PPTs

STS 200

Introduction to Science, Technology and Society

STS 200 –INTRODUCTION TO SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY

Instructor: Dr. Richard Kover Office: St. Joseph’s College 0-15 Telephone: 780-492- 7681 ext.241 E-mail : [email protected] Office Hours: Wednesdays 3:00 - 4:00 Thursdays 3:00 –4:00 Or by Appointment

C4W –CENTRE FOR WRITERS

University of Alberta - Centre for Writers

Offer tutorials and workshops

http://c4w.ualberta.ca/

WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science – comes from the Latin scientia meaning

knowledge This is a rather broad definition as it can denote

any sort of body of knowledge – indeed up until the modern age it was used rather loosely in this manner

ARISTOTELEAN SCIENCE

- Aristotle’s natural philosophy was considered the premier model of science until well into the 16th century .

- It was a coherent , unified framework of concepts which purported to explain everything in the natural world.

Aristotelean science was a metaphysical system in the truest sense of the word

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS? - We tend to think of metaphysics as vaguely supernatural or spiritual

- Often a term of derision among scientists and academics.

Not necessarily so Metaphysics, simply put, is the framework or background of fundamental assumptions, concepts or notions by which we understand the world . These assumption can be implicit or explicit but in some sense we all have them. We are all in some sense metaphysicians. Metaphysical systems are like bellybuttons – We all have them. Hegel – “The scientist denying that he is doing metaphysics, is like the Englishman denying that he is speaking in prose .”

ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY

A fundamental aspect of metaphysics is ontology and epistemology

Ontology – The investigation of the fundamental categories of being or existence.

Good way to think of it is - What is the furniture of the world?

Epistemology - The nature and scope of our knowledge of the world.

or How we know what we know

ARISTOTLE

Aristotle had a theory of forms . All matter was compromised and organized into certain forms and if you wanted to know about an object or make predictions about an object – you had to know its form.

In other words, you start from your metaphysics and work your way out.

THIS DIFFERS CONSIDERABLY FROM CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE

In contemporary usage science refers to less to a specific body of knowledge than a way of procuring and acquiring knowledge.

It is understood as more of a methodology than a metaphysical system

Indeed its very methodology aims to curtail as much as possible overt metaphysical theorizing

If you want to understand the world according to modern science you don’t start from a set of abstract premises or metaphysical assumptions rather you come up with a hypothesis and you test it.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

A body of techniques and practices for investigating natural phenomenon which allows new knowledge to be tested, discarded, and integrated with previous knowledge

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the Scientific Method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation, and the formulation, testing and modification of hypotheses”

STEPS TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

1. Formulate a hypothesis which makes a testable prediction

2. Test this prediction through an experiment 3. If this prediction fails then discard or reformulate the

hypothesis 4. If succeeds then repeat numerous times to make

sure 5. Independent verification 6. Publish your findings

FORMULATE A HYPOTHESIS

After reading the associated literature you come up with a good question , What is the cause of a certain disease or natural phenomenon

- You formulate a hypothesis which can be testable - The hypothesis makes a prediction which can be

falsifiable – there must be the possibility that a possible outcome could disprove the hypothesis.

DESIGNING AN EXPERIMENT AND TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world confirm or deny the predictions of the hypothesis

Experiments should be designed to minimize errors, bias and alternative explanations or interpretations

Often designing an experimentation the most difficult part Analysis – Did the experiment prove or disprove the hypothesis ?

INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION

Other scientists can repeat and verify this experiment

The results are then published in an academic journal and made know to all.

These finding are then incorporated into the greater body of scientific knowledge

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ACTION

Beriberi In 1887 strange new disease called berberi afflicted people in the Dutch East Indies

Symptoms included weakness , loss of appetite and finally heart failure.

-Scientists originally thought it might be caused by bacteria

They injected one group of chickens with infected blood and the other with a placebo

Both groups of chickens got beriberi

Then one of the scientist Dr Eijkman noted that before the experiment all the chicken were fed whole grain rice but during the experiment they were fed polished rice.

So he fed one group of chickens – only polished rice and the other group whole grain rice.

The result only the chicken with polished rice got beriberi.

Conclusion – He conjectured that beriberi was caused by some nutrimental deficiency .

