[!!! How can moral reasoning be “based” in scientific knowledge? How can science make me have, e.g., the moral principle of not killing men? Experience shows that although science can be the same in various societies, morals can differ; and common logic explains that science is founded on the rational intellect, while morality is founded on will. Therefore, science by itself can not produce a spesific morality, and a morality by itself can not produce scientific achievement or failure, although it can influence the value with which we invest the scientific endeavour in general, which, again, is a moral, not a scientific, decision].

Open-minded readers should find their [the authors’ of the book] case powerful.

[!!! Open-mindedness has to do with will to explore new views; if these views are powerful can not be decided by the opennesss of a mind, but by a mind’s rational abilities and previous learning. I make this comment, because I think that the author of the review, in lack of serious arguments tries to preoccupy the reader, that a probable refutation of the book would mean a closed mind. Since the readers of the review are not all of them expected to consider themselves geniuses, a similar accusation, that a refutation of the book would prove foolishness, would not have the same impact; anyone can have an open mind, although not anyone can have strong rational abilities].

More about Embryo, in the next post.