that terminology matters to simplicity,
and that it is utterly irrelevant. Maxwell's distinctive views about what
is wrong with quantum mechanics grow out of his adherence to aim-oriented
empiricism: the much-discussed problem of measurement is for him a superficial
consequence of the deeper problem that the ontology of the theory is not
unified, in that no one understands how one entity could be both a wave
and a particle. In response to this problem Maxwell finds between the
metaphysical cracks a way to fuse micro-realism and probabilism, which
leads him to a proposal to solve the measurement problem by supplementing
quantum mechanics with a collapse theory distinct from the recent and
popular one of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber. Maxwell's highly informed
discussions of the changing ontologies of various modern physical theories
are enjoyable, and the physical and mathematical appendix of the book
should be a great help to the beginner.'
Sherrilyn Roush,
The Philosophical Review
'Nicholas Maxwell
has struck an excellent balance between science and philosophy …
The detailed discussions of theoretical unification in physics - from
Newton, Maxwell and Einstein to Feynman, Weinberg and Salam - form some
of the best material in the book. Maxwell is good at explaining physics
... Through the interplay of metaphysical assumptions, at varying distances
from the empirical evidence Maxwell shows, rather convincingly, that in
the pursuit of rational science the inference from the evidence to a small
number of acceptable theories, out of the pool of rival ones, is justifiable
… Its greatest virtue is the detailed programme for a modern version
of natural philosophy. Along the way, Maxwell homes in on the notion of
comprehensibility by the exclusion of less attractive alternatives. In
an age of excessive specialization the book offers a timely reminder of
the close link between science and philosophy. There is a beautiful balance
between concrete science and abstract philosophy ... In the excellently
written Appendix some of the basic mathematical technicalities, including
the principles of quantum mechanics, are very well explained … Einstein
held that 'epistemology without science becomes an empty scheme' while
'science without epistemology is primitive and muddled'. Maxwell's new
book is a long-running commentary on this aphorism.'
Friedel Weinert,
Philosophy
'some of [Maxwell's]
insights are of everlasting importance to the philosophy of science, the
fact that he stands on the shoulders of giants (Hume, Popper) notwithstanding
... My overall conclusion is that Universe is an ideal book for a reading
group in philosophy of science or in philosophy of physics. Many of the
pressing problems of the philosophy of science are discussed in a lively
manner, controversial solutions are passionately defended and some new
insights are provided; in particular the chapter on simplicity in physics
deserves to be read by all philosophers of physics.'
F.A. Muller, Studies
in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.
"In The Comprehensibility of the Universe, Nicholas Maxwell
develops a bold, new conception of the relationship between philosophy
and science…Maxwell has a metaphysically rich, evolutionary vision
of the self-correcting nature of science…The work is important…An
added benefit of Maxwell's analysis…is the possibility of a positive,
fruitful relationship to emerge between science and the philosophy of
science…his important and timely critique of the reigning empiricist
orthodoxy…what does it mean to say simplicity is a theoretical virtue?
And why should we prefer simple to complex theories? Maxwell provides
an admirable discussion of these issues. He also provides a useful discussion
of simplicity in the context of theory unification - simple theories are
unifying theories - and illustrates his points with examples drawn from
Newtonian physics and Maxwellian electrodynamics…It is hard to do
justice to the richness of Maxwell's discussion in this chapter. I can
only say that this is a chapter that will repay serious study…Maxwell
turns his attention to issues surrounding the theoretical character of
evidence, the idea of scientific progress and the question as to whether
there is a method of discovery….The discussion of these matters -
as with the other topics covered in this book - is conceptually rich and
technically sophisticated. A useful antidote, in fact, to the settled
orthodoxy surrounding these philosophical issues…Maxwell has written
a book that aims to put the metaphysics back in physics. It is ambitious
in scope, well-argued, and deserves to be seriously studied."
Professor Niall Shanks, Metascience vol. 9, 2000, pp. 294-8.
