The pursuit of knowledge, or happiness?

Several speakers acknowledged the challenges that such a transition poses for participants whilst emphasising the importance of facing these metaphorical 'mountains' many of which have traditionally appeared intransigent in the face of opposing beliefs or theories.

Predictably there was some disagreement about what are the great challenges of our time, however there was an acceptance that those who are in a position to impart the knowledge have a human responsibility to work in collaboration with others from all disciplines to create a more equitable, inclusive, 'knowledge based' society. There was recognition that in the intellectual / scholarly world, knowledge has become increasingly specialised and fragmentised, therefore increasingly exclusive of other disciplines and consequently distanced from the real life experiences of most human beings. The experience of knowledge acquisition for society at large in the Internet age has moved from a primarily passive experience to one that is dynamic and interactive. Contributions to the debate from all disciplines should not only engage in this ground breaking revolution in cross-cutting dialogue but have a responsibility to lead the way.

The science community has changed explained Professor Kyoshi Kurokawa. "It is no longer just science for science but also science for society and science for development". In our knowledge-based, world-wide-web-filled world, people ask "is science helping us solve global issues? [...] A scientist's challenge is that he or she must respond to his or her questions responsibly," argued Kurokawa, which triggered the broader question, "does each knowledgeable person have a responsibility to humanity?" WKD director, Francis Waldvogel drew the analogy that it is by bringing our concerted actions to bear on the potential of a child rather than on his immediate condition that they can have greatest effect. Scientist in Residence E. O. Wilson reminded us of Jean Piaget's statement, that effective researchers should actively search for those who disagree with their position.

Secretary of State for Education and Research Mauro Dell'Ambrogio, was of the opinion that science needs the active support of citizens for reasons that can be reduced to three key factors:

• Cost of research,
• Risks associated with research e.g. with nanotechnology, as reported by the media.
• Issues of social equity, such as those now being provoked by climate change.

According to Professor Richard Ernst, responsibility does not lie solely with scientists, but with humanity in general. He argued that unless humans could learn to discard individual selfishness, it would remain as humanity's fundamental problem. He quoted the words of H. Jonas, saying we should act so that the consequences of our actions are compatible with general human life on earth. 

Both Professors Waldvogel and Mohanan referred to the 'epistemic' fragmentation of academia, arguing that an overly reductionist approach has segregated the scientific world. "We need to construct a general framework so fundamental unity can be grasped," suggested Mohanan. He suggested the aim of the Dialogue could be perceived as an attempt to build or mend communication bridges that make up today's broken scientific world and reach beyond that into other disciplines. "Through encouraged communication between the two disciplines can we develop tools for better understanding the humanities," was a question voiced by Professor André Hurst. True to the symposium"s guideline of proactively trying to remain as free as possible of jargon, Hurst deftly made a vital distinction between scholars and intellectuals: He offered the definition that scholars are those who feel comfortable within the limits of a particular subject; intellectuals are those who feel confident outside of their field of competence.

Professor Julia Higgins drew attention to the Dialogue as a principal destination for Young Scientists, because in the arena of scholarly, intellectual and Nobel Laureate minds, "we are talking about their interests, and their future." Veronica Boix-Mansilla stressed that we should aim to conceive of a world of knowledge where not anything goes. "We need to remember, not all flowers bloom in equally productive ways, when we attempt to ground our knowledge claims," she added.

Wilson drew on the metaphor of an  "intellectual moon shot," as being necessary in the area of attempts for consilience between the intellectual cultures. He cited the current firing of protons particles at the so-called Large Hadron Collider in CERN as an example of an equivalently ambitious international scale collaborative project in the physical sciences. "We should be asking ourselves questions like who are we and where did we come from, because without those elements we cannot hope to understand where we are going." The answers we may derive in response to such questions may provide an explanation and offer practical solutions to our current fragility as a species. Professor Ernst disagreed with E. O. Wilson's analogy, considering such physics experiments to be a waste of money, and proposing that our primary responsibility is to preserve viable human living conditions on earth. Tension reigned at the round table as the arguments of science were pitted against those of philosophy. Ernst envisaged science as 'strictly' the field that would be able to deal with climate change issues, especially in regard to issues of agriculture and water. "Philosophy doesn't help," he added. However, Professor Paul Boghossian decried the limitations of science stating: "Science attempts to provide answers to what ought to be the case in idealised situations, it doesn't answer what is the case in real life."

The role of emotion in science was touched upon, an exchange in which Professors Ernst and Mohanan presented opposing views. "Emotions must be included in scientific dialogue," stressed Ernst. In disagreement, Mohanan was emphatic that emotions should be kept out of scientific dialogue. Audience and speakers alike, were induced to laugh as Wilson interjected that the best scientists are not those with a very high IQ. In his opinion they ought to be "simple beings who think like poets, work like bookkeepers, and "if they want to explain their work" can write like journalists. Ernst Boghossian ended the debate with the plea: "let's please find a replacement for Adam Smith!"