This person has a very different view of science than most scientists I’ve known.  I think this is because he likes including more of what he does in the category of being science.  By his definition a lot more of art can be put into the category of science than I believe should be.  Working in the ‘soft’ sciences will do this, as much of what is trying to be shown is not universal laws, but instead deal with conventions and labels.  It is hard to describe the difference in a hard way, but politics would be another good example of something that follows a method, but isn’t science.  Same can be said for law and ethics.

The book is fantastic at breaking down the history of psychology and how some of the different theories are flawed when you take them to their ultimate conclusions.  This is very similar to what can be done with many ethical positions.  Even though I don’t agree with everything said in the book, I agree with most of what it implies.  I like to think that thinking has more to it than an electro-chemical process.  I like to think that I am; not that I am just a mass of mainly carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen, with other things mixed in, that happens to be doing what I’m doing.

Audible Link