La science pense-t-elle ?

[Music] "

Science doesn't think," said Heidegger.

This statement is very controversial, you

should know that, and to discuss it, we'll

have Jean Bricmont, who will

defend a certain point of view, as you'll

see. And facing him,

well, it's a tough debate, Nicolescu, who has a

different point of view, as you'll see.

So the problem that interests us

today is science and

thought. There's this relationship between

the word "science" and the

verb "to think" that we'll have to

articulate.

And as for science, we can

already see that initially,

humankind truly

asked itself the question of what it was doing

in the universe. All of

mythological creation is a proto-

science, a proto-science that was

very much embedded in a whole domain that

was in the theological domain. And the

separation of science from

theology appeared practically at the

same time as when philosophy

separated from theology. On one

side, we had maps that affirmed the autonomy

of the Philosophy in relation to

theology,

while Galileo also affirmed

the autonomy of this nascent science,

which consequently had to take

theological data into account,

therefore, in relation to this autonomy of

science that leads to

modern science, and it is important to understand that

the crucial point focuses on this

problem of modern science,

we must therefore ask ourselves who thinks about

science, whether there is a thought process

of science, whether within the

activity of the

scientist there is a reflection on what he does

or does not do, and ultimately we will

ask ourselves the question of ethics

which is linked to this science since

science without conscience is but the ruin

of the soul, as Rabelais said, and

consequently we will have to

look at the activity of the scientist.

Perhaps initially, I will

ask Habas Arabe to perhaps

react to this sentence by

Heidegger and perhaps put it back into

its literary, philosophical, or scientific context.

So it's a joke, we very often hear this phrase; it's

a provocative statement. They themselves are

scandalous on a certain level because, when taken out

of context, we say that

science doesn't think, and that's scandalous

for scientists

because scientists think that he

thinks, and he even thinks—seven

years ago, a girl thought that he thinks more

than other human beings. Well, that's

scandalous.

So, if this sentence appears in a

text, in a book by Heidegger

called "What is Called Thought?" which

was published in 1954, then the

exact sentence—and I want to say it gently and

perhaps comment on it at the same time—is that it

says that

science doesn't think because its

approach and its auxiliary means are

such that it cannot think. Well, up to this point, it's

almost a vicious circle,

but then he says that the relationship of

science to thought is neo-tastic and fruitful,

that when the gap that separates

science and thought becomes

visible, and when it appears that we cannot

throw that one away, no pump,

there are no bridges, just a

very strong affirmation. So, these are

the contexts of the sentences.

Exactly, around this idea,

science doesn't think, and I

personally believe that we can start from this

text as it is to enter into it

because, obviously,

personally, I immediately say, "

Why do I think that in war, both right

and wrong,

Jean, what is your reaction to

this commentary on

Basaraba's reading?" But I am not a

philosopher, and I don't want to be; I was

simply giving a reaction based on how I

see the impact of

science on the virtues of Sophie, and therefore the

birth of modern science with

Galileo and Newton. And in my opinion, it's

a double

innovation: on the one hand,

we realize that there are a number

of controversies that we can

resolve;

we can settle them empirically.

The movement of the Earth in

relation to the Sun, the movement of

comets, was revealed by Dominique. There are so many

things that we can settle by

combining reflection with

observation and later with

experiments. This is a first, a first

break with

speculation and with

research. If we

absolutely insist on truth, we have truths that are

only dependent on our observations,

which are therefore revisable by

some; they are not certain, like

the certainties one could

find in metaphysics, where I have

maps, something that, well, yes, like a

first break, a second break, and that's

important, it's perhaps where we

arrive at war, but it doesn't claim

comfort entirely; it's a

skepticism in relation to

speculative approaches or approaches detached

from experience, that is to say, for example,

philosophy, metaphysics,

intuition, religious and cultural tradition.

This is true because my parents told me so

everywhere, my teachers told me so,

and so this dual aspect and

the impression I have of it, I know, is that

I have a loan to heal, there was

a will to save the

possibility, if not to answer, at least to

ask questions that go beyond what we

can scientifically

know, and it seems to me that he wants to

reintroduce an approach that

traditionally more

scientific philosophers would call metaphysics.

[Music]

So when I talk about

scientific philosophers, I'm thinking of those who have

more or less

incorporated [Music]

the scientific revolution as

I describe it, and I'm thinking, for example, of the

English empiricists, especially the

French materialists, the

Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire (whose

Letters from England), Diderot, and

other materialists. And in the 20th

century, I'm thinking of those who, for what was

called logical positivism, the

Vienna Circle, or people like

Bertrand Dresseur, or people like those in

the Parisian circle, like Karnas. These are

philosophers that one

can like or not, but for me, it's a matter of

war, and I don't even know if they are

mutually exclusive. And there is clearly

a divergence in philosophy in the 20th century, if you will, in

philosophy. On the one hand, there's a

tradition called analytic, which is

more or less inspired, with

divergences due to the certainty of the link,

and then there's a more continental philosophy

which, in a certain way, continues, if

you will, in the metaphysical tradition,

without, in my opinion, incorporating it. It's a double

scientific revolution

[Music]

1 First of all,

I may perhaps

allow myself to say, illustrating with

specific cases, why I believe he is right.

