Antiscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antiscience is a position critical of science and the scientific method. Antiscientific views generally claim that science is non-objective method generating non-universal knowledge, and that scientific reductionism is flawed. Antiscience criticises the perceived power and influence of science, and objects to what proponents perceive as an arrogant or closed-minded attitude amongst scientists.[1] Antiscience has been used to refer to both the New Age and postmodernist movements associated with the political Left, and to socially conservative and fundamentalist movements associated with the political Right.

Contents

[edit] History

Irresponsible science. From the monument Children, victims of adult vices by Mikhail Shemyakin. Moscow, 2001
Irresponsible science. From the monument Children, victims of adult vices by Mikhail Shemyakin. Moscow, 2001

Those involved in the beginnings of the scientific revolution such as Robert Boyle found themselves in immediate and direct confrontation with those such as Thomas Hobbes who were extremely skeptical regarding whether what we now think of as the scientific method was a satisfactory way to obtain genuine knowledge of the nature of the world. Hobbes' stance is today seen by many as an anti-science position.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, is noted for claiming science leads to morality's corruption.

Anti-science issues are seen as a fundamental consideration in the transition from 'pre-science' or 'proto-science' such as that evident in Alchemy. Many disciplines which pre-date the widespread adoption and acceptance of the scientific method, such as geometry and astronomy, are not seen as anti-science.

Nonetheless, some of the orthodoxies within those disciplines which pre-date a scientific approach (such as those orthodoxies repudiated by the discoveries of Galileo) are seen as being a product of an anti-science stance.

The term 'scientism' is sometimes used as a pejorative description, in the sense that individuals to whom this is attributed are claimed to be 'fetishizing' science, or treating science in a similar way to a religion.

The term reductionism is occasionally used in a similarly pejorative way (as a somewhat more subtle attack on scientists) although scientists can now be found who recognise that there might be conceptual and philosophical shortcomings of reductionism but feel nonetheless comfortable in being labelled as reductionists.[citation needed]

William Blake in his paintings and writings, reacted strongly against the work of Isaac Newton and is seen as being perhaps the earliest (and almost certainly the most prominent and enduring) example of what is seen by historians as being the aesthetic anti-science response.

[edit] Political antiscience

[edit] Left-wing antiscience

One way the antiscience view is expressed is in the "denial of universality and... legitimisation of alternatives,"[2] and that "the results of scientific findings [do]... not represent any underlying reality, but are purely the ideology of dominant groups within society."[2]

In this view, science is associated with the political Right and is seen as a belief system that is deeply conservative and conformist, that suppresses innovation, that resists change and that acts dictatorially. This includes the view, for example, that science has a "bourgeois and/or Eurocentric and/or masculinist world-view... and [that] various ethnic groups... would have to develop their own forms of science which need not be as intellectually demanding as the Western male variety."[2]

[edit] Right-wing antiscience

In this context, antiscience may be considered dependent on established moral and cultural arguments. There are many modern examples of conservative antiscience, primary among these are arguments against stem cell research, abortion, evolutionary theory, and environmental protection issues such as global warming. As the basis for any particular conclusion, an individual who holds these beliefs may cite ethical/religious/economic concerns; in comparison to liberal views, which pronounce human rights, women's rights, and altogether more libertarian perspectives, as those issues which deserve primary attention.

[edit] Religious antiscience

Main article: Relationship between religion and science

A frequent basis of antiscientific views is literalist or fundamentalist theism. Here, scientific findings that conflict with what is considered divinely-inspired knowledge are regarded as flawed. Over the centuries such religious thinkers have opposed such ideas as heliocentrism and planetary motion. More recently, the religious theory of creationism, and its evolved form intelligent design, have been promoted by religious literalists to counter the scientific theory of evolution.[3]

[edit] Three areas of antiscience

Historically, antiscience first arose as a reaction against scientific materialism. The 18th century Enlightenment had ushered in "the ideal of a unified system of all the sciences,"[4] but there were those fearful of this notion, who "felt that constrictions of reason and science, of a single all-embracing system... were in some way constricting, an obstacle to their vision of the world, chains on their imagination or feeling."[4] Antiscience then is a rejection of "the scientific model [or paradigm]... with its strong implication that only that which was quantifiable, or at any rate, measurable... was real."[4] In this sense, it comprises a "critical attack upon the total claim of the new scientific method to dominate the entire field of human knowledge."[4]

Three major areas of antiscience can be seen in philosophy, sociology and ecology. The following quotes explore this aspect of the subject.

