Hi Tom
Some scientists regard science as you do as the best of a set of
relatively better or worse options. However, many are absolutist. I agree
with most of what Richard Dawkins says until he gets to the point of
articulating his belief in science over other systems of belief. At that
point he loses me and, I fear, loses his argument. His adamant belief that
science is not only the best available system but the best of all systems,
full stop, appears both arrogant and ignorant.
Science is not a system for delivering truth. Nor should it become a belief
system. It is as constrained by cultural and historical factors as any other
epistemology. Where it differs, importantly, is in having a methodological
system in place that works against things becoming doctrinaire and allows
for change in our understanding of the world. That is a big improvement on
previous systems. However, those methods do not always deliver on that
promise and many scientists, and the technocrats who develop their
half-baked ideas on the basis of that science, often come to see science and
its methods in absolutist terms. They might philosophically accept the
limitations of scientific method but in practice they treat it as a system
for divining truth. That is very dangerous and Dawkins repeatedly makes this
error. In his recent Darwin TV series he stated explicitly that science was
not only the best known system but also the best imaginable system and no
other system of apprehension could deliver knowledge that could stand
against it. He did not argue that Darwinıs theory offers us a best-fit
model, given our current constraints, but rather that it was the truth (he
used that word). He set Darwinism in direct contradistinction to religion.
Big mistake as this simply makes science look like religion. He has lost the
argument at that point.
OK, letıs generously assume that when Dawkins says ³best imaginable² he is
also ironically reflecting on a lack of human imagination. Nevertheless, he
dismisses thousands of years of human history and experience with his
rhetorical flourish, not recognising the damage he has done to any
likelihood he will achieve the agreement he seeks in what he regards as a
war against the dark forces of religion and misguided belief systems (I
agree religion is a dark force, but his methods will not banish it).
If science was practiced as you suggest it should be then I would have no
argument with you, nor with science or those who employ its outcomes.
However, that is not how science is practiced and people are expected to
defer to systems of authority that compound that malpractice. A good example
here is how the introduction of genetically modified organisms into
agriculture and the natural environment was handled. Thankfully, in that
case, at least in Europe, the dark forces of ignorance won the argument and
GM is not being developed here. However, the other day I attended a day-long
workshop on Synthetic Biology, the objective being to find ways that GM can
be introduced again without the contentiousness that previously occurred. As
somebody who is staunchly anti-GM (on the basis that it compromises the
freedom of those who want their food to be organic and do not want
agri-business dictating how we produce our food) I found this an interesting
event to be part of. I am going to sustain my engagement with this process,
for the time being, to see where it goes but given who is involved (Craig
Venter, for example) I have few illusions where it will end up. Expect the
GM argument mark II but by stealth and with smiley faces attached.
I could have used the current renewed focus on nuclear power as another
example here. I sustain my position against that form of energy for the
reasons I always have. It is not a renewable energy source, its produces
highly toxic waste and it is part of a weapons cycle. However, science will
be used instrumentally by politicians to convince us that it is good for us
truthfully...and many scientists will go along with it, certain in their
belief they are right. To me that looks no different to the ignorant priests
who 1000 years ago dictated public policy on how to deal with the plague
(with disastrous results).
So, I am all for engaging with science (as you know) but with a lot of
scepticism about both science and those who do it and (ab)use it. There is a
bigger picture...
Simon
Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
www.eca.ac.uk
Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
CIRCLE research group
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
[log in to unmask]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
From: tom corby <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: tom corby <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:25:19 +0000
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science and
Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions
Simon, Armin, List.....
I find some of these characterizations of science unhelpful - they rake
over old arguments that I thought we'd junked years ago i.e. culture
wars. Science believes in it's propositions according to the best
possible evidence. It doesn't claim absolute truth. As for the belief in
universal laws, again these are presented as hypotheses backed up with
best possible evidence. Science gives us a very good method for
understanding material and environmental processes such as climate change.
Facing environmental catastrophe we need more interdisciplinary practice
not less, I do however agree that the terms for these collaborations
need to be carefully framed.
best
Tom Corby
>
> From: Armin Medosch <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Armin Medosch <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:51:57 +0100
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Fwd: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Art-Science and
> Science-Art Curricula: Call for Contributions
>
> Hi all
>
> the problem is not just instrumentalism but what science studies
> scholars call the ideology of science or scientism, the believe that the
> results of science are objective, that the 'laws of nature' are
> universal and eternal and exist outside society. If an institution or an
> individual scientist are wedded to that idea then I cant see how any
> self-respecting artist can work with them except as some ethnographer or
> social anthropologist of science. Unfortunately most institutions have
> scientism built into their belief system so that in any collaboration
> the artist would have to submit to a strong apriori decision about the
> superiority of science as a system of knowledge to be admitted to the
> institution, there is no reconciliation possible between the epistemic
> cultures of science and art on that basis.
>
> Furtherly, I am afraid that pure science is not necessarily a remedy
> against that ideology of science, it can grow there as well as in a
> commercial R&D lab; rather, pure science itself is an ideological
> construct to justify certain types of funding, whereas in reality most
> science is strongly connected with R&D anyway and empirically speaking,
> by far the majority of science is conducted in a commercial R&D context.
> Those points are not my 'opinion' but paraphrasing an interview with
> philosopher and historian of science Simon Schaffer from Cambridge.
>
> All that does not mean that artists and curators should not engage with
> it, but, if possible, on their own terms and with a careful approach
> that checks and selects methodologies, projected outcomes, etc.
> Otherwise the questions that can be asked are very narrow indeed
>
> best
> armin
>
>
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|