Then, I will say

why I believe he is wrong. So I

will take the two positions that are

mine, moreover, I also believe he is wrong,

he is right. First of all,

why do I believe he is right? Two

wars and not with a very

ancient philosophical tradition and that of

Parmenides. He predicts Rameau / / / by

Medina by Melides, his militia, the

founders, there you have the founders of

the anthology. Yes, this recalls the anthology

in philosophy. Well, and he often cites

the fragments. 6 linked famous ones are who and

who says that to rethink and letters and the

same, it has not recovered.

So the question is only being who their call

letter the anthology and from this point of

view it is almost obvious that Heidegger is

right. Why? Because by

methodology there are not sciences in

methodology and without forgetting it often there is

a scientific methodology, it

has It was defined by Galileo in 1632 in

the magnificent books under the Discourse

on the Great System where there are

three postulates of science. In the sense that there is

no science,

firstly there are the

universal mathematical laws. Second

postulate when he says these

universal rights can be discovered by

scientific experiments,

and here it's not so innocent

because the crucifixes mean a

very well-defined type of experiment,

days with protocols, etc.

Well, yes, we call them experimental.

There's the experiment that will

launch games, the suitcase, and from that it was said

he learned that century, well, and

third, continues the DGA River, isn't it

the perfect repeatability of these

experimental data?

Well, it's a kind of goal of the alliance

that was defined that hasn't changed

despite scientific revolutions. The

three postulates are still there. Well,

from this methodological point of view,

it's clear that science forbids

talking about letters, forbids itself. It's a

question, it's a choice.

A demonstration would be absurd.

Science doesn't demonstrate anything under the plans

of Simply being, it forbids

approaching it except, of course, at the borders.

Why? Because the Trevisans are

beyond recovery.

It's very funny how Borat was able to find

their... I was going when it's almost

derisory,

so that's obvious. Why also on

Thursday that he's right? It's because

scientists... there are scientists, even the

greatest, who thought the same

thing. I'll give you a simple remark:

Max Planck, in the image of the leap in

modern physics, yes, says something like that.

So, how does Eric's research

progress from reality? The

metaphysical reins, the damned... he is, after all, the

founder of

quantum physics. The language of science clashes at the

borders of science.

Idy... almost the same

word of rigor before dreaming about it, and

nobody protested. Day... is not

able to cross... in

other words, the bible, whose

members... and metaphysics... is

therefore not starting points of

scientific wealth, but its

inaccessible goal... the same words are said... these are

almost identical sentences...

I It also gives you a

position from Poincaré that shows

why he's wrong, why not, actually,

wrong because he confuses what

is normal,

science, and the scientist. So I

think we need to distinguish between what is

science and the great scientists.

When I call someone a scientist, I mean someone who

created and gave something

truly essential. These great

scientists ask themselves the same

questions, and they think. They think about

the essence of being annoyed. That's what's

surprising about this game in a situation that I really liked. The

square bridges are

found in the value of science. He

says everything that isn't thought and the pure nothingness, the mothers

of thinking about it.

Yes, to two important scientists, it goes

much further. We can only

think about thought. He preferred,

however, geological history

shows us that life puts a short episode

between two eternities on the edge. This is almost

poetic. What he says is that in this

episode, even conscious thought has only lasted, will only last a

moment. Thought is only a

flash in the middle of a long

night. And his conclusion is the last

sentence elsewhere. The last words on the

value of science, he says, is that this

flash is everything. So to say that the

scientist doesn't think is really to say

that science doesn't think, that's true,

but to say that scientists don't think

is completely false. And it's still the

public who do

science, yes, we agree. I think there is

one thing: science

describes itself. What we say about

science is that we describe this text. So I

think that's kind of where the

direction is, but I think

[Music]

First, I tend not to

share the view that science,

defined by its methodology, is limited

by its methodology. For me,

science shows itself not so much through

methodology but through results.

That is to say, you have both confidences,

coincidences if you will,

between theoretical predictions and

experience, and you have technology,

which is a true miracle. If we don't

look at ten centuries

ago, if we take a car, a

plane in Turin, we take us back to the Middle Ages, already

about five miracles. So I don't define

science by prizes, mission, or

methodological approach, but by results.

First, and second, it

will be a question of thinking precisely; it

might be good not to think

metaphysically. So my

reflection, along with Kessel's, among

the philosophers I've cited, is that

science, that

scientific discovery, allows us to consider the

limits of human thought—not

scientific thought, but human thought in general.