[edit] Philosophy

Philosophical objections against science are often objections about the role of reductionism. For example, in the field of psychology, "both reductionists and antireductionists accept that... non-molecular explanations may not be improved, corrected or grounded in molecular ones." [5] Further, "epistemological antireductionism holds that, given our finite mental capacities, we would not be able to grasp the ultimate physical explanation of many complex phenomena even if we knew the laws governing their ultimate constituents."[6] Some see antiscience as "common...in academic settings...many people confuse science, scientism and pseudoscience, resulting in an antiscience stance. Some argue that nothing can be known for sure." [7]

Many scholars are "divided as to whether reduction should be a central strategy for understanding the world."[8] However, many agree that "there are, nevertheless, reasons why we want science to discover properties and explanations other than reductive physical ones." [8] Such issues stem "from an antireductionist worry that there is no absolute conception of reality, that is, a characterization of reality such as... science claims to provide." [9] This is close to the Kantian view that reality is ultimately unknowable and all models are just imperfect approximations to it.

[edit] Sociology

Sociologist Thomas Gieryn refers to "some sociologists who might appear to be antiscience."[10] Some "philosophers and antiscience types," he contends, may have presented "unreal images of science that threaten the believability of scientific knowledge,"[10] or appear to have gone "too far in their antiscience deconstructions."[10] The question often lies in how far scientists can be said to really conform to the standard stereotype of "communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality, and... skepticism."[10] Unfortunately, "scientists don't always conform... scientists do get passionate about pet theories; they do rely on reputation in judging a scientist's work; they do pursue fame and gain via research."[10] Thus, they do show inherent biases in their work. Many "scientists are not as rational and logical as the legend would have them, nor are they as illogical or irrational as some relativists might say."[10].

[edit] Ecology and health sphere

Within the ecological and health spheres, Levins identifies a conflict "not between science and antiscience, but rather between different pathways for science and technology; between a commodified science-for-profit and a gentle science for humane goals; between the sciences of the smallest parts and the sciences of dynamic wholes... [he] offers proposals for a more holistic, integral approach to understanding and addressing environmental issues." [11] These beliefs are also common within the scientific community, with for example, scientists being prominent in environmental campaigns warning of environmental dangers such as ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. It can also be argued that this version of antiscience comes close to that found in the medical sphere where patients and practitioners may choose to reject reductionism and adopt a more holistic approach to health problems. This can be both a practical and a conceptual shift and has attracted strong criticism: "therapeutic touch, a healing technique based upon the laying-on of hands, has found wide acceptance in the nursing profession despite its lack of scientific plausibility. Its acceptance is indicative of a broad antiscientific trend in nursing." [12]

Glazer also criticises the therapists and patients, "for abandoning the biological underpinnings of nursing and for misreading philosophy in the service of an antiscientific world-view".[12] Brian Martin provides a view of the conflict between science and antiscience: "Gross and Levitt's basic approach is to attack constructivists for not being positivists."[13] Science is "presented as a unitary object, usually identified with scientific knowledge. It is portrayed as neutral and objective. Second, science is claimed to be under attack by 'antiscience' which is composed essentially of ideologues who are threats to the neutrality and objectivity that are fundamental to science. Third, a highly selective attack is made on the arguments of 'antiscience'."[13] Such people allegedly then "routinely equate critique of scientific knowledge with hostility to science, a jump that is logically unsupportable and empirically dubious."[13] Having then "constructed two artificial entities, a unitary 'science' and a unitary 'academic left', each reduced to epistemological essences, Gross and Levitt proceed to attack. They pick out figures in each of several areas -- science studies, postmodernism, feminism, environmentalism, AIDS activism -- and criticise their critiques of science."[13]

The writings of Young serve to illustrate more rhetorical antiscience outpourings: "The strength of the antiscience movement and of alternative technology is that their advocates have managed to retain Utopian vision while still trying to create concrete instances of it."[14] "the real social, ideological and economic forces shaping science...[have] been opposed to the point of suppression in many quarters. Most scientists hate it and label it 'antiscience'. But it is urgently needed, because it makes science self-conscious and hopefully self-critical and accountable with respect to the forces which shape research priorities, criteria, goals."[14]

[edit] Opposition to reductionism and positivism

 This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(January 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

[edit] Failure to appreciate subtle complexity

The formulas of mathematical models are "artificial constructions, logical figments with no necessary relation to the outside world.". These models always "leave out the richest and most important part of human experience...daily life, history, human laws and institutions, the modes of human self- expression." A failure to appreciate the subtle complexity of social worlds, means they get excluded from the formulas, even though, “no easy reductionism will do justice to the material.” This approach often fails to concentrate “on social structures, processes, and actions in a specific sense (inequality, mobility, classes, strata, ethnicity, gender relations, urbanization, work and life of different types of people, not just elites),” and so tends to generate mostly meaningless oversimplifications.[citation needed]

[edit] From reductionism to positivism

This basically comes down to the issue of positivism, which is "the view that all true knowledge is scientific," [15] and that all things are ultimately measurable.