Richard Feynman on The Scientific Method

THE VIRTUES OF SCIENCE -

Knowledge is cumulative and acquired though careful testing

Always subject to be falsifiable

No appeals to outside authority (antiauthoritarian)

No absolute certainty or appeal to hidden principles

It seems to provide us with a body of knowledge that is fairly reliable and depend able

We can use this knowledge to correct age–old diseases, etc.

SCIENCE IS VALUE NEUTRAL

It aims to chastise unchecked assumptions and social prejudices

It doesn’t purport to offer moral guidance

It’s theories do not purport to offer any moral or evaluative assessments

Nevertheless Many have suggested that the scientific method and enterprise itself promotes

certain virtues

Oppenheimer , Snow etc.

-anti-dogmatic

Progressive

Rigorous search for the truth

CARL SAGAN –A WAY OF THINKING

“Science is more than a body of knowledge it is a way of thinking.”

Carl Sagan

LOGICAL POSITIVISTS – VIENNA CIRCLE

Logical positivists accepts only testable statements as meaningful

-reject metaphysical interpretations We need to ground philosophy on the basis of

the empirical sciences Get rid of all the metaphysical baggage and

make it into a science. Very hostile to the humanities

THE TWO CULTURES

The Two Cultures – the Sciences and the Humanities Each speaking a different language

THE RETURN OF METAPHYSICS?

Can we get rid of Metaphysics ? Doesn’t science itself rely upon, assume and

promote certain principles? Is the falsification principle fallible? What about the parsimony principle ? Is it really devoid of cultural influence?

STS 200 B-1


The Unbelievers Questions

1. Why do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the debunking and questioning religion is so important?

2. What do they see as the distinction between religion and science? 3. Do they believe that science and religion are asking essentially the same

questions? 4. Do they believe that the clash between science and religion is

inevitable? 5. Why does Dawkins think “why questions” are silly questions? 6. Do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the religious faith of scientist or a

politician should matter in public debate? 7. How successful do you think Dawkins and Krauss are at convincing or

winning over their opponents? Do you think ultimately this is very important to them?

8. What is the difference between the notion of the Abrahamic faiths of creation ex nihilo and Lawrence Krauss’ notion of creation from nothing?

9. What do the “unbelievers” believe in?

STS 200 B-1


Recap

• Science is a methodology which aims to procure objective and secure knowledge of the external world

• Disavows metaphysical assumptions – the metaphysics (in principle) are derived through experimentation and the careful accumulation of tested and empirically verified facts

• Aims to build up a gradual accumulative picture of the natural world.

• Aims to remove cultural and subjective bias

Recap 2

• Yet if science claims a sort of cultural and

metaphysical neutrality, this does not mean that it does come into conflict with other cultural, metaphysical and religious views or that somehow not tried to put forward science as its own sort of worldview.

• “The Unbelievers” is example of this

The Unbelievers Questions

1. Why do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the debunking and questioning religion is so important?

2. What do they see as the distinction between religion and science? 3. Do they believe that science and religion are asking essentially the same

questions? 4. Do they believe that the clash between science and religion is

inevitable? 5. Why does Dawkins think “why questions” are silly questions? 6. Do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the religious faith of scientist or a

politician should matter in public debate? 7. How successful do you think Dawkins and Krauss are at convincing or

winning over their opponents? Do you think ultimately this is very important to them?

8. What is the difference between the notion of the Abrahamic faiths of creation ex nihilo and Lawrence Krauss’ notion of creation from nothing?

9. What do the “unbelievers” believe in?

The Unbelievers

• Dawkins and Krauss seem to present science as a replacement for religion or metaphysical systems and the final arbitrator on all epistemological, ontological and ethical matters.

The Scientific Conception of the World

• We should reduce Culture to Science Wait a sec… How uninfluenced by culture is science?

Social or Cultural Constructivism – What is the role that history and

culture play in the construction of scientific knowledge?

Cultural Constructivism Merold Westphal suggest that claims of cultural constructivism can be understood as employing two different but intertwined hermeneutic (interpretive) strategies – the hermeneutics of finitude and the hermeneutics of suspicion. • The Hermeneutics of Finitude – There is no view from nowhere or God’s

eye view. There is no unimpeachable epistemic access to the real. We always do this limited perspective of our subjective historically and culturally informed categories. – It alerts us to the perspectival and limited nature of our knowledge of the

world and expresses doubt over the possibility of ever achieving absolute and certain knowledge.