And therefore, there is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a death knell for

experience, something beyond what we

can know through reason and

experience,

which is indeed unattainable.

I'm going to demonstrate what I want us to

say about the fact that science,

scientists think, we have a

living act, and science, which thinks

in its stance.

I find that very interesting, but I've also mentioned something else that's

interesting:

having the league,

scientific rigor for its own

discourse, that is to say, knowing when we

exceed the limits of science.

When I heard the words of the SLA,

science can judge human thought in

general. I shuddered at the smell that she was

leading a reflection on the limits of

thought, how he can do it, finally,

50, that she doesn't have the means, the subjects

of human thought, period, this

demo, which are not scientific, will be her

passes, period, what is it that no,

just France, period, no, no, it's

because I think that I think

no, for me the right philosophical attitude

after the scientific revolution was to realize, on the one

hand, that on

certain problems we had the means

to solve: the age of the earth, the

structure up to a certain point,

space-time, the structure of

matter and terrains, which were

philosophical questions and to which

we can answer scientifically, and then there are

questions about

why it was necessary to be rather than

nothing, to take an example, we don't have an

answer, there is no

answer at all, we don't have

an a priori answer in a

philosophical way, and then simply to say

that science has no answer, the

patron saint, the human being, has no

answer at these latitudes that we can

take because we It accounts for the fact that,

little by little, with scientific discoveries, there are

ultimately questions that we cannot resolve. Can we

submit them to the

judgment of minds? To give an

example of a philosopher, someone who

generally advises, like a future Blum,

when he writes, leaves his

human understanding to the sentence that ends it. It's

a rather brutal sentence. He says, "

When you take a book of theology

or metaphysics from a library,

ask yourself the following question." I

'm not from a German background, but I'm told: "Does it

contain

abstract reasoning about numbers

or geometric figures? Does it

contain reasoning

based on questions?" Therefore, if it's

neither one nor the other,

then throw the water out, because in our

accounts, it contains only sophistry and

illusion. It's quite a brutal sentence,

yet it's the attitude of a

philosopher who is perfectly aware

of doing philosophy but who resonates

from the scientific revolution

and who resonates with a skeptical attitude towards

everything, as we often believe.

But in relation to metaphysics, and

implicitly forbidden, I therefore have

this attitude. You find it in this attitude of

eating scientists, but you

find it in a certain number of

philosophers. I think it's

important to understand that

philosophy is divided, that people we

call philosophers like Humboldt Russell,

etc., will share this point of view, which we

can like or not like, but with

which, in the case of a certain Servaty,

it's not simply

arrogant, ignorant scientists who don't know what

they're talking about. And these are people with

degrees in philosophy who have studied

philosophy. I meet

many, for example, in the Anglo-

Saxon world, who have this attitude. We agree, anticipated

that I think, I think that this

opens the discussion now

on how science has still changed the way

we looked at the universe, and

this view of the universe has been expressed in a

certain way, and I think that

there is still a

scientific activity, a Pigeot-like activity,

in relation to this

new view, and I propose that we

look at its dance in a second

moment when it is in In these discussions,

I think we agree that our

view of the universe has

evolved tremendously. When we consider the perspective of a

Greek, when he looked up and

gazed at the universe, seeing the

Earth more or less as a pancake,

even if there are interpretations of

round shapes that are already beginning to emerge,

if we look at Galileo's perspective, who placed

the sun at the center of the universe, even

if there had already been some

anticipations, there was still a

shift in our view of the universe.

Darwin's contribution to the phenomenon of

evolution, which places humankind in

a progression and not in a sudden

emergence, I believe that all

these factors show that our

view of the universe and

humankind within it is, in a way,

conditioned

by scientific contributions. So what

I would like to see is perhaps that we can

see a little bit of what

these scientists are saying, so in

this dance, an attitude that is, in fact,

part of the scientific community, beyond From a

scientific standpoint, speaking in my

metaphysical work, which people were denouncing earlier, well, yes,

I believe that first of all,

you shouldn't get lost in endless

historical considerations. You

have to limit yourself to the

scientific revolution of the 19th century, which had

two major

intellectual constructions, it must be said, which are already

a century old:

quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.

And for the moment, they are not outdated at all; in fact,

they have remained in a state of separation.

I have been practicing quantum physics for

40 years, and so I have seen with my own

eyes, both in the

scientists' own revolution and in

astonishing changes in the

worldview. But I would say there is one point

that seems focal and central to

this contribution of scientists to

thought, to thought in general:

philosophical thought.

