opencopy.org

- Bridgstock, Ch. 5 -

A. Introduction

In this lecture, I want to explore one of the most fascinating aspects of scientific discovery and to challenge the notion that: 1) science is about discovering truth; 2) that science is completely objective; and 3) that scientific discoveries proceed in an orderly fashion. In fact, what I want to argue is that science is just like any other human activity in many ways. People regularly argue and disagree. There is no such thing as absolute truth. Theories and evidence continually collide.

The difference between science and other disciplines is that there is far greater emphasis on consensus, at least in what we call normal science. If you are an undergraduate in science, you memorize axioms and theories that become part of your repertoire. You need to have this accumulated body of scientific knowledge before you can practice science. Thereafter, while you may go out onto the fringe or frontier of science, you will still have a general body of knowledge that you share with all other people working in scientific fields.

Contrast this with the experience of the liberal arts, where there is no common body of theories or factual evidence. A Marxist professor will analyze history very different from a classical liberal economist or a conservative traditionalist. There is no general agreement about what constitutes theoretical truth in the Humanities. And even the data itself is problematic. At one time, there was a generally accepted canon of great works that everyone was supposed to have read to be intelligent. That notion has been totally exploded by the criticism of the Dead White Males (DWM) who composed these works or imposed their masculine views on society.

Our modern society has been called postmodern because we don’t agree on anything much and have developed a mix and match approach to what we want to take from literature or the culture of the past. Even within the disciplines of pseudo-scientific studies such as psychology and sociology, the level of disagreement is so high that people often appear to be talking past, rather than debating with, one another. Much depends on the standpoint one takes and the evidence one selects to reinforce one’s approach. While this does not imply total relativism - i.e. the belief that all cultural ideas have equal merit and that we are free to chose whatever suits us - it does mean that there will always be disagreement.

B. Controversies Within Science

Obviously scientific controversy is not like this postmodern debate. In the first place, scientific controversies are much fewer than controversies in philosophy or the liberal arts. Moreover, they are restricted to a narrow domain for investigating physical nature. No metaphysical, intuitive or sympathetic arguments need apply. Finally, they based on evidence that is presented in ways can be replicated by other scientists.

While the emphasis on 1) physical nature; 2) cause and effect relationships; and 3) replication reduces the number of serious controversies in science, it certainly doesn’t eliminate them. In the first place, physical nature is complex and the theoretical frameworks for understanding nature are at best approximations. We may never fully understand nature, especially since we can only approach it through our frail human senses. Second, the multiplicity of interactions in nature mean that it is often the case that the evidence can support more than one conclusion. Third, it is virtually impossible to replicate some experiments perfectly. Much depends on the equipment used, the method of reporting, and, especially, the way in which one deals with details that don’t fit.

Providing evidence to support a theory is a huge problem. Nature is full of evidence. What evidence does one look at? With increased scientific specialization, some investigators look at one thing and some look at another. They may all accept the same basic paradigm, but they typically use different tools and different theories to investigate the part of nature that they are most interested in.

What the scientific community is brilliant at is getting practitioners to accept a common scientific paradigm or way of looking at the world at any given time. Such a paradigm could be Newton’s mechanical universe (Newtonian gravity and physics), Copernicus’ sun centered universe, or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity that problematizes Newton’s dependency on the uniformity of time and space. But clearly, just by looking at the list, you can tell that even these paradigms can change. Ptolemy’s system was superceded by Copernicus; Newton’s was eclipsed by Einstein; and even Einstein’s theory is now beginning to be challenged.

Paradigms are overarching; they are the broad frameworks that guide scientific investigations. Whenever a paradigm is significantly challenged, this causes a general crisis of meaning in the scientific community that makes scientists very uncomfortable and encourages them to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible so that they can go about their normal duties. Normal science is not revolutionary. Scientists basically accept the big axioms, and then they try to solve problems or answer questions within the paradigm. Normal scientists can be viewed as puzzle solvers unless they are hanging out in the frontiers of science where serious anomalies or completely new sets of data are being investigated.

It is only very rarely when a frontier issue or an anomaly brings an entire paradigm into question. The reason is clear. There is no interest is changing a scientific paradigm and reorienting the entire scientific community unless there is ample evidence to suggest that the paradigm is flawed. Even then, unless the critics have a new paradigm to replace the old one and a heck of a lot of persuasive power, they will be resisted by all those who have a stake in the old paradigm. Consider if you had spent 4 years learning the ins and outs of Newtonian physics. Would you be happy for someone to come along and say that a lot of what you learned was wrong and you now need to relearn much of what you thought was science? Despite all the excitement attached to scientific research, science can be a very conservative discipline, say, than the social sciences where new paradigms are constantly challenging for dominance at any given time.

It is a much more revolutionary discipline at the level of lesser theories designed, not to explain the universe, but to account for significant developments. A classic case is the theory of continental drift - the theory that the earth’s continents were once joined together but drifted apart because of changes in the subterranean realm or the earth’s mantle. The debate over continental drift was not really a crisis but a controversy in science. In other words, the result did not significantly challenge the consensus of the scientific community.

Similar to crisis within paradigms, however, is the desire for scientists to close a controversy as soon as possible so that they can get on with their job of puzzle solving or investigating nature. Typically, controversies are decided in favour of the established theory, which usually has accumulated a great deal of evidence and research in its support. Thus, in the case of continental drift, the theory was relegated to the “scientific scrap-heap”. It was only when scientists working in marine geology and the earth’s magnetic core found that their new data supported the theory of a continental drift that the theory was taken from the scrap-heap and became the new orthodoxy. The entire process of acceptance took sixty years, whereas most of the theories in social science turn over and are superceded every few years.