• The Hermeneutics of Suspicion - Explores how certain metaphysical and scientific frameworks were used to uphold and enforce certain vested authorities and power interests – Why is a certain story being told? Whose interests does it serve?

The Hermeneutics of Finitude

• Perhaps the best and certainly the most influential example of the hermeneutics of finitude is

Thomas Kuhn “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

1st Edition - 1962 2nd Edition - 1970 3rd Edition - 1996

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

• Challenged the basic linear or “development by accumulation” model of scientific history. – Scientific knowledge and theories are built up by the

steady accumulation of verified facts Kuhn argues that this isn’t the way science actually historically developed. Scientific history is not marked by a slow, gradual, linear accumulation of facts and conceptual continuity but rather it is interrupted by episodic revolutionary periods in which previous deeply entrenched conceptual frameworks are overturned and new avenues of investigation opened up.

Scientific Paradigms and their Revolutions

• Kuhn is famous for the phrase “paradigm shift” - he didn’t actually coin it.

• He characterizes science as a search for coherence • A search to find models which will account for as many

observations as possible within a coherent framework • Doesn’t take place in a vacuum rather there is a pre-

existing framework of intellectual options and strategies.

• As normal science progresses anomalies accumulate which can only be solved with the introduction of a new explanatory framework or paradigm

5 Phases of Scientific Revolutions 1. Pre-paradigm – There are several incomplete and incompatible

competing theories. Eventually agents in the community gravitate towards one conceptual framework and a consensus emerges over methods and terminology, etc. Kuhn suggests that this phase is usually a singular one time affair.

2. Normal Science – Research and empirical conundrums are solved with in the context of the dominant paradigm. Widespread consensus exists over the legitimacy of the paradigm.

3. Crisis – Over time as research progresses anomalies occur which cannot be satisfactorily explained within the paradigm of normal science. Generally these anomalies can be resolved, but sometimes these anomalies grow to the point where normal science becomes difficult.

4. Revolutionary Science – The underlying assumptions and framework of the field are examined and a new paradigm is proposed.

5. Post Revolution - The New Paradigm is accepted and becomes dominant and normal science resumes, with research and questions being conducted within the framework of this new paradigm.

STS 200 B-1


Recap –Social Constructivism

• Social Constructivism – explores the role that history and culture play in the construction of scientific and other forms of knowledge

• Extreme and weak forms of Social constructivism – Weak Social Constructivism – Looks at how the social

and historical milieu of scientists influence the construction of their hypotheses and theories.

– Extreme Social Constructivism – Science is just another story like astrology, etc. that we tell about the world and nature.

Recap – Social Construction • The Hermeneutics of Finitude – There is no view from

nowhere or God’s eye view. There is no unimpeachable epistemic access to the real. We always do this limited perspective of our subjective historically and culturally informed categories. – It alerts us to the perspectival and limited nature of our

knowledge of the world and expresses doubt over the possibility of ever achieving absolute and certain knowledge.

• The Hermeneutics of Suspicion - Explores how certain metaphysical and scientific frameworks were used to uphold and enforce certain vested authorities and power interests – Why is a certain story being told? Whose interests does it serve?

Recap - The Hermeneutics of Finitude

An example of the Hermeneutics of Finitude is Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

• Kuhn challenged the basic linear or “development by accumulation”

model of scientific history which held that scientific knowledge and theories are built up by the steady accumulation of verified facts. Kuhn argues that this isn’t the way science actually historically developed.

• Scientific history is not marked by a slow, gradual, linear accumulation of facts and conceptual continuity but rather it is interrupted by episodic revolutionary periods in which previous deeply entrenched conceptual frameworks are overturned and new avenues of investigation opened up

Recap - Scientific Paradigms and their Revolutions

• He characterizes science as a search for coherence • A search to find models which will account for as many

observations as possible within a coherent framework • Doesn’t take place in a vacuum rather there is a pre-

existing framework of intellectual options and strategies.

• As normal science progresses anomalies accumulate which can only be solved with the introduction of a new explanatory framework or paradigm

5 Phases of Scientific Revolutions 1. Pre-paradigm – There are several incomplete and incompatible

competing theories. Eventually agents in the community gravitate towards one conceptual framework and a consensus emerges over methods and terminology, etc. Kuhn suggests that this phase is usually a singular one time affair.