A completely new idea

in science, which is that of

the abolition of the

epistemological divide between subject and

object. There are its reasons, but this is what leads to

this truly

fundamental book called "Philosophy:

The Manuscripts of 1942" by Jean-Marc

Lévy-Leblond. had the superb idea of

publishing them at the threshold, which is the idea of ​​the

bass, the birds that develop the most,

but not at the liana, even the edges, the same

idea, the basic idea is that with

quantum physics,

quantum mechanics, with

quantum physics we are plunged into

another relationship between subjects and objects,

which are still distinct, of course,

but we can no longer speak of a

total copy between subjects and objects, as if

between the two there was nothing but

scientific observation, called

scientific, is itself chronological,

so this idea, they elaborate on

their work, these are

not ideas, doors, which are

not ideas of philosophers,

an essay based on the principles of

superposition, which is still

central,

so there is no quantum mechanics,

it is the p The principle of superposition and

all these developments, all the

stories, are after the complementarity

of the aces of derivatives, but the essential thing is

the principle of superposition and

this numerous purely epistemological approach

leads to the idea of ​​levels of reality in the

regions of reality. He distinguishes

three categories. This is

very interesting because it's right in the middle of

the discussion we had

previously on Head. He says there is a

region where the proximity between subject and

object is not great, that is to

say, they are quite distant.

The notion of objectivity, ancient,

works perfectly, and this is

classical science, physics,

whose apogee is

the theory of relativity. Besides, there is a

second region of the gharb and of even greater

proximity. A

distinction: his conclusions are not

conclusions, but a

greater proximity between subjects and objects. The

subjects operate like cuts in

reality in such a way that

reality modifies it—well, not by the

will of the subjects, of course, but

simply its own intervention. Well,

its own existence, intervention as

my eyes, as that

measuring apparatus, alas, is still said in this

region, we have

quantum mechanics, biology, and the psyche,

Doullens, sciences of the psyche,

finally he says that, the third region where

proximity is almost total but not

total, it can never be total between

subjects, the object, by phenomena

of a religious order, of an aesthetic order,

it is an idea that we find in

other forms in Paoli, but it is the

same idea, there is a second

essential idea of ​​the beast agents that they

develop past the bench in his

books, but in other books that

are translated into French, the idea that the

usual logic no longer works

in this second tribal region of

quantum mechanics,

he starts from the third of the third inclusive, that is to say,

for example, who has a 10 and a 6

where there is no, to say there are no 12s,

be true, this false jump, there is

quantum mechanics, it pays off just like that,

so it makes another logic, we know very

well, we who practice it, we

wondered, all the dreaming players, is

good, so there is a third

quantum logic, but which are

New logic, well then, it opens the door to

something

extraordinarily interesting in my opinion. All

these remarks, shared by its

founders, are

sober and the science of the turtle, which has

humility. That is to say, it's not a

science that claims to hold

all the truth. It exists in this world, it's

said, we have a portion of the

truth. In Vega, one aspect is there, we

can begin to dialogue with

other forms of knowledge.

It seems to me a pivotal event. It didn't foresee

the genres, so I'm putting it into play.

No, we expect a lot, given, I don't dispute it.

I would like to develop

another perspective.

I would first like to point out that when we

talk about the science of the

scientific revolutions of the 20th century, what

you say is quite right,

managed by their physics, but there is

biology, there is the development of

Darwinism, genetics, DNA, etc. These are

great discoveries that

dominate our era, and the

development of

cognitive sciences, etc.

We decided not to make real cases

of specialists. I live for a moment,

recorded the fact that historically it There

are other ways of thinking about

quantum mechanics, and there are

very explicit objections that would make for another

show and would be much more

technical, but you have everything in mind.

You bought a Belle de

Breuil balm, sometimes Schrödinger, not mom,

who is especially Belle, who is the clearest,

John Buck, and the clearest defender

of the critique of the idea that there must be

a quantum logic to the

critique of edge ideas. You have to

say his book, I now, but I haven't,

you haven't read it, I live

fiction. I wanted to know what his

book Spider-Man X is. This book is a

very explicit critique, and my opinion is

very clear on this idea. So I think

that when you talk about humility, especially

me, I find it interesting in

science from a cultural point of view. It's perhaps the

opposite, exactly. It's not

the humidity of science, but it's

the humility of the human being and

the humility of particular cultures

in relation to the universal. And so I

find that by placing the human being in

the universe on a lost planet somewhere

in the universe, as I Sometimes,

a little mold is said, but

natural selection is equipped with a brain and a

positive way of expressing itself, something that doesn't have

the central role that

religions generally reserve for humankind.

Because the Qadiri religions, the People of the

Book, give an extraordinary role, in a

certain way, to this all-

powerful god who created us in his image.