"Maxwell accuses
scientists and their false prophets of paying lip service to the ideology
of facts, an ideology which their behaviour flagrantly contradicts. Every
university course should create space for students to learn that science
makes metaphysical assumptions, and needs them to make progress. Students
need to have the opportunity to discover, as explicitly as possible, what
these assumptions are. These assumptions need to be analysed, discussed,
criticized and, if possible, replaced by even more fruitful ones. If science
wants to be a consistently rational undertaking, then it should not shirk
these tasks. The present resistance to a more truthful self-image shows,
according to Maxwell, that the scientific community collectively suffers
from a positive neurosis."
F.A. Muller, NRC
Handelsblad, (Academic Section of Leading Dutch Newspaper) 29 December
2002.
“This book presents novel and interesting ideas in the philosophy of science, with particular reference to physics, and works their application out with considerable care. It might not revolutionize science, but it makes an important contribution to the way we think about it.”
David Chart, Philosophical Books, vol. 41, no. 4, 2000, pp. 283-5.
Extracts from Reviews of The Human World in the Physical Universe, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham USA, 2001; Oxford UK, 2002
"Ambitious and carefully-argued...I strongly recommend this book.
It presents a version of compatibilism that attempts to do real justice
to common sense ideas of free will, value, and meaning, and...it deals
with many aspects of the most fundamental problems of existence."
David Hodgson, Journal
of Consciousness Studies.
"Maxwell has not only succeeded in bringing together the various
different subjects that make up the human world/physical universe problem
in a single volume, he has done so in a comprehensive, lucid and, above
all, readable way."
Dr. M. Iredale,
Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
"...a bald summary of this interesting and passionately·
argued book does insufficient justice to the subtlety of many of the detailed
arguments it contains."
Professor Bernard
Harrison, Mind.
"Nicholas Maxwell takes on the ambitious project of explaining,
both epistemologically and metaphysically, the physical universe and human
existence within it. His vision is appealing; he unites the physical and
the personal by means of the concepts of aim and value, which he sees
as the keys to explaining traditional physical puzzles. Given the current
popularity of theories of goal-oriented dynamical systems in biology and
cognitive science, this approach is timely ... The most admirable aspect
of this book is the willingness to confront every important aspect of
human existence in the physical universe, and the recognition that in
a complete explanation, all these aspects must be covered. Maxwell lays
out the whole field, and thus provides a valuable map of the problem space
that any philosopher must understand in order to resolve it in whole or
in part."
Professor Natika Newton, Philosophical Psychology.
"This is a very complex and rich book. Maxwell convincingly explains
why we should and how we can overcome the 'unnatural' segregation of science
and philosophy that is the legacy of analyic philosophy. His critique
of standard empiricism and defence of aim-oriented empiricism are especially
stimulating."
Professor Thomas Bittner, Philosophical Books.
"I recommend reading The Human World in the Physical Universe .
. . for a number of reasons. First, [it] … provides the best entrance
to Maxwell's world of thought. Secondly, [it] contains a succinct but
certainly not too-detailed overview of the various problems and positions
in the currently flourishing philosophy of mind. Thirdly, it shows that
despite the fact that many philosophers have declared Cartesian Dualism
dead time and again, with some adjustments, the Cartesian view remains
powerful and can compete effortlessly with other extant views"
Dr. F. A. Muller, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics.
"Some philosophers like neat arguments that address small questions
comprehensively. Maxwell's book is not for them. The Human World in the
Physical Universe instead addresses big problems with broad brushstrokes."
Dr. Rachel Cooper, Metascience.
"A solid work of original thinking."
Professor L. McHenry,
Choice.
Extracts from Reviews of Is Science Neurotic?, Imperial College Press, London, 2004
"This book is bursting with intellectual energy and ambition. .
. [ It ] provides a good account of issues needing debate. In accessible
language, Maxwell articulates many of today's key scientific and social
issues . . . his methodical analysis of topics such as induction and unity,
his historical perspective on the Enlightenment, his opinions on string
theory and his identification of the most important problems of living
are absorbing and insightful."
