The Science Wars
I’ve been following the lively (are there ever any other sort?) debate on John Quiggin’s blog about the Science Wars. What strikes me is that not only have the scientists apparantly won the war with the culturalists, but that the straw figure of the “left-wing relativist” with their nonsensical pomo theories is no longer even questioned. Even the esteemed professor refers to “leftwing relativism and pseudoscience”.
The trigger for Quiggin’s post was an article in the LA Times, co-authored by Alan Sokal—a name that has quite a resonance in these circles:
Some self-described leftist academics did seem determined to reduce the real world to mere “discourse.” No worldview, they insisted, could be considered objectively more valid or factual than any other. Even the findings of science were described as reflecting societal conditions and struggles for power and dominance rather than something true about the nature of the world.
Right across the board, whether they are talking about funding grants or primary school curricula, letter-writers, columnists, shock-jocks and federal politicians continue to use the parody of the “postmodernist” as shorthand for anyone with an opposing view. The advantage of this is that no one knows what a “postmodernist” is, because nobody knows what “postmodernism” means (QV John Frow’s What was Postmodernism?, Sydney: Local Consumption Publications, 1991.) We do however know a little about the postmodernist: they are a relativist who doesn’t believe anything; for whom even the clearest scientific fact is mere convention (and probably a fascist plot to boot); and who, because of their relativism, is a moral and ethical vacuum.
Does this sound like anyone you know? No, me either.
Admittedly, in the full flush of enthusiasm for what turned out to be some pretty obscure (and possibly mistranslated) French theory, many people went a bit too far, and some of the theorists pushed these ideas to a logical, but ridiculous, conclusion (Baudrillard, I’m looking at you!) But in all the undergraduate and postgraduate courses I took during this period, and in almost none of the reading, have I come across someone who hasn’t said, “Of course there is an objective physical reality that underlies the practices and discourses of culture”. What is contested isn’t the empirical facts of scientific exploration, but that these facts are invariably answers to questions. And what these questions are, and who gets to ask them, are definitely matters for cultural consideration.
The question always, at least in part, determines the answer, and until the weight of evidence eventually forced a Kuhnian paradigm shift: physicists were quite happy working in a Newtonian, mechanistic universe, looking for and finding “facts” that supported their worldview. That was until the combined theories of people like Kurt Godel, Werner Heisenberg, and Albert Einstein made it clear that the answers weren’t wrong (NASA still uses Newtonian physics to calculate spacecraft trajectories): the questions were.
I don’t really consider myself a postmodernist (at least, not any more), but it’s disappointing that much like “political correctness” the term has been misused to such an extent, that it no longer resembles the thing it was trying to describe. And as any postmodernist will tell you, once you change the name of something, changing its meaning is very simple.
Your Comments
glen writes:
“it’s disappointing that much like “political correctness” the term has been misused to such an extent, that it no longer resembles the thing it was trying to describe.”
indeed! perhaps no other ‘theorist’ has received more flack about ‘discourse’ than foucault, yet he explicitly talked about the materiality of the archive in terms of the ‘self-selection’ of important documents (as necessarily ‘important’) to help reconstruct the discursive events he investigated.
i am getting so fed up with the stupid peanuts who recycle the inane diatribe of authors who may or may not have actually even read the work in question. as you suggest, they are not discussing the actual work but invoking a signifer of the work to produce a certain population of fellow believers.
‘postmodern’ is a ‘statement’ precisely in the Foucaultian sense, it is distributed across a historical series of various wars—culture war and science war—but not across something that is actually meant to be signified by the term, and it mediates between discursive multiplicities (language, texts, the archive) and non-discursive multiplicities (bodies, groups of people, funding arrangements, eyes-on-blogs) as an effect of power.
Posted: 7 02 2007 - 14:00 | Permanent link to this comment
John Gunders writes:
Thanks Glen
It’s alway fascinated me that for a time Foucault almost seemed irrelevant, until the world-wide rise of right-wing ideology rendered him essential reading again.
There was an interesting article in the SMH a few weeks ago that I would have included in the original post, if I’d remembered it in time:
PC or not PC, it’s copping the slings of outrageous fortune
Posted: 7 02 2007 - 18:23 | Permanent link to this comment
John Quiggin writes:
Admittedly, Steve Fuller is more of a social constructivist than a postmodernist, but his role in the Dover trial suggests that this isn’t entirely an exercise in attacking straw men, even now. Fuller is a significant figure, and he’s backing creationism against science.
Posted: 9 02 2007 - 09:57 | Permanent link to this comment
John Gunders writes:
I’m certainly not disagreeing with Prof Quiggin, but I’m intrigued (‘concerned’ is too strong a word) by the way the worst extremes of any discipline get characterised by that discipline’s opponents as exemplary. But then, I guess we all do it.