What does this all of this tell us about the nature of the scientific community. First, scientists do disagree, often strenuously about theory and evidence. Second, scientists like to keep those disagreements to a minimum and to close them down. Third, the majority of scientists are comfortable working within paradigms and theories for which there is general agreement. Fourth, the scientific community is very efficient in providing practitioners with a common view of the natural world and their disciplines. In other words, scientists are good at working together to solve agreed upon problems. This, rather than any special claim to truth, is what makes them so much more efficient than their colleagues in the liberal arts, social sciences and humanities.

C. Controversies About Science

Controversies about science differ from controversies within science because they involve the ethical and cultural values of the non-scientific community. The problem with the scrutiny of the scientific by the non-scientific community is that the latter doesn’t have anywhere near the same degree of unanimity. Thus, it is sometimes difficult for scientists to even understand where the criticism is coming from or what its implications are. The world of science is messier than most people think, but it is still a lot less messy than the real world of society. The moment society gets involved in science - something we believe is important - considerable confusion, accusation, and counter accusations, can result.

For this reason, it is useful to divide controversies about science and society into different categories.

Efficiency vs. Equity

The first is primarily ethical and pits the efficiency of science and technology against the demand for equity. Science and technology are highly efficient ways of producing a process or a product. But unless the burdens and benefits of that process or product are shared equally by the citizens of a free community, there will be a problem.

Consider the production of a new drug that significantly prolongs the life of Aids patients. The cost of the science involved in producing that drug could be enormous, and researchers and their backers will want to recover that cost as much as they can. But if the drug or operation is only made available to those with the resources to pay the cost, others in society will be disadvantaged. Similarly, a new technology, like the Internet, causes problems when it is in the financial reach of some, but not others. Some people can’t afford a computer, let alone access to the World Wide Web.

Benefits vs. Risks

A huge debate between scientists and members of society involves the risks associated with a new technology. Scientists working on nuclear power, for example, had a vested interest in promoting the benefits and touting the safety of nuclear energy. So much so, in fact, that critics of nuclear energy were commonly stereotyped as ignorant obstacles to human progress. In the wake of the Chernobyl disaster and the problem of getting rid of nuclear waste, we are much more suspicious of nuclear power and rightly so.

DDT is another example of chemical science where the benefits were promoted without due attention to the risks. Now DDT, something difficult to dissolve, has leaked into our waterways and lodged itself in the food chain. We now that DDT has contributed to the elimination of entire species in the world.

Risks vs. Freedoms

The scientist is not always the villain of the piece. Many biologists have done research that proves that we are destroying our environment faster than our ability to sustain it. They have called upon governments and individuals to curb their consumerist ways of life and to regulate the environment. The American government, in particular, has resisted these appeals as an infringement of the rights of business and the rights of Americans to pursue their own happiness in the way that they see fit.

Similarly, medical scientists and practitioners suggest that cigarette smoking is a major cause of lung cancer and stroke. They have called upon governments at all jurisdictions to ban or highly regulate tobacco growing and sales. Governments have resisted, largely because they don’t want to invoke the anger of smokers, who are also voters, and because tobacco sales provide a large chunk of government revenue. Ironically, governments and tobacco growers are supported by the research of commercial scientists who have resisted the claim that there is a link between smoking and disease.

Occasionally, scientists go against the grain of popular culture and morality as, for example, when some of them suggest that marijuana smoking is nowhere near as addictive or harmful as cigarette smoking. Some doctors have gone so far as to defend the use of the drug on the medical grounds that it prevents nausea and improves the appetite, especially of those who are being treated with chemotherapy.

Science vs. Belief

Some of the most well-known controversies about science are those where scientific discoveries challenged deep religious or traditional beliefs. Evolution is still controversial in the bible best of the southern United States today. In the 16^th Century, a huge battle took place between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church about whether or not the earth was the center of God’s universe.

The Search for Truth vs. the Right to Know

The four controversies outlined above were listed by the distinguished historian Dorothy Nelkin. There is a fifth controversy, however, that has arisen in the modern age and that is a direct result of the increased power of science in our everyday lives. People today want science to be more open and its discoveries and their implications more accessible to social debate. It should be noted that this is very different from the traditional or religious attack on science.

The problem with modern scientific investigations is that they are funded by significant public or commercial investment. Yet most of what scientists do is behind the doors of their labs, and the information scientists publish is not accessible to a general readership, no matter how well educated they are. Given the power and influence of science, it is dangerous to allow them to continue to be a totally “self-regulating profession.” There needs to be far greater “transparency” about what scientists do. There needs to be an open discussion of the “implications” and “potential consequences” of scientific discoveries and technological applications. Most of all, there needs to be a place for the “public interest” in scientific discussions.

Involving the public in scientific matters will not be easy. It will be even more difficult because it is particularly important to involve minorities and the weaker members of society who are often the ones most adversely affected by new technologies.

The notes presented here are for the AK NATS 1760.06 “Science, Technology and Society” course offered in the Fall/Winter Semester of 2001/2002 by the Atkinson College of York University, Toronto, Canada and taught by John Dwyer. The lectures are based on the following texts:

1. Martin Bridgstock et al, Science, Technology and Society: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 1998), ISBN 0-521-58735-2
2. Kevin Robbins and Frank Webster, Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life (New York, Routledge, 1999), ISBN 0-415-16115-0
3. Albert H. Teich, Technology and the Future (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000), ISBN 0-312-01885-1

For more about John Dwyer, visit: http://www.sayitagain.com/ivorytower/