Clare McNiven, Journal of Consciousness Studies. 12, No. 3, 2005
"Is science neurotic? Yes, says Nicholas Maxwell, and the sooner
we acknowledge it and understand the reasons why, the better it will be
for academic inquiry generally and, indeed, for the whole of humankind.
This is a bold claim … But it is also realistic and deserves to be
taken very seriously … My summary in no way does justice to the strength
and detail of Maxwell's well crafted arguments … I found the book
fascinating, stimulating and convincing … after reading this book,
I have come to see the profound importance of its central message."
Dr. Mathew Iredale, The Philosopher's Magazine, Issue 31, 2005, pp.
86-87.
"Maxwell argues that the metaphysical assumptions underlying present-day
scientific inquiry, referred to as standard empiricism or SE, have led
to ominous irrationality. Hence the alarmingly provocative title; hence
also-the argument carries this far-the sad state of the world today. Nor
is Maxwell above invoking, as a parallel example to science's besetting
"neurosis," the irrational behavior of Oedipus as Freud saw
him: unintentionally yet intentionally slaying his father for love of
his mother (Mother Earth?). Maxwell proposes replacing SE with his own
metaphysical remedy, aim-oriented empiricism, or AOE. Since science does
not acknowledge metaphysical presumptions and therefore disallows questioning
them - they are, by definition, outside the realm of scientific investigation
- Maxwell has experienced, over the 30-plus years of his professional
life, scholarly rejection, which perhaps explains his occasional shrill
tone. But he is a passionate and, despite everything, optimistic idealist.
Maxwell claims that AOE, if adopted, will help deal with major survival
problems such as global warming, Third World poverty, and nuclear disarmament,
and science itself will become wisdom-oriented rather than knowledge-oriented--a
good thing. A large appendix, about a third of the book, fleshes the argument
out in technical, epistemological terms. Summing Up: Recommended.
General readers; graduate students; faculty."
Professor M. Schiff, Choice, vol. 42, no. II, July, 2005.
"… the title Is Science Neurotic? could be rewritten
to read Is Academe Neurotic? since this book goes far beyond the
science wars to condemn, in large, sweeping gestures, all of modern academic
inquiry. The sweeping gestures are refreshing and exciting to read in
the current climate of specialised, technical, philosophical writing.
Stylistically, Maxwell writes like someone following Popper or Feyerabend,
who understood the philosopher to be improving the World, rather than
contributing to a small piece of one of many debates, each of which can
be understood only by the small number of its participants…. In spite
of this, the argument is complex, graceful, and its finer points are quite
subtle…. The book's final chapter calls for nothing less than revolution
in academia, including the very meaning of academic life and work, as
well as a list of the nine most serious problems facing the contemporary
world - problems which it is the task of academia to articulate, analyse,
and attempt to solve. This chapter sums up what the reader has felt all
along: that this is not really a work of philosophy of science, but a
work of 'Philosophy', which addresses 'Big Questions' and answers them
without hesitation…. I enjoyed the book as a whole for its intelligence,
courageous spirit, and refusal to participate in the specialisation and
elitism of the current academic climate…. it is a book that can be
enjoyed by any intelligent lay-reader. It is a good book to assign to
students for these reasons, as well - it will get them thinking about
questions like: What is science for? What is philosophy for? Why should
we think? Why should we learn? How can academia contribute of the welfare
of people? … the feeling with which this book leaves the reader [is]
that these are the questions in which philosophy is grounded and which
it ought never to attempt to leave behind."
Margret Grebowicz, Metascience, 15, 2006, pp. 141-144.
"Maxwell's fundamental idea is so obvious that it has escaped notice.
But acceptance of the idea requires nothing short of a complete revolution
for the disciplines. Science should become more intellectually honest
about its metaphysical presuppositions and its involvement in contributing
to human value. Following this first step it cures itself of its irrational
repressed aims and is empowered to progress to a more civilized world."
