Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sjuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!vecpyr!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!burdvax!sjuvax!tmoody From: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Comments on science, society, and Darwinism Message-ID: <1247@sjuvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 09:10:06 EDT Article-I.D.: sjuvax.1247 Posted: Thu Aug 15 09:10:06 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 06:33:41 EDT References: <423@iham1.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA. Lines: 81 > I have a few reflections on the course of discussions in this newsgroup. > These reflections are based on some recent incidental readings. Just by > accident, most of the articles have been concerning cultures, the influence of > society on science, and the lack of understanding between cultures. A recent > submission by T. Holden concerning a creation-evolution debate in Virginia has > prompted me to generate this article (for what it is worth). > > In a recent NOVA episode on Stephen J. Gould (the paleontologist), Gould > tried to point out how many concepts in (especially) biology are merely > restatements of cultural biases and expectations. > > The debate in this newsgroup, as well as the conflict in courtrooms and > school board meetings around the country, appears to be an example of the > conflict of cultures and not a debate concerning science. It is a clash > between (primarily) fundamentalist Christian society and the secular > scientific society over important human values. As I might learn to speak > French but never identify with the people of France, the creationists have > acquired the language of science without adopting its values (cultural biases > and expectations). Scientists have analyzed the creationist's position, and > appear to be content that to analyze is to understand (a typical scientist's > bias). The conflict and misunderstanding between these two cultures continues > > To the public, the issues of elections and voting are very important > democratic principles. But, what are the issues suitable for a public > referendum? While science is not monolithic or a dictatorship, it does behave > as an oligarchy. In politics, the U.S. was established as a republic so that > a few people might inform themselves of the issues and make policy decisions > which are binding on all. Science has become a similar arrangement, with its > own culture and values. Now it appears as if parts of the general public want > a recall of the scientific society because of its failure to support the > fundamentalist Christian agenda. > > At the creation (!) of this newsgroup, I commented that the creationists' > focus on the popular misconceptions of science indicated to me that the debate > in which we were engaged was not about science but about values. Now, I would > clarify this charge by claiming that the creationism-evolution debate is not > about science but a conflict of cultural values. Until this issue is > recognized and addressed, the arguments in this newsgroup will continue to > make no progress. > > > Patrick Wyant > AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) > *!iham1!gjphw [] Thank you for a very nicely written article. I hope that I have not excerpted it too badly. There are just a couple of points upon which I wish to comment. A "conflict of cultures" is a good way to express disagreement over certain basic principles; it is certainly one way to capture the evolutionism/creationism debate. It seems to me that there is another aspect to the problem: Physicists and chemists and biologists consider themselves to be studying phenomena that are much _deeper_ than culture and cultural phenomena. This, in fact, is a quite appropriate stance for them to take. The mistake is the assumption, shared byn many scientists, that because their _subject matter_ is not subject to cultural determinants, their _practice_ is not subject to them, either. This sort of thinking culminated in the Logical Positivism of the 1930s. In general, the positivists sought to characterize scientific method in such a way as to be utterly impervious to cultural and historical exigencies. Good science was taken to be ahistorical and acultural. While this was perhaps an admirable goal, it was a mistake to suppose that it really describes the practice of real scientists. I cannot comment upon how creationism fits into this; I have never found that it had sufficient _explanatory_ power to be worth my time. I recognize this as a bias of my own. Stephen Jay Gould indeed exhibits an admirable sensitivity to the interdependence of science and culture. I recommend his _The Mismeasure of Man_ to anyone interested in a case study of this sort of thing. If anyone wishes to discuss these topics further, I suggest that we take it to either net.philosophy or net.science, since it is tangential to what I take to be the purpose of this newsgroup. Thanks again to Mr. Wyant. Todd Moody {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody Philosophy Department St. Joseph's U. "I couldn't fail to disagree Philadelphia, PA 19131 with you less."