But there is more at issue than my getting huffy about not being understood. That people on the right, from Julie Bishop to Andrew Bolt can dismiss failing educational standards by blaming “postmodernist” left-wing academics, means that they aren’t focussing on structural or other reasons for the failure. And anyway, I have found that a little social constructionism (note: ‘ion’ rather than ‘ive’) is very useful in a pedagogical theory.
As an aside, I note with interest that the same Steve Fuller mentioned by John is presenting a seminar on behalf of the Centre to which I’m loosely attached. That should be interesting.
Posted: 9 02 2007 - 13:47 | Permanent link to this comment
Jonathan writes:
Call me left wing if you like – John Gunders will have a good laugh, but I get p?*#$&ed off with scientific fundamentalism and their own brand of papal infallibility. I think science should be viewed as a meme competing for space like the rest of them. A good one, yes, but maybe not the inevitable winner, and maybe, just maybe, not totally right measured against the objective truth (whatever you believe that to be)
Anyone who denies science is done without values or presuppositions is kidding themselves. Sure, some do, there are honest truth seekers out there who simply want to find out the actual truth of the way the universe works. Many such end up as Christians, Muslims or suicide bombers, and some end up Scientists.
To be a scientific fundamentalist means you subscribe to the following set or irrational (or religious if you want to get right up their noses) beliefs:
1. Nothing exists other than what humans can detect, (or would be able to given sufficient time and resources). (Woops, what about dark matter? and what else don’t we know?)
2. If it can’t be repeated fifty times independently in different labs it didn’t ever happen.
3. If I haven’t seen it, it didn’t happen.
4. I will never consider the logical fallacy inherent the syllogistic processes where the major and minor premises come from the same world view and therefore don’t actually tell me anything. I can argue round in circles and people will therefore think I’m clever. (Scott Adams is a master of this on his pseudo-philosophy dilbert blog.)
Much so-called science that is done is capitalistically aimed as heaping up cash taken from poor people. Much scientific exploration is little different to the US media, which is so polarised. If you don’t believe this, check out this article:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
Science in the main will join big pharma in ignoring (if not actively resisting) DCA because it threatens the increase of technology.
Technological advances in general favour the rich (they can use the technology, it is developed for them because they will pay for it, etc etc). Scientists (or their masters) tend to be rich, thus, they resist something that wipes out a whole lot of technology and renders patents worthless.
If you don’t believe that, explain why the organisation that seeks to develop dichloroacetate is asking for public donations and benefactors when they only need about 1% of any of the following:
1. Cost of war in Iraq
2. Cost of 9-11-01
3. Cost of pet food in Australia
4. Cost of running left-leaning university pseudo-intellectuals. (Just give them the pet food?)
5. New Scientist Mag’s profit
6. Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme.
7. Insert your pet hate here but please leave the vatican out of it, they deserve a break. They have some neat artwork :-)
Now tell me science’s values base is superior to any other and deserves the central worship and adoration it so asserts.
It’s just another meme, just another set of ways humans assert superiority over other humans.
Now I am an engineer and have not been educated in these things, and I can’t refer to other authors, but I have a pretty strongly developed sense of right and wrong and I can smell a capitalist pigdog or evil money causing problems at 50 meters. Science is no less full of it than other disciplines, and doesn’t deserve it’s exalted position, and I’s so glad to have been introduced to Steve Fuller. He’s making at least some sense to me. Can I come to his presentation, John?
Posted: 10 02 2007 - 06:37 | Permanent link to this comment
sushil_yadav writes:
Hi Sushil Thanks for your comment on "The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues", which has been cross-posted on 56 other blogs in the last twelve months (according to Google). If you can demonstrate that it is relevant to the current discussion, I'll consider reinstating it. Cheers JGPosted: 13 02 2007 - 15:01 | Permanent link to this comment
roger writes:
To Jonathon.
Few People would deny that scientists are human beings without a degree of proneness to bias.
To admit this however does not mean there is no such as objective scientific standards or that most scientists don’t make a sincere effort at upholding them.
1. Nothing exists other than what humans can detect, (or would be able to given sufficient time and resources). (Woops, what about dark matter? and what else don’t we know?)
Jonathon, few scientists actively make any such argument, they simply cannot consider unprovable things as part of their findings. Much science may also be compromised by commerce, i can agree with t
You also wrote:
Anyone who denies science is done without values or presuppositions is kidding themselves. Sure, some do, there are honest truth seekers out there who simply want to find out the actual truth of the way the universe works. Many such end up as Christians, Muslims or suicide bombers, and some end up Scientists.
Jonathon it might interest you to know that the terrorists who flew planes into the world trade centre actually also possessed degrees in engineering much like you.
I have read articles in favour of Intelligent Design or Creationism written by people with training as engineers. It is astonishing how many people who are engineers actually demonstrate an incredibly shoddy grasp of the scientific enterprise that their own field of expertise owes its existence to.
Posted: 27 07 2007 - 12:57 | Permanent link to this comment
Commenting is closed for this article.