Professor Leemon McHenry, Review of Metaphysics, March 2006, pp. 657-659.
Is Science Neurotic? … is a rare and refreshing text that
convincingly argues for a new conception of scientific empiricism that
demands a re-evaluation of what [science and philosophy] can contribute
to one another and of what they, and all academia, can contribute to humanity…
Is Science Neurotic? is primarily a philosophy of science text,
but it is clear that Maxwell is also appealing to scientists. The clear
and concise style of the text's four main chapters make them accessible
to anyone even vaguely familiar with philosophical writing and physics…
it is quite inspiring to read a sound critique of the fragmented state
of academia and an appeal to academia to promote and contribute to social
change.
Sarah Smellie
Canadian Undergraduate
Physics Journal
"Maxwell's aspirations are extraordinarily and admirably ambitious.
He intends to contribute towards articulating and bringing about a form
of social progress that embodies rationality and wisdom... by raising
the question of how to integrate science into wisdom-inquiry and constructing
novel and challenging arguments in answer to it, Maxwell is drawing attention
to issues that need urgent attention in the philosophy of science."
Professor Hugh Lacey
Mind, vol. 115, 2006, pp. 1154-1158.
“Maxwell has written a very important book . . . Maxwell eloquently discusses the astonishing advances and the terrifying realities of science without global wisdom. While science has brought forth significant advancements for society, it has also unleashed the potential for annihilation. Wisdom is now, as he puts it, not a luxury but a necessity . . . Maxwell’s book is first-rate. It demonstrates his erudition and devotion to his ideal of developing wisdom in students. Maxwell expertly discusses basic problems in our intellectual goals and methods of inquiry.”
Professor Joseph Davidow, Learning for Democracy, vol. 2, October 2006, pp. 78-80.
"Nicholas Maxwell's book passionately embraces Francis Bacon's dictum that '[t]he true and legitimate goal of the sciences is to endow human life with new discoveries and resources'. The book's scope is commendable. It offers a thorough critique of the contemporary philosophy and practice of both natural (Chapters 1 & 2) and social science (Chapter 3), and suggests a remedy for what the author believes is the neurotic repression of the aforementioned Baconian aims."
Slobadan Perovic, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 58, 2007, pp. 361-3.
Reviews of From Knowledge to Wisdom
- C. Longuet-Higgins, "For goodness sake", Nature 312, 15 Nov. 1984, p.204
- S. Rose, "Science in court", New Statesman, 8 March 1985, p. 30.
- La Recherche 16, April 1985, p. 506.
- P. Enfield, "Making Inquiries", The Times Literary Supplement, 29 March 1985, p. 366.
- Science for People, January 1985.
- S. Richards, "Philosophical Aspects of Science", Annals of Science 42, May 1985, pp. 348-9.
- D. Collingridge, "Reforming Science", Social Studies of Science 15, Nov. 1985, pp. 763-69.
- British Book News, June 1985.
- J. Kekes, "The Fate of the Enlightenment Programme", Inquiry 28, Sept. 1985, pp. 388-98.
- J. Foss, Review Article, Canadian Philosophical Reviews, March 1986.
- Mary Midgley, "Is Wisdom Forgotten?", University Quarterly: Culture, Education and Society 40, 1986, pp. 425-7.
- Z. Sardar, "Lies, Damn Lies ... And a Way of Getting Out of Them", Inquiry, August 1985, pp. 66-7.
- G. van Steendam, Review, Bijdragen, tijdschrift voor filosefie en theologie 46, 1985, p. 214.
- Library Journal New York, January 1985.
- American Library Association, October, 1984.
- Booklist Chicago, December 1984.
- M. Oromaner, Review, American Political Science Review, 79, 1985, pp. 918-919.
- B. Easlea, Review, Journal of Applied Philosophy 3, 1986, pp. 139-40.