Thanks to this, a certain

momentum is very important to

humankind, and I think that science, in

relation to this, gives a much more

modest role. So I find this modesty

beneficial because the will to

power, the belief in the

omnipotence of human beings, is

extremely destructive, and other

fears teach it. A new modesty is

perhaps bestowed upon what Mr. Nicolescu calls

other forms of knowledge, such as

cultural and religious knowledge, etc., which, in my

opinion, need this modesty

simply to exist. For

human beings, since they exist among themselves,

they must believe that they do not possess the

absolute truth

found, for example, in

revealed religions or in the

superiority of one race. of a culture, etc.,

and its beliefs in your own

superiority, both as a

human being compared to animals,

compared to the rest of the universe, or

as Chinese, as gentle, as

Americans, as Europeans, etc. The

belief in this is undermined by the

next scientific approach and by

the separation of subject and object.

We have just seen that science cannot help but advance,

therefore cannot help but dream of

progress. We are also led to see it

in a context and a concept

that is both sociological and also economic, and where we are

currently seeing pressures. We have

some recent examples of

very strong pressure on the

field of science, which is not

technology. So there are remarks

from Lévy-Leblond, for example, showing that we

are in a break with a

shift from this

purely research data to

practical applications, that is to

say, a return, and with a

takeover by a certain

number of economic actors,

for example, on patents. The

brain drain is on, we know this very well.

To say that large states

tend to attract

top-tier researchers with bonuses and long-term positions, whether in science,

biology, or even more

fundamental research,

I would like to ask you

what your thoughts are on this. Isn't it

precisely a lack of

philosophical perspective, where they were making

farmers, directors, and Croatian rulers? Ah yes,

at the level of a kind of broad perspective

[Music]

on the issues, the

scientific issues, yes, but we must understand that here we are moving beyond a

purely philosophical debate.

Well, we are entering a political domain, if you will,

and the problem is that the

timescale we are considering is

different. When

I talk about a scientific revolution, I am

talking about what happened over the course of

360,000 years. I am talking about Darwin in the

nineteenth century. The impact of

discovery will be... Here we are in a stage of

what we could call the

commercialization of the world, because it's not just

science that is... They

commercialize all the activities of

public services, from television to

culture, and those of the... so sorry, this

general problem... I don't know if it's a

lack of philosophical perspective or

simply a lack of interest in

pure science, knowledge in such times,

the long term, because

scientific knowledge

is obviously also a generator of

technological revolution, but in the

long term.

But if you look at the practices of

companies... I'm not a specialist,

but what I read here is that, indeed,

we think, parliamentary

transport... the problem is serious and

will... so the commercialization of the

world implies the abandonment of the long term. Will it

last? Will it

lead to a catastrophe that strikes, that

people will wake up, or... I don't know... I didn't really

know what

history is made of, don't wait, so

I don't know what will happen. For

me, I am very... how to say... it's a

very negative attitude towards what is

happening today, but I want to

emphasize that for our debate, we are placing ourselves

in a different temporal and conceptual framework, that's

true, but we can still say... is it... Isn't there

precisely a

need for popularizing science

among the general public so that

decisions are made?

So, we're back in

our context, meaning what will

the scientist be led to say

about their work? Yes, absolutely, I completely

agree with what you're saying.

Moreover, my position is entirely in line with that of

Jean Bricmont. I

would simply like to offer a

complementary perspective that aligns with this idea

that, in my opinion, the responsibility of

scientists today lies

precisely in reflection and

self-criticism, in a more

organizational sense, of course, but also in

other aspects. I'm trying to explain

the simple idea I'm going to develop, which isn't just mine. It's been

presented all over the world. It's

said that science has

changed its character.

It's a

science that unites with

technology, creating a center, a

kind of two-headed chimera:

technoscience. The words exist, even for the

illiterate, and therefore, for those Even

fundamental and

applied science are caught up in a

completely irrational movement. So,

paradoxically, science is caught in

the irrational movements that it and

its irrational movements are driven by. It's

efficiency for efficiency's sake,

this unbridled,

almost obscene commercialization, isn't it, at the

global level? What qualifications

will be made no matter what? It's a

terrible thing. In this context, it's

clear that

science needs to reflect on itself, even if it's

practically impossible. I

agree, self-reference doesn't exist;

it's a problem of

elementary logic. But by putting itself in its place,

science, which is both

strong and humble, and 18 years old, along with

others, creates these perspectives of ICT. Isn't that what

can overcome these

irrational movements? What do

you think of

national ICT committees, for example? Do

you think they are relevant in

relation to this definition

of a legislator's decision?

Because it's just, just in one

given sentence, the other Do you

consider this relevant or

irrelevant? How do you

position yourself on this? And it's

true that the idea of

representatives of major religions and

religious traditions being called upon to

speak on ethical issues is something

I find... Celtics will discuss this, saying that

one... and he was cool, or titles...