2. Normal Science – Research and empirical conundrums are solved with in the context of the dominant paradigm. Widespread consensus exists over the legitimacy of the paradigm.

3. Crisis – Over time as research progresses anomalies occur which cannot be satisfactorily explained within the paradigm of normal science. Generally these anomalies can be resolved, but sometimes these anomalies grow to the point where normal science becomes difficult.

4. Revolutionary Science – The underlying assumptions and framework of the field are examined and a new paradigm is proposed.

5. Post Revolution - The New Paradigm is accepted and becomes dominant and normal science resumes, with research and questions being conducted within the framework of this new paradigm.

Examples of Paradigmatic Shifts

• Copernicus’ Heliocentric model of the solar system

• Galileo’s unification of terrestrial and celestial physics

• Darwin’s theory of Evolution • Mendel’s theory of Genetics • Plate techonics

Incommensurability

• Kuhn claimed that scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so dissimilar that they cannot be proved or disproven by the old paradigm and vise versa

• Not a matter of the verification principle • The Paradigm shift changes not only how

scientists view their field but also what questions are regarded as valid, and what criteria is used to judge the truth and validity of new knowledge

In other words …

• It is not possible to resolve the conflicting claims of competing paradigms according to principle of verification

• To do so would be to apply the rules and language of one paradigm according to that of another, rather Kuhn claim new paradigm succeed over paradigms due to growing consensus among a community of experts of its greater explanatory power

This is very problematic

• This seems to suggest that the validity of a particular theory is really just based on communal scientific consensus.

• Generally Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions has been interpreted as an out and out scientific relativism.

• If various scientific paradigms are incommensurate and there is no way of adjudicating between them then how do choice one paradigm over the other?

• How do we decide in favor of Newtonian cosmology over Mayan Cosmology? – After all they are speaking two incommensurate languages as it were.

Problems with Paradigms

• What Constitutes a True Paradigm Shift? • Kuhn not very clear about this. • In contemporary science there seems to be a

proliferation of talk about and appeal to paradigms

• Example – The New Ecological Paradigm

The Problem with Incommensurability

• Is absolute incommensurability even possible? • Surely even to have a discussion we have to

have some shared framework.

Kuhn denied that he was a relativist!

End of the first edition he provides two criteria 1)The new paradigm must seem to resolve some outstanding and widely recognized problem 2)Preserve a relatively large part of the problem solving activity and enterprise of science

Kuhn’s 5 Criteria for a Successful New Paradigm Shift

1. Accurate – reliable with empirical data, experimentation and observation

2. Consistent – internally coherent as well as consistent with other wider theories

3. Broad Scope – the consequences of the theory extend beyond what it was originally designed to explain

4. Simple – It is the simplest, most parsimonious explanation

5. Explanatorily Fruitful – discloses new avenues of investigation

Progress in Science?

• Kuhn didn’t deny scientific progress in science • New paradigms, he holds, better explain the

world and phenomena “That is not a relativist’s position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in

scientific progress.” SSR 2nd ed. p.207.

Still he may be protesting too much…

• He does seem to suggest our scientific body of knowledge and the scientific enterprise itself can never rely on total objectivity

• Kuhn is caught between the Scylla of objectivism and Charybdis of relativism

• Too much of a relativist for the objectivists and too much of an objectivist for the relativists

What are we left with?

• How damaging is Kuhn’s account to the legitimacy of contemporary science?

• If foundations of scientific knowledge rest simply on consensus is this enough to continue the scientific project or has it been irredeemably compromised?

Hermeneutics of Suspicion

• If scientific paradigms rest ultimately on the consensus of scientific community upon what grounds is this consensus reached?

• Are there other factors besides scientific rigor and rationality that contribute to this consensus such as the social position and attitudes of scientists.


STS 200

Recap

Cultural Constructivism – investigates the social and cultural situated-ness of our knowledge claims about reality - Challenges the understanding of science as completely objective, impartial and unbiased, and seeks to understand science as a cultural enterprise arising out of certain historical and cultural contexts - Seeks to uncover the influence of culture upon scientific thought.

Recap

I suggested that cultural constructivism could be understood as employing two different interpretive strategies 1) The Hermeneutics of Finitude – the limits of our capacity to know the world - No view from nowhere or absolute unshakable epistemic foundations 2) The Hermeneutics of Suspicion – Why is this knowledge claim being made? Whose political or cultural interests does it serve?