- P. Eichman, Review, Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 42, March 1990, pp. 56-7.
- C. Bidon-Chanal, Review Article, Critique of Anthropology 8, 1988; see Maxwell (1988 (c)) for my reply.
- J. Hendry, Review, Brit. J. Hist. Sci. 22, 1989, pp. 246-7
- J. Ravetz, Review, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 1987, pp. 265-8.
- G. Kneller, Review Essay, Canadian Journal of Education 13, 1988, pp. 186-200.
- N. Koertge, Review, Isis, 1989.
- D. Kenny, Review, Metascience, December 1989, pp. 115-7.
- S. Yates, "From Knowledge to Wisdom: Notes on Maxwell's Call for Intellectual Revolution", Metaphilosophy 20, 1989, pp. 371-86.
Discussion of Aspects of N. Maxwell's Work
"Nicholas Maxwell (1984) defines freedom as 'the capacity to achieve what is of value in a range of circumstances'. I think this is about as good a short definition of freedom as could be. In particular, it appropriately leaves wide open the question of just what is of value. Our unique ability to reconsider our deepest convictions about what makes life worth living obliges us to take seriously the discovery that there is no palpable constraint on what we can consider." Professor Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolving Allen Lane, 2003, p. 302.
"Maxwell's thesis is that the evident failure of science to free
society from poverty, hunger and the threat of extinction results from
a 'fatal flaw in the accepted aim of scientific endeavour'. . . It is
precisely because of 'the accepted aim' that acquisition of knowledge,
which presumably originated as an essential strategy for survival, has
given rise to the relentless pursuit of new and better ways of achieving
the exact opposite... For Maxwell, the solution is obvious - a radically
new approach to the whole business of intellectual inquiry... It is hard
to argue with these aims . . . If we could only change the way people
feel, Maxwell's solution would be easier, if not easy."
Professor Norman F. Dixon, Our Own Worst Enemy, Futura, 1988, pp. 273-4.
"As Nicholas Maxwell has suggested, if we make one crucial assumption
about the purpose of science, then the possibility arises that some paradigms
and theories can be evaluated even prior to the examination of their substantive
products. This one crucial assumption is that the overall aim of science
is to discover the maximum amount of order inherent in the universe or
in any field of inquiry. Maxwell calls this 'aim-oriented empiricism'.
. . I agree with Maxwell's evaluation of the importance of coherent aim-oriented
paradigms as a criterion of science. . . The time is ripe, therefore,
to replace the incoherent and unconscious paradigms under whose auspices
most anthropologists conduct their research with explicit descriptions
of basic objectives, rules, and assumptions. That is why I have written
this book."
Professor Marvin Harris, Cultural Materialism, Vintage, 1980, pp. 25-6.
"In an admirable book called From Knowledge to Wisdom, Nicholas
Maxwell has argued that the radical, wasteful misdirection of our whole
academic effort is actually a central cause of the sorrows and dangers
of our age. . . Thinking out how to live is a more basic and urgent use
of the human intellect than the discovery of any fact whatsoever, and
the considerations it reveals ought to guide us in our search for knowledge.
. . In arguing this point . . . Maxwell proposes that we should replace
the notion of aiming at knowledge by that of aiming at wisdom. I think
this is basically the right proposal. . . This book will be much occupied
with trying to explore why that is so. I think we need to develop gradually
the notion of wisdom which this approach involves, and to grasp better
its proper relation to knowledge. . . Maxwell is surely right in saying
that [the distorted pursuit of knowledge], because it wastes our intellectual
powers, has played a serious part in distorting our lives."
Mary Midgley, Wisdom, Information & Wonder, Routledge, 1989, pp.
20-22.
.
- Mary Midgley, Wisdom, Information and Wonder: What is Knowledge For?, Routledge, 1989. See especially pp. 20-22.
- Norman Dixon, Our Own Worst Enemy, Futura, 1988, pp. 273-4.
