Philosophy Envy (or in defense of Brian's worldview)
In thinking about the types of insights that science reveals about our humanity (social relationships, networks, flows of information), I thought this article by Richard Rorty was particularly relevant. He essentially argues the following:
Post-Galilean science does not tell us what is really real or really important. It has no metaphysical or moral implications. Instead, it enables us to do things that we had not previously been able to do. When it became empirical and experimental, it lost both its metaphysical pretensions and the ability to set new ends for human beings to strive for. It gained the ability to provide new means. Most scientists are content with this trade-off.
For more, check out the article published in Daedalus