Recap

The Hermeneutics of Finitude – one of the best examples of this is Thomas Kuhn’s Structures of Scientific Revolutions S.S.R- challenged the conception of the history

of science as a straight-forward linear progression, arguing instead that the history of science is marked by periods of revolutionary

upset.

Recap Paradigm Shifts

He distinguishes between periods of “Normal Science” and “Revolutionary Science” 1)Normal Science – the scientific enterprise is carried on under the direction of the widely accepted paradigm 2) Crisis- Anomalies which can’t be explained under the old paradigm accumulate 3) Revolutionary Science – A new paradigm is proposed that can account for these anomalies 4) The revolutionary paradigm is accepted and we return to normal science under the new paradigm.

Recap Important point- Incommensurability

• Kuhn claimed that scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so dissimilar that they cannot be proved or disproven by the old paradigm and vise versa

• Not a matter of the verification principle • The Paradigm shift changes not only how

scientists view their field but also what questions are regarded as valid and what criteria is used to judge the truth and validity of new knowledge

Recap

• It is not possible to resolve the conflicting claims of competing paradigms according to principle of verification

• Kuhn claims new paradigms succeed over older paradigms due to growing consensus among a community of experts of its greater explanatory power

Recap So this seems to suggest that the validity of a particular theory is really just arbitrary. Kuhn denied this Provided 5 criteria 1)Accuracy 2) Consistency 3)Broad Explanatory Scope 4)Simplicity 5)Explanatorily fruitful

Recap So he does argue for scientific progress

However … - It does seem to deny the possibility of ever achieving absolutely objective knowledge. -Also, in arguing that ultimately the acceptance of the new paradigm only rests on communal scientific consensus, it does seem to open the doors to a consideration of other social factors that might influence scientists in coming up with this consensus.

Recap

• After all, scientists are humans. They are not disembodied intellects or computers but embodied human beings, who grow up in human social communities, occupy certain social positions, engage in social relationships and are influenced by their social, cultural and historic circumstances.

• They also, like everybody else, have certain prejudices and interests.

• How deep does this cultural influence go?

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion

• Why are you telling me this? • The hermeneutics of suspicion looks not at

how accurately knowledge claims map onto the truth but whose interests do they serve?

Biology as Ideology

• Richard Lewontin – Famous molecular geneticist

• Scientists are people and they inhabit a social community.

• They occupy a certain class. • Scientists earn money and the scientific

enterprise, particularly today, takes a lot of money to pursue. – Electron microscopes don’t grow on trees.

Lewontin’s Two Functions of Science

1) Technological function – “It provides a means of manipulating the material world by producing a set of techniques, practices and inventions by which new things are produced and by which the quality of our lives are changed.” Lewontin p.4

2) Explanatory function – “why things are the way they are.” ibid

Lewontin argues that the social order is characterized by inequality of wealth, status,

etc., so it requires what he terms “institutions of social legitimation” in order to “convince people that the society in which they live is just and fair, or if not just and fair, then inevitable”. (Lewontin

p.6)

Previously in Western Civilization this “institution of legitimation” was the church. Now, Lewontin

argues, it is science.

Lewontin’s Three Features Needed for an Institution to Function as a

Legitimating institution 1) The institution must appear to be impartial and

above the fray of ordinary human relationships. – “The institution as a whole must appear to derive from sources outside of ordinary human social struggle. It must not seem to be the creation of political, economic, or social forcers, but descend from society from a super-human source.” Lewontin p.7

2) The institution must appeal to some transcendent truth that goes “beyond the possibility of human compromise.” p.7

3) Lack of epistemic transparency - “It must have an esoteric language, which needs to be explained to the ordinary person by those who are especially knowledgeable and can intervene between everyday life and the mysterious sources of knowledge” p.7

So, Lewontin argues, not only are scientists social being informed by

their social circumstances but science is a social institution which functions

as an institution of social legitimation.


STS 200

Recap- Biology as Ideology Richard Lewontin

• Science as an Institution of Legitimation. Science can make certain political positions and forms of authority appear to be natural.

Recap -The Opacity of Ideology

• We discussed some cases where scientific research was funded by private interests and we wondered whether such funding