Although the news seemingly is yet to percolate to some Rafean quarters of the blogosphere, peace has broken out in the science wars. Chris Mooney writes, apropos of the Sokal hoax:
Even at the time, however, the quest to root out anti-science tendencies in academia seemed a strange deployment of resources. After all, the Gingrich Republicans had just taken over Congress, set out to radically slash science budgets, and preached denial about global warming. If there was a war on science afoot, university professors probably weren’t the leading culprits. Certainly they weren’t the most powerful ones.
Indeed, despite some undeniable academic excesses, the “science wars” were always somewhat overblown. The sociological, historical, philosophical, and cultural study of science is a very worthwhile endeavor. If scholars engaged in such research sometimes take a stance of agnosticism toward the truth claims of science, perhaps that’s simply their way of remaining detached from the subject they’re studying. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that these scholars are absolute relativists, to the extent of thinking that concepts like gravity are a mere matter of opinion. Social Text founding Editor Stanley Aronowitz has himself written that “[t]he critical theories of science do not refute the results of scientific discoveries since, say, the Copernican revolution or since Galileo’s development of the telescope.”
When it comes to the field of science studies, meanwhile, much scholarly work in the area lends itself not to left-wing attacks on science but rather to defenses of science from forms of abuse prevalent on the political right. To cite just one example, leading science-studies scholar Sheila Jasanoff’s 1991 book, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, presents a potent critique of demands for unreasonable levels of scientific certainty before political decisions can be made, especially when it comes to protecting public health and the environment.
So perhaps it’s no surprise that the science wars of the 1990s have almost entirely subsided, and, as the scientific community has increasingly become embroiled with the Bush administration across a wide range of issues (from evolution to climate science), a very new zeitgeist has emerged. The summer issue of The American Scholar, a leading read among academic humanists and the literary set, provides a case in point. “Science matters,” blazons the cover. Inside, Editor Robert Wilson explains to readers that although “the attack on science has always been our game … the enemy of our enemy is most definitely not our friend.” The right’s attack on science, Wilson continues, “is an attack on reason, and it cannot be ignored, or excused, or allowed to go uncontested.”
Amen to that. Let’s get the Enlightenment united again! As wbb remarks, if Derrida and Habermas can set aside their differences to oppose the new Dark Ages of perpetual war, so can pro-reason bloggers do so to oppose the trashing of reason in the name of politics. And there’s a need to counter right-wing obscurantism in Australia, too, sadly, if Brendan Nelson’s anything to go by. Not to mention the continued global warming denialism in the media.
Elsewhere: More on climate change skepticism/denial at John Quiggin’s.
Hadn’t read this piece by Mooney yet. Thanks Mark.
It is ironic that the ones that have taken the idea the knowledge is relative to the extreme is the unreasonable right. The whole ID movement is one of relativistic notions of knowledge (even given the religious underpinings of the movement).
Note that movement against ID is a non-partisan issue. Both left and right bloggers came out against Bush’s remarks in the US.
Christ, not only hadn’t I read the Mooney piece yet, but Mark’s slunk off and written a post on it, probably while I was polishing the fangs afore bed. Call yourself a Catholic? Protestant written all over you.
It’s a stretch to call the ID movement, relatavist. They may write that on their calling card – but we all know they are playing for keeps.
It’s the Prussian in me!
And I’ve been doing all this in the insterstices left while doing my taxes and meeting a consultancy deadline! Being back in the paid work game minimises my time for pleasurable procrastination so fostered by postgrad research!
Irant,
You will have probably already seen this:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
Yes, harry. A new scourge begins. Man the barricades!
wbb, Some are the arguments from ID proponents due have a strong dose of epistemological relativism. However the movement is a political movement more than anything else as they readily appropriate tactics from that arena as well.
Irant, I’ve been pushing my luck here for a while trying to get a free philosophy education out of Mark, so if you could step into the breech, and expand on that point, I’d be most obliged.
Specifically, I imagine the IDers are bible enthusiasts, hence the opposite of epistemological absolutists.
No?
wbb, this discussion shall have to wait for the weekend. I am about to head off into the city for beer and good cheer. Shall explain who I see it tomorrow.
Also heading out but I’ve a long meditated post on epistemology which I will put up (inflict on readers?) on the weekend if I get a chance.
wbb, sorry for the late response.
From an IDerÄôs perspective, science is constructed on a base of philosophical naturalism, that nature is all that there is — no god hypothesis needed for physics or indeed metaphysics. Hence the support for science is based, not on evidence, but on specific naturalistic metaphysics. The implication is that science is anti-supernatural being which makes it anti-religion.
What the IDists have been doing is deliberately conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Methodological Naturalism simply assumes a priori that supernatural entities have nothing to do with nature and therefore science is limited to only explaining what happens in the natural world. Supernatural entities have a peculiar habit of effectively being unobservable hence any hypothesis that invokes supernatural entities is sterile in terms of research and experiment.
Of course what IDers are trying to do is portray science as being fundamentally atheistic in its foundation. The obvious implication is that by having an atheistic world view science is deliberately preventing a theistic world view from entering the fray as an scientific explanation. Therefore the battle is not about evidence but about world views. Hence the relativistic notion that the problem with evolution is that its philosophical basis has adversely influence the scientific basis.
Of course the flaw in the ID arguments is that (1) science does not a priori assume philosophical naturalism and (2) the openness of science to inquiry and replication of research that, while not perfect, helps expand a theory across different societies and cultures.
I suggest reading MeyerÄôs Hopeless Monster as it really illustrates how ID approaches science from very relativistic position.