> I think this is a thoroughly bad idea. I grant that scientists
> are people and all that, so the study of "science" is to some
> extent a humanist discipline rather than itself a science.
> But attempts to add psychology and "sociology of knowledge"
> haven't done much to improve the philosophy of science, in my
> judgement. Nor have they really pointed toward ways of doing
> science better or improving the theories we generate. They
> have served _magnificently_ to convince non-scientists that
> science is arbitary, superstition-riddled, and hypocritical.
>
> A small suggestion, if you must embrace subjectivity: try
> to distinguish carefully between Science in the ideal sense
> (discovering the workings of nature, which might in principle
> be done by ancient Assyrians and Martians as well as by say
> 20th Century Englishmen) and Science-as-a-social-enterprise,
> which fits very comfortably with the history of ideas, politics,
> economics, sociology, etc.
Thanks for the reply and suggestion Mike.
Surely, the best way to defend science against its critics, is
to ensure that it is _not_ arbitrary, superstition-riddled and
hypocritical, then its opponents don't have a leg to stand on.
I certainly think that a great many people who go under the
label scientist, are guilty of scientism, i.e. a blinkered conformity
to ideology, that is the antithesis of true scientific scepticism
and open-mindedness. Having read all your web pages, I would never
accuse you of any tendency toward scientism, let me reassure
you on that score. I enjoyed your writing a lot. But I recently
enquired into epigenetic inheritance, and was shocked by what
I found. I read this quote :
"Epigenesis,......,in fact quite ancient in biology, has been
underappreciated in the recent past for ideological reasons
(specifically, anti-'vitalist' phobias), but it continues to be an
indispensable notion" (ref.1 below)
What's this ? Suppression of scientific data for ideological
reasons ? scientists with phobias ? What kind of science is
that ? Ideal or Social Enterprise ? I think it stinks, either
way, and I found it hard to accept that paragraph.
But then I found this :
"It has become difficult for people to think of heredity as
involving non-genetic material," says Steven Rose, a
biologist at Britain's Open University in Milton Keynes. The
research has continued, he says, but epigenetic research
"remains semi-underground. You're not supposed to talk about it".
(ref.2 below)
Is that the kind of 'scientific enterprise' that you guys are
trying to defend against the opposition ? A science where
very significant data cannot be discussed, is suppressed
for decades, because somehow it conflicts with ideological
imperatives ?
Chris.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrislees/Epilogus/epilogus1.html
Ref. 1 - Anderson, Myrdene (1990); Biology and semiotics; Semiotics in the
Individual Sciences; VOL. 1 (ed. W. A. Koch), Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
Ref. 2 - Epigenetic Inheritance NewScientist 28 Nov 98 27
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|