Email
Print
Reconceptualize science to reduce violence in our world
The interface between democracy and science has always been a complex and problematic one, which, to be properly understood, must be situated in relation to a third concept, which is nonviolence.
TORONTO—Albert Einstein used to say that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." We can also add that: "Science without democracy is arbitrary, as democracy without science is ignorant." The interface between democracy and science has always been a complex and problematic one, which, to be properly understood, must be situated in relation to a third concept, which is nonviolence.
To View the rest of this article, please choose one of the following
If you are already a subscriber
Subscribe to The Hill Times
Subscribe to the print and electronic editions and get instant access to The Hill Times online.
Quick Purchase
Purchase this weeks' edition of The Hill Times in electronic format (PDF) for $4.00
Sign Up for a free trial
For access to the website.
For more information on our commenting policies, please see our Community Discussion Rules page. If you see a typo or error in a story, report it to us here news@hilltimes.com.
Reconceptualize science to reduce violence in our world
The interface between democracy and science has always been a complex and problematic one, which, to be properly understood, must be situated in relation to a third concept, which is nonviolence.
TORONTO—Albert Einstein used to say that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." We can also add that: "Science without democracy is arbitrary, as democracy without science is ignorant." The interface between democracy and science has always been a complex and problematic one, which, to be properly understood, must be situated in relation to a third concept, which is nonviolence.
 Newsletter |  Facebook |  Twitter |  RSS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
