Logic, methodology and philosophy of science VIII proceedings of the eighth international congress of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, and philosophy of science proceedings) ( PDFDrive ) 91

72 P GARDENFORS and not an animal among others) Again, the new knowledge seemed to entail a denigration of the uniqueness of man This is not the place to describe the controversy between Darwinism and various religious doctrines I only want to point out a change in scientific ethics which ultimately derives from the Darwinian revolution Descartes taught that animals are merely automata; sophisticated automata, admittedly, but without a soul and without moral status According to Darwin, animals are essentially of the same kind as humans Rather than demeaning the status of man, as the Church feared, this view has led to an upgrading of the animals Before Darwin, talking about the emotions and feelings of animals was seen as a category mistake -it was like saying that a clock was happy or in pain But after Darwin, this was a possible area of scientific investigation in which Darwin himself pioneered by his study of the emotional expressions of monkeys (DARWIN1872) More importantly, acknowledging animal feelings has led to a new view on the use of animals in experiments: we now have rather elaborate rules for how animals shall be treated in scientific investigations and ethical committees supervising the rules; there are even societies for the protection of animals’ rights I see this as a strong sign of an upgrading of our view of animals, not as a sign of a degradation of the status of man as the Church feared Among Sinsheimer’s examples of research of “dubious merit” we also find one that I think is best classified as counter-ideological According to him we should avoid searching for contacts with extraterrestial intelligence His main concern is that “if such intelligent societies exist and if we can “hear” them, then we are almost certain to be technologically less advanced and thus distinctly inferior in our development to theirs” 1979: p 29) Elsewhere, he spells out what he believes to be (SINSHEIMER the consequences of this kind of research: “I wonder if the authors of such experiments have ever considered the impact upon the human spirit if it should develop that there are other forms of life, to whom we are, for instance, as the chimpanzee to us Once it were realized someone already knew the answers to our questions, it seems to me, the impact upon science itself would be especially devastating We know from our own history the shattering impact more advanced civilizations have upon the less advanced In my view the human race has to make it on its own, for our own self-respect” (1976: p 18) This is an example of knowledge that is not wanted (by Sinsheimer at least) since it is counter-ideological: it threatens our picture of ourselves as the most intelligent beings we know and therefore threatens to