Because of its "close association with reductionism," it is worth saying that positivism and reductionism involve the view that "entities of one kind...are reducible to entities of another," such as societies to numbers, or mental events to chemical events. It also involves the contention that "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events," and even that "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals," or that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems."[citation needed]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/93crarrog.html Brian Martin, The arrogance of scientists
  2. ^ a b c Sean Robsville "Postmodernism - a threat to Buddhism?": Personal website
  3. ^ Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Shinji Okamoto Public Acceptance of Evolution Science 11 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 765 - 766
  4. ^ a b c d Isaiah Berlin, The Proper Study of Mankind, London: Pimlico, 1997, p328
  5. ^ Alex Rosenberg and D. M. Kaplan "How to Reconcile Physicalism and Antireductionism about Biology" Philosophy of Science 72 (January 2005) pp. 43-68
  6. ^ Nagel T. "Reductionism and antireductionism." Novartis Found Symp. 1998;213:3-10; discussion 10-4, 73-5.
  7. ^ Eileen Gambrill, Evidence based practice, an alternative to authority based practice, Families in Society, the Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80.4, 1999, 341-350
  8. ^ a b Todd Jones, Reductionism and Antireductionism: Rights and Wrongs, Metaphilosophy, Volume 35, Number 5, October 2004, pp. 614-647
  9. ^ Peter W. Ross and Dale Turner, "Sensibility Theory and Conservative Complacency"
  10. ^ a b c d e f Thomas F. Gieryn, Book Review of John Ziman. Real Science: What it is and What it Means, Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press, 2000, Isis, vol. 93 (2002), pp. 544–545
  11. ^ Richard Levins, Whose Scientific Method? Scientific Methods for a Complex World, New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy,Vol.13,3, 2003, 261-274
  12. ^ a b Sarah Glazer, "Therapeutic touch and postmodernism in nursing", Nursing Philosophy (2001) 2(3), 196-212.
  13. ^ a b c d Brian Martin, Social Construction of an 'Attack on Science', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, February 1996, pp. 161-173.
  14. ^ a b Robert M. Young, Science is Social Relations
  15. ^ A Bullock & S Trombley [Eds.], The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, third edition, London: Harper Collins, 1999, p.669

[edit] Bibliography

  • A Bullock & S Trombley [Eds.], The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, third edition, London: Harper Collins, 1999
  • Burger, P and Luckman, T, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966
  • Collins, Harry and Pinch, Trevor, The Golem. What everyone should know about science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993
  • Gross, Paul R and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994
  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin D, & Mulkay, Michael, Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage Publications Ltd, 1983
  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin D, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press, 1999
  • Levins, R. "Ten propositions on science and antiscience" in Social Text, 46/47:101–111, 1996.
  • Levins, R. "Touch Red," in Judy Kaplan an Linn Shapiro, eds., Red Diapers: Growing up in the Communist Left, U. of Illinois, 1998, pp. 257-266.
  • Levins, R. Dialectics and systems theory in Science and Society 62(3):373-399, 1998.
  • Levins, R. "The internal and external in explanatory theories", Science as Culture, 7(4):557–582, 1998.
  • Levins, R. and Lopez C. "Toward an ecosocial view of health", International Journal of Health Services 29(2):261-293, 1999.
  • Nye, Andrea, Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic, London: Routledge, 1990
  • Pepper, David, The Roots of Modern Environmentalism, London: Routledge, 1989
  • Vining, Joseph, On the Future of Total Theory: Science, Antiscience, and Human Candor, Erasmus Institute papers, 1999
  • Leviathan and the Air Pump Schapin and Shaffer (covers the conflict between Hobbes and Boyle).
  • The Scientific Outlook by Bertrand Russell (sets out the limits of science from the perspective of a vehement campaigner against anti-science).
  • An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume (The first major work to point out the limits of inductive reasoning, the 'new tool of science').
  • Against Method by Paul Feyerabend (probably the individual most accused of reinvigorating anti-science, although some claim that he is in fact strengthening the scientific debate).

[edit] External links

Languages