I'm not convinced that

religious people are well-placed to give

lessons in ethics, as secularists don't really see

their contribution. Well,

in times when murderers of people are

religious, and they are part of

democracy, but should they have what religious

traditions, as such, should have

a status, or

simply national representation

where we will find people who are

religious, necessarily... but I would say, I

think that politics, obviously, is a

problem of ethics. We shouldn't

throw stones, how should I

say it, at politicians, because

scientists have their own... how should I

say it, their own ethics of

effectiveness, that is to say, there is an

uneducated... that I knew well,

built in the states United in the

ivory tower, which still concerns me, who have done

a fantastic job, we

discover eternal truths useful

to people, laugh, but also the framework for

pure research, and there you have it, society has only one

wolf in the country, and then we don't ask ourselves

other questions, all the

senses are raised regarding the transmission of knowledge, on teaching,

on the

popularization of science, and

generally on the impact, for example, of what

concerns me a lot,

the connection between scientists who are

activists, hours we play at, very few

questions on this, while the

dangers posed by the accumulation of weapons

and the arms race, which is

inevitably generated by the inequality

of development between countries, which means that

some countries have a lot of weapons and

others don't, but those who don't have any will be able to get them,

and this grain, so the

problem of

scientific responsibility, for me, arises first and foremost there, at

least I see very little

ethical questioning there, so we are

very good at criticizing the irrationality

of governments, business leaders on the

ground, and saying we need more

money for science, but when this

money comes from the military or When it's

linked to what we might call the

prostitution of science,

scientists working for the military,

people who ask

ethical questions, or very few do, when you ask them, you're

dismissed by saying, "Anyway, we do it

very well and we

control the field." For me, that's the

great danger, even greater than the

ecological dangers or the dangers

linked to cloning. Yes, I also

fully agree with the positions

developed by Jean Brillon. What I

would like to address is the question of

values ​​because without ethics, without

values, it's pathetic.

So scientists are facing a

question, as Etienne says, because they have

always said no, no, there are

no values ​​in science.

We are in the ivory tower he

talks about. So those who are facing this

dilemma have even been confronted with it, and we saw it in

France, precisely in the debate on

the composition of ethics committees. On

one hand, the drift—I call it a

clear drift—of trying to reduce

ICTs to scientific and, more

specifically, biological ethics is horrific.

If truly human beings is just a

machine determined by a few

mechanisms, so then I wonder what

values ​​are, what's the

point of so many centuries of

civilization, well, on the other side, the other

extreme, extremist attitudes, we

are the holders of values,

the religious and possibly

the philosophers have carved out these two

extremist attitudes that I believe are not

very harmful because these

irrational movements will continue, but do we

want Israel? Yes, I saw

a research project, we call it

again, not Saizyk, but I saw a

research project, it was

the era of property judges in the

United States, but it was at the time when you

are in this mythical existence, or the

research project in the United States, they say, yes,

but you know, the Soviets, a

lot of this kind of thing was

n't research tonight on

quarks, it was being physical statistics,

but I mean, this type

of argument shows that

scientists play quite cynically

with politics and that there are

questions to ask ourselves here, not

just telling politicians here and there about money,

I'm playing, what I mean is that I have

everything while being in complete

agreement once again on all

points, that we can't remain sitting on the

fence indefinitely, on Thursday,

taking the taxpayer's state on one side

and then saying we have nothing to do

with it, it's fine, nothing to do with the human being,

which I don't believe, I don't have there either, there can be

an intermediate position,

a position of conciliation through

openness to other forms of

knowledge,

I agree and I think we can, no, no, no,

I don't know what it is,

I haven't met, excuse me, no,

but what do

you call a cash register that

the Belgian circuit where religion governs is

aware of, no, but which

geological seal and then that like a good

throw, yes, it smells so good, Bell Pizza,

human sciences like sociology, there are

human sciences like

philosophy, is still via an activity

called music is an art 8 and

What poetry had, I hope that in

science it will begin to see an

activity of self-referentiality, true that we will

open ourselves to the other before, who remains

locked in his world, he can say there are

commands,

a period, that's all, the recent ones don't interest him,

so he will disappear.

[Music]

In short, beyond science, there is still

a need to organize a

kind of vision, let's say, of

human activity. Doesn't that

precisely push towards the existence of

human sciences, or sciences that, let's say,

of activity, that cultivate human beings,

will become a science? What do

you think?

Ah yes, certainly, but the problem with the

human sciences as I have

the impression that there is a latent crisis in

the human sciences. If you take

psychoanalysis, for example, it tells us, and not the so-

called penguins, about a

resource, about the springs, the unconscious

of our representations of activities.

You take pedagogy and it

explains how to raise children,

how to teach them such and such a subject,

sociology now taught on the

problem of The society

of conflicts and addressing the issue is present

in all these disciplines, in

this vast discourse. What

is true? And I say that

to be able to ensure that this discourse

is true, it seems to me that, at least in the

natural sciences, we have predictions

and technologies. And essentially, let's take

psychoanalysis as a

relatively clear example: where are the

predictions, or without

experimental confirmations? And therapy:

where is the evidence that therapy,

as a therapeutic method, works?