- A. O'Hear, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, OUP, 1989, pp. 224-30.
- Rom Harre, Varieties of Realism, Blackwell, 1986, pp. 26-32.
- B. Burrows et al., Into the 21st Century, Adamantine Press, 1991, pp. 181-2.
- R. S. Root-Bernstein, Discovering, Harvard UP, 1991, pp. 84-5 & 241.
- I. Thompson, Real Dispositions in the Physical World, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 39, 1988, pp. 67-79.
- E. Squires, A Comment on Maxwell's Resolution of the Wave/Particle Dilemma, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 40, 1989, pp. 413-7.
- D. Dieks, Discussion: Special Relativity and the Flow of Time, Phil. Sci. 55, 1988, pp. 456-60. For my reply see: Maxwell, 1988 (b).
- H. Stein, On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future, Phil. Sci 58, 1991, pp. 147-67. My reply has been published in Philosophy of Science 60, 1993, pp. 341- 348.
- D.G. Elms, Wisdom Engineering - The Methodology of Versatility, Int. J. Appl. Engng. Ed. 5, 1989, pp. 711- 7.
- D. Home & M. Whitaker, Ensemble Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. A Modern Perspective, Physics Reports 210, 1992, pp. 292-3.
- J. Warren, Towards a civilized humanity, Philosophy Today 14, September 1993, pp. 3-4
- David K. Scott and Susan M. Awbrey, Transforming the University, 1993, pp. 80-91.
- D. Lodge, Consciousness and the Novel, Secker and Warburg, 2002, pp. 16 and 42.
- D. Dennett, Freedom Evolves, Allen Lane, 2003, p. 302.
Review of Is Science Neurotic? by Mathew Iredale (The Philosophers'
Magazine, 3rd quarter, 2005,
pp. 86-87)
Mathew Iredale welcomes a book that praises and challenges science
Is science neurotic? Yes, says Nicholas Maxwell, and the sooner we acknowledge
it and understand the reasons why, the better it will be for academic
inquiry generally and, indeed, for the whole of humankind. This is a bold
claim and, on the face of it, one unlikely to appeal to many scientists.
But it is also realistic and deserves to be taken very seriously.
Maxwell argues that science suffers from what he terms "rationalistic
neurosis". It misrepresents its basic aims and methods, claiming
to follow one set of aims whilst actually following another and denying
that it is doing so in the face of the evidence. Maxwell claims that such
neuroses are also evident in other areas of inquiry: philosophy, the social
sciences and education in general.
Why does this matter, given the extraordinary success of modern science
in increasing our knowledge of the world? It matters, says Maxwell, because
such neuroses have the effect of preventing us from developing institutions
of learning adapted to the task of helping us learn how to make progress
towards a wiser, more civilised world.
Science has made extraordinary progress in solving what Maxwell calls
the first great problem of learning - how to acquire reliable knowledge
of the world - but has made little or no progress in helping us to solve
the second - how to achieve global wisdom and civilisation.
Central to Maxwell's argument is what he calls the Principle of Intellectual
Integrity: "Assumptions that
are substantial, influential, problematic and implicit need to be made
explicit so that they can be critically
assessed, so that alternatives can be developed and considered, in the
hope that this may lead to the
assumptions being improved."
It is this principle which underpins the entire book: scientists (and
philosophers of science) consistently fail to make explicit those assumptions
that they hold implicitly when engaged in scientific research.
Science presupposes that the universe has an underlying unity, or comprehensibility
(scientists consistently prefer simple, unified theories to disunified,
ad hoc ones, even if these rival theories are far more successful empirically)
and yet scientists deny that science is premised on such a metaphysical
assumption about the universe. Science seeks valuable truths (scientists
carry out clearly defined research in specific areas and with specific
aims in mind, rather than just, say, counting the number of grains of
sand on a beach), yet scientists claim that science seeks truth as such,
independently of considerations of human value. Consequently, science
makes great progress in discovering things about the world, and things
that are of value to humankind, but cannot explain in a rational way how
or why it does so.
