ABSTRACT
More and more often we hear echoes of a new metaphysical tension between ethics and science: on the one hand, transcendence and absolutes of a religious and ethical kind claim to permeate scientific research (the infinite kindness of divine intelligent design, for instance, in theories of evolution), while on the other hand, scientific answers propose yet again a new universality of knowledge, instead of an absolute, and the ethical values thereof. To a great extent, this tension and the problems in resolving it have to do with the new order presented by new dogma holders. Some thinkers propose a counterattack that evidences, with intellectual vigor, the distinct values of anti-dogmatic propositions that too often come with “relativistic” accents. It is this relativism that seems to us inadequate in responding to dogmatic absolutes. We will discuss this in the first part, with the aim of underscoring the difference between universality and the dynamic generality of scientific thought, on the one hand, and the thinking of absolutes on the other. In the second part, we will try to highlight the role of critical reflection, as well as its complex interplay in relation to the universality of concepts and scientific intelligibility, so often motivated by negative results. The “ethics of knowledge” that guides scientific research provides renewed motivations today for the analysis of the foundations of the various sciences, and makes it the point of departure for any thoughtful critique of their constitutive principles, a “relativizing” rather than a “relativistic” one. The interplay between computing and biology will allow us to provide some examples and reflect on the image that a certain “common sense” suggests for the scientific analysis of life.