Therapy would have escaped thanks to

a technology, but we are ready for it to work

repeatedly and

systematically, and it is therefore an AI.

So we say much more than we

know, to quickly go through

the history of the human sciences.

The crisis is significant today

with the birth, I think, of a

more biological approach, more centered on the

brain, and in particular, for example, what we

call cognitivism,

cognitive science,

the study—well, because we realize that there are

questions we weren't asking ourselves, but were asking ourselves,

and to which we realize

the answers are difficult, but which

are for I have prizes for lighting fixtures in

the development of the earth,

humanities sciences like the one I mentioned,

so what are these questions? How does

a child learn language? How do

we catch a ball

in a soccer ball that's

flying through the air? What

calculations do we do in our heads

to see the movement of the ball, and

things like that? How do we perceive things?

How do we recognize faces?

etc. And so, questions that we

realize are actually stupid.

And it poses a very, very

difficult scientific question, but in another way, it

seems that these questions are much

simpler than answering all the

questions about social benefits, how to

raise children, and so I think

the crisis will become clearer when people

realize that we have given

answers to questions that we don't

really have answers to, that we are not even competent

to answer

simpler questions, but that we are starting to address these

simple questions, and perhaps we will

arrive at a more modest discourse

because we talk about modesty in the

natural sciences, but I think that given

a great modesty in the

social sciences or in the human face, which consisted of

not answering all

sorts of things, what we fear is not so much

an answer is that

human behavior is not

necessarily something that we become

entirely analytical, and in a

scientific way, it is not even obvious that it is

possible to have truly

unprecedented scientific understanding of the whole of

human behavior, as we sometimes get

the impression that this is the case when we

listen to certain sociological discourses, or

that the sculptor is very, very

determined,

is what we can and Can't we

say that, all things considered,

human nature isn't predictive? For example,

to take psychoanalysis, we were talking about it. There's no

notion of

prediction; an analysis can do that,

yes, but how? Yes, of course, the

problem is how you categorize your

competing theories. After all,

psychoanalysis itself, and

diversify your tests, Riou, you have

the cause of your choice on mice,

disciples, and fieldwork. So who should I

believe? That's

my question. I'm in a

situation where it's hard to decide. I

think you have the same problem, something

in the humanities, which is linked to the fact that we don't have

a

sufficient level of knowledge, do

n't have these observational tests of

prediction to pass, or simply

the subject of study is too complicated. I

think there's a desire and their

disgust. I myself have to answer a

certain number of questions, and we do

n't have answers. It was, it will be.

You have answers. First of all,

I closed you on March, or the

plan of language. Yes, it's

very Interesting, it seems that

perhaps the answer is sketched out there. Similarly,

when we say exact science and human sciences, does that

mean that

exact science is inhuman? But that's the

wordplay we usually make, where we

say hard sciences when they don't have the

little linguistic game of the... well, we say

hard sciences and soft sciences.

I persisted under the

obvious psychoanalytic connotation of what is

hard and what is soft on canvas in progress, that's what it

continues from the

obvious hard sciences

soft sciences no I think the news

simply had a connotation that

is a bit contemptuous on the part

of some scientists but

I continued this little word game we

say science to someone in the singular

that they manage to think the thought

exact science yes automatically practically yes so

we see here two days

the editor and mental is always

ideas of language shifts quite

extraordinary which in my opinion have

very interesting historical roots

which is the separation between science

and culture

at the time of the Renaissance and which was

excellent beneficial

it is necessary It's important to state this clearly for the sake of science,

because with prison autonomy and the developed chip,

we can now ask ourselves the question,

because things are moving, things are

changing: is science, in these

movements of unification with

technology, giving rise to culture? We

must use the words "technoscientific." Isn't this a case of

scientific suicide that it's currently

perpetrating? It's a question I do

n't answer, but I believe that

sometimes questions are better

than answers. And what is

currently the position of the separation between

exact sciences and humanities? It's about

engaging in these

irrational movements of

technoscience without any reflection, without any

dialogue with other forms of

knowledge that have existed for

centuries. We mustn't forget that these

humanities have existed for centuries. Does

this mean that philosophy is

n't a science,

for example? If this

name is an aberration, no, the problem, the Kurdish problem, they

fell with Eric Jean-Jean. No, no, no, no, no, no,

followed by residence.

Exactly, it's as if one is exasperated,

saying what exactly?