Put another way, most scientists defend what Maxwell calls "Standard
Empiricism", the view that "in science claims to knowledge,
laws and theories are accepted and rejected impartially on the basis of
evidence, no thesis about the nature of the universe being accepted permanently
as a part of scientific knowledge independently of empirical considerations."
But what they really follow is a kind of metaphysical empiricism: theories
are accepted and rejected on the basis of evidence and unity, or simplicity
and their value to humanity. Rather than trying to deny these aspects
of science, for fear of descending into relativism, Maxwell argues that
science should acknowledge and embrace them. Only then will it reach its
full potential. Only then will it be able rationally, to discuss what
its aims really are and what they should be. And only then will science
be directed towards solving the second problem of living - how to achieve
global wisdom and civilisation.
Taking standard empiricism for granted, science avoids all such questions
and is concerned merely with the acquisition of knowledge. But by accepting
what Maxwell calls "aim-oriented empiricism", a form of metaphysical
empiricism, science can, he argues, achieve its full potential and help
to create a better world.
Of course, in order to appreciate this, you really do need to read the
book.. My summary in no way does justice to the strength and detail of
Maxwell's well crafted arguments.
All I have done is give the merest flavour. What I will say is that I
found the book fascinating, stimulating, and convincing in most of its
arguments. However, I suspect that this will not be the case with many
others who read it.
Part of the difficulty facing Maxwell is that scientists do not take kindly
to criticism, particularly from outsiders and especially from philosophers.
And yet it is scientists above all others to whom the book's central message
is addressed. I've no doubt that many who read a summary of Maxwell's
ideas will be too quick to understand him and, therefore, misunderstand
him and so will refuse to take seriously what he has to say.
For example, if you talk about the role of values in science many people
automatically switch off. But Maxwell makes it clear that, in his view,
"values, of course, play no role in deciding what is true and what
is false." Values may guide the scientist but they do not guide the
truth. Others will recall with distaste those who have argued that science
proceeds not through the discovery of objective truth, but rather the
endorsement of various subjective beliefs that are strongly dependent
upon the social environment in which scientific knowledge is constructed.
For such critics, modern science is no better than astrology, alchemy
or scientology when it comes to telling us about the world. Maxwell is
utterly dismissive of such arguments. He is "diametrically opposed"
to social constructivism and does not oppose scientific rationality, nor
does he seek to diminish or restrict its influence, or indeed hold that
it is unattainable: "My central point is that we suffer not from
too much scientific rationality, but from not enough". Maxwell is
clearly a champion of science and not its enemy, even though he clearly
believes that science is some way short of reaching its full potential.
What Maxwell wants above all is an open discussion about the issues he
has raised - he doesn't expect everyone to accept the aim-oriented rationality
that he offers as a solution. Consequently, this book ought to be seen
as a call to arms rather than as a narrowly intellectual exercise: "I
write in the hope that there will be a few who
will not dismiss out of hand the suggestion that the question of how we
are to go about learning how to live in wiser and more civilised ways
might have something to learn from scientific learning, and will take
the trouble to pursue the line of argument traced out in this book."
Maxwell suggests that what is needed as a first step towards getting this
message across is a campaigning organisation, perhaps modelled on Friends
of the Earth, and called simply "Friends of Wisdom". I suggest
that a further step can and should be taken: a journal, written by professionals
but aimed at a general readership, perhaps along the lines of this very
magazine, which would be multidisciplinary in character and devoted to
discussion of the ways in which science can help humanity solve the problem
of how to live together in rational ways.
After spending an entire career trying to get his ideas more widely understood
and accepted, Maxwell is clearly in no doubt about the scale of the task
that lies ahead of him. But I hope he will take some comfort from the
fact that, after reading this book, I have come to see the profound importance
of its central message, having been, for many years, largely indifferent
to it. And if I am able to do that, then maybe others will as well.
