The Blind Spot cover art

The Blind Spot

Why Science Cannot Ignore Human Experience

 Preview

Get 30 days of Standard free

£5.99/mo after trial. Cancel monthly.
Try for £0.00
More purchase options
Buy Now for £14.81

Buy Now for £14.81

About this listen

In The Blind Spot, astrophysicist Adam Frank, theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser, and philosopher Evan Thompson call for a revolutionary scientific worldview, where science includes-rather than ignores or tries not to see-humanity's lived experience as an inescapable part of our search for objective truth. They urge practitioners to reframe how science works for the sake of our future in the face of the planetary climate crisis and increasing science denialism.

When we try to understand reality only through external physical things imagined from this outside position, we lose sight of the necessity of experience. This is the Blind Spot, which the authors show lies behind our scientific conundrums about time and the origin of the universe, quantum physics, life, AI and the mind, consciousness, and Earth as a planetary system. The authors propose an alternative vision: scientific knowledge is a self-correcting narrative made from the world and our experience of it evolving together.

The Blind Spot goes where no science book goes, urging us to create a new scientific culture that views ourselves both as an expression of nature and as a source of nature's self-understanding, so that humanity can flourish in the new millennium.

©2024 Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, and Evan Thompson (P)2024 Tantor History History & Philosophy Movements Philosophy Science Mathematics
All stars
Most relevant
As a scientist, listening this philosophers select and party outdated point of view how science and technology should be developed, was not helpful at all.
M.Sc, PhD

Subjectivity instead of Objectivity?

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Authors clearly understand science theory but for me overplay the whole blindspot notion. Good scientists know that there models are approximations and not reality. For me this is more a practical consideration to allow a degree of progress and the practical application. E.g. quantum mechanics and benefits we have derived from semiconductors. Yes scientists can be too protective of their pet theories but as long as overall. we are open to evidence that challenges the current accepted wisdom, we will continue to make progress.

A challenging read - labour's the point that could have been done ina short paper

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.