Interesting discussion - a look at why science should or should not be the authority on the nature of our lives, from the life sciences to (most recently in the work of Sam Harris and Patricia Churchland) our morality.
Integral theory attempts to keep science limited to its quadrant - the exemplar practice for knowing about and explaining objective, exterior reality. But it tends to own the whole map among the scientific and rationally minded, including the subjective, interior, first-person experience of consciousness (again, see Patricia and Paul Churchland, as well as the majority of neuroscientific writers).
As mentioned above, the newest move has been to attempt a scientific foundation for moral beliefs - a realm generally seen within the collective internal quadrant, the interpersonal and intersubjective.
As you listen to these speakers, please try to keep in mind your own experience of their arguments toward a rational only perspective.
The Authority of Science
From climate change to the classification of illegal drugs the extent to which scientific opinion should prevail over other voices in determining public policy is hotly contested. What is it about the nature of science that confers epistemic authority on scientific opinion, and what are the scope and limits of that authority? At this Sydney Ideas event, Paul Willis (ABC) hosts a discussion between four distinguished academics: Professor Theodore L Brown, University of Illinois, author of Imperfect Oracle: The Epistemic and Moral Authority of Science; Professor David Castle, Chair of Innovation in the Life Sciences, University of Edinburgh; Professor Christian List, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at the London School of Economics; and Professor Rosemary Lyster, inaugural Professor of Climate and Environmental Law at the University of Sydney. Presented by Sydney Ideas, April 2011