I taught about these things in my online bioethics course last semester!
But such Lysenkoisms tend to be short-lived, quickly uncovered, and generally scoffed at by experts (certainly drapetomania and rascality were). Intelligent design is a good common analogue. Surely a few bumps in the road are not in themselves evidence against the claim that science is generally moving towards the truth?
Hmm... I think more context would help. The book is actually about public health and the chapter addresses how ideas about TB as primarily a heredity-influenced disease persisted for more than half a century after germ theory and the discovery of bacillisI think the problem isn't that scientists are intentionally (or often, even recognizably) biased, but that science exists in a social frame that prescribes a limited number of appropriate causality explanations, research questions, and bases for understanding. So, instead of "intelligent design", which exists outside of science in almost every definable way, I'd use the current understanding of obesity as a modern-day parallel. Obesity is currently very in scientific and medical discourse, used to explain a lot of mortality better attributable to class-based living conditions, and -- no matter how good the studies are (not worth the debate), simultaneously a scientific/health issue and an understanding that everybody's body should conform to White, Northern European, Upper/Middle
( ... )
Physics has its intellectual hegemonies, like anything else, although they're within the microculture of physics research and pedagogy, and don't have anything obvious to do with the biases of the larger society.
i'm going to take this as sufficient excuse to link to an article i really like on young earthers [1] (link is to nonfree content, should work from any university ip though).
(i don't think i've linked the couzin piece on lj before, but, i could be wrong... in which case, i apologize for the repetition.)
but, to say something vaguely on-topic: i think the idea that science is "unbiased" can end up being harmful, insomuch as it leads us to forget that science is a process, not a sacred truth, and that scientists are fallible. i think the impression that science is somehow a sacred truth, that it can be a "belief" in the same way that faith in Christ is a "belief", is one of the reasons for the various unnecessary conflicts between conservative Christians and liberal intellectuals. (see also, whipple's response to couzin [2].)
i think "scientific objectivity" is something that you can work towards, but not really something you expect to ever encounter. kindof like "justice".
reviewing academic papers is very much like being a judge -- you're searching for this ideal of objectivity, or justice, or whatever, but, simultaneously, you can understand that there's an important sense in which it's an impossible goal. like the sense in which we don't actually live in a just society, and probably never will.
Re: lj-cut textkid_prufrockMarch 19 2010, 21:24:40 UTC
I agree too! It makes me think of the MLK quote (made even more famous by its presence on Obama's facebook page) in which the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
I'm pretty confident that the arc of the scientific universe is long, but it bends toward objectivity; I'm still very afraid, however, that pace King the arc of the moral universe actually bends toward objectification. But maybe it will be longer than I am giving it credit for.
fishing for referencessven271March 21 2010, 22:00:32 UTC
i don't think i've ever seen the word "objectification" used in this context -- specifically, as a contrast to "justice". (the usage seems somehow broader than the one that wikipedia and i are familiar with, which is, more or less, variations on concepts like "sexual objectification". i mean, using objectification as a contrast to justice feels sortof kantian -- i've just never seen it done before.)
so i'm now suspicious that there there may be a potentially interesting reference in moral philosophy that i would want to read, likely relating to your own fears re: the arc of the moral universe :)
Comments 19
But such Lysenkoisms tend to be short-lived, quickly uncovered, and generally scoffed at by experts (certainly drapetomania and rascality were). Intelligent design is a good common analogue. Surely a few bumps in the road are not in themselves evidence against the claim that science is generally moving towards the truth?
Reply
Reply
Reply
(i don't think i've linked the couzin piece on lj before, but, i could be wrong... in which case, i apologize for the repetition.)
but, to say something vaguely on-topic: i think the idea that science is "unbiased" can end up being harmful, insomuch as it leads us to forget that science is a process, not a sacred truth, and that scientists are fallible. i think the impression that science is somehow a sacred truth, that it can be a "belief" in the same way that faith in Christ is a "belief", is one of the reasons for the various unnecessary conflicts between conservative Christians and liberal intellectuals. (see also, whipple's response to couzin [2].)
Reply
reviewing academic papers is very much like being a judge -- you're searching for this ideal of objectivity, or justice, or whatever, but, simultaneously, you can understand that there's an important sense in which it's an impossible goal. like the sense in which we don't actually live in a just society, and probably never will.
Reply
Reply
I'm pretty confident that the arc of the scientific universe is long, but it bends toward objectivity; I'm still very afraid, however, that pace King the arc of the moral universe actually bends toward objectification. But maybe it will be longer than I am giving it credit for.
Reply
so i'm now suspicious that there there may be a potentially interesting reference in moral philosophy that i would want to read, likely relating to your own fears re: the arc of the moral universe :)
um, if there is, can you give me a link?
Reply
Leave a comment