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."