Chair: Prof. Jean-Claude Pecker

This session was held in the Amphitheatre Champollion of Sorbonne University. The papers delivered were as follows:

Science and pseudo-science by Jean Bricmont

Early twentieth century philosophers - particularly those associated with the Vienna Circle - tried to draw a demarcation line between science and non-science. This approach based itself on confirmation. On the other hand, Popper's approach relied on falsification, but this too is inadequate and wrong. The post-modernist approach has been that since the distinction between science and non-science cannot be made, there is no such distinction. But the problem of making an exact and conceptually satisfying demarcation line between science and non-science does not mean there is no distinction between science and disciplines that have failed over the centuries.

Jean Bricmont said, "If you don't understand how birds fly, it doesn't mean that they don't fly!" The empirical successes of Science are what prove Science works - "Where are the successes of astrology compared with the successes of science?"

He quoted Hume on miracles: if you see a miracle yourself, you have to decide whether you are being deceived; but mostly people hear reports of miracles - then they have to decide whether the reporter is deceiving them or is himself deceived.

Science and free thinking by Hélène Langevin-Joliot

What is the place of freethinking in science? Science progresses through the accumulation of previously acquired knowledge and yet needs to go beyond it to generate new knowledge. Science in the past has had to overcome serious opposition and hostility from religion. Today the main challenges are elsewhere - researchers are now overwhelmingly dependent on funding either by the state or by private firms. The freedom of scientists who are obliged to adapt research to a rapidly developing competetive economic context is at risk. The freedom of a scientist is at the same time rightly shaped by society's expectations. Freethinking in science and society is more than ever necessary in a context which gives special responsibilities to scientists and citizens of our time.

Science vs irrational preconceptions by Michel Naud

Dr. Naud recalled the Heidelberg Appeal of 1992 "We are worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development ... We do forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and non relevant data ... The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology and Industry".

Dr. Naud pointed out that despite the Heidelberg appeal, the 1997 Declaration in Defense of Cloning and the Integrity of Scientific Research, the 1998 Izvestia statement led by 3 vice-presidents of the Russian Academy of Sciences which called for Science to "combat pseudoscience", the French appeal to defend research (signed by 1500 scientists), political opportunism, financial conflicts of interest, religious preconceptions and irrational fears did not disappear. The environment, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, genetically modified foods etc. are still hot topics on which the obscurantist lobbies are very active. In this context, Humanist scientists must persuade, without imposing and without arrogance, both individuals and world leaders to consider scientific criteria instead of pseudo scientific data, and to use reason, not religion or other irrational preconceptions to guide their decisions.

Science status in Muslim countries by Laurent Dianoux

Laurent Dianoux presented a very detailed statistical analysis of thousands of scientific papers emanating from Muslim and non-Muslim countries over a 10-year period, in an attempt to show that Islam holds back scientific discovery. An interesting idea emerged in the closing plenary discussion, when it was suggested that science productivity should be compared between Catholic countries and the rest of the world.

Science and spiritualism in France by Guillaume Lecointre

Rather than the hard intrusion of pseudo science - such as that of 'creationism' in the USA or in Australia - in France it is an intrusion of spiritualism into science, since spiritualism and science are associated in a soft so-called 'new paradigm', where it is said that science and religion have the same aims, both being considered to contribute equally to ultimate knowledge. In such a framework, science is logically supposed to help us in our spiritual quest and gaps in our scientific knowledge is used to justify the hypothesis of a designer. scientific materialism is presented as the intrusion of ideology into science. Analogic reasonings, historical errors, anti darwinism, alleged similariies between scienific reasoning and spiritual quest, cnfusion between materialism and reductionism, reduction of the validity of scientific materialism to the mode of description of matter, strong anthropic principle, morality exclusively restricted to religion are some of the items also found in the american pseudo-theory of 'intelligent design'. Separation of the Church from the State is the appropriate framework into which public science and teachers, who work together, are protected from spiritual lobbies. This framework also helps teachers to manage possible conflicts between what science says about the origin of the natural world and what kids have learnt from their parents' religions.

A contribution was also received from Dr Parikh, and Prof. Pecker read out one paragraph of it: "Science is a quest for knowledge, a quest to understand... Religion has inviolable truths and knowledge not in the [holy] books is not worth knowing. Science is anathema to religion. The scientific method came into existence in the 15th century mostly as a reaction to religion. There is a state religion but there is no state science."