No, but the problem is and on

terminology since you perfect

in the field of terminology are there

objectively

human sciences, that is to say I believe we have

in hand as there are

mathematical sciences and yes that's their name they don't really have

the problem arises to

enter into many problems that

were linked ultimately we have a notion of

truth well it's no no no wait

there our signs in the sciences of the

elite ladies of a proposal of basil of

Hainaut tories those who speak of

truth are people who count

transcendence are knowledge well the

emphasis knowledge of course he what

he uses this word they do not

agree well then but words are

words it's validity

the purists and said we had

solidarity is operative in

mathematics a methodology

we try to apply it we did

experiments in the human sciences

they have other recipes they stopped

applying them whereas if they say

the adversaries of the human sciences

because there are adversaries of the

human sciences and sciences and

human sciences it's not Sciences

because they lack

mathematical formalizations because they

produce nothing, no,

experimentation doesn't have criteria

of truth, and that's where

terrible slippages occur. How can truth

concern human beings? Is it that we have

a formulation of the human being and its

name? That's what we have. We must be

careful. I think that,

unfortunately, a serious debate is necessary. Some

simply have universities, right?

And if there's someone who says that where the stakes are,

I don't have the stakes. It's that if science

closes itself off,

exact science, it will deliver even totalitarianism

such as its derivatives. Two hours in

history, the Nazis claimed to be acting on

science,

the Communists claimed to be acting on

science. A science is a science.

Bendella, science, the exact words, bull,

ise, the founders, okay, game, the

students, I was obliged to study them.

I'm moving on from the account, absolutely, system of the

good, and it's absolutely clear that if

exact science is finally itself, and

there are two solutions, it would be to Inhuman war,

she can't deduce values, it's none of their business,

either recover a

human and viral structure, men, that's it, the

young, the molecules, the actors, the

neurons, and that will be horrible, those

concentration camps, we wander around and serve for

five weeks, I don't think

people live in cognitive science

without adversaries, human sciences, I don't think

people who do

experimental psychology are adversaries of the

human sciences, in front of these people,

consider that we have to start from scratch, try to

answer questions

to which we don't have answers at the

moment,

and forget the answers that only

psychoanalysis can explain

everything you do, so really, I don't have

a problem that is more human,

tragic, and serves autism or

serious psychological illnesses, but for a

very long time, and

psychoanalytic or

environmental explanations, 10 by the environment,

by education in parents,

now we realize that its

aunt of these illnesses makes them the basis of

an ethic, so what

is the most human

of gods, what is the most

totalitarian of... Blaming

parents because they created a

psychopathic environment, which

engenders this or that problem,

or recognizing reality, knowing

the reality in the Jose decree, which is, let's say,

the genetic basis, putting it into practice,

and so we discover

other disorders that we don't know about, a

need in genetics, and what is

most human is knowing the truth, or,

as I had said, having the recognition

of the necessity,

yes, but there you go, relieved, or Messianic, in the

version, if we had blamed,

investing well in its name in the name of a

discourse on the human, that is, the specificity

of the human, we are not molecules,

we are not already a tobacco, Tati Patata,

but in reality we are, and it is better to know, to know what we

are. Let's

imagine that in two or three centuries there will no longer be

modern sciences as

we have known them, as we

know them, it is very possible, all

forms of cultural aid and a

deadly form in the east, that's good, it leaves

and disappears, separate from the seasons, but

I believe that even on Thursday, even if

modern science disappears something

What will remain extraordinary is what

I call the scientific spirit. The

scientific spirit, that is to

say, doesn't believe anyone, doesn't believe

anyone. The elders crack under the pressure; it's because you can

verify things yourself, and that has carried weight, okay,

but it's very important if, at the level

of questioning, we can pass it on to

people from any position other than

scientists. This scientific spirit—

I'm passing on one more thing, or rather, the

science of adventure to science—I believe it's

something that deserves to be

produced, something that isn't known. The

specialties are

because science hasn't

come to every street. Well,

we talk about swear words, but we understand

very little, to be honest. No, when the average person has

practically nothing, but

I've outlined what's missing is education.

I'll tell you something that might

completely shock you: I'm convinced

that quantum mechanics, for example, is no

longer taught to students,

even in elementary school, if we approach it

correctly, that is to

say, with language tools

that are appropriate for children, etc.

So it's a question of education, and it is

only these educational qualifications that

will create beings capable of communication, that is to

say, of opening themselves to what we

call, in this world,

the transitional spirit, that is to say,

communication between the different

disciplines without any pretense

of authority and hierarchy. That year,

that exact science, the hall and

humanities, there is

poetry, there is

philosophy, no, it is

different visions of the same reality. Not hard,

we also understand the words of reality with

the rally,

reality, what governs their LCC, which

is points, so there we cannot speak of

reality because the stamps are forever,

but we can speak of reality, and

this reality, we must understand well,

in this civilization which is dominated

by singulars, always the singular,

science, truth, no, there are

sciences, there are truths, and in these

multiple faces of reality, perhaps

we will have a chance to survive.

[Music]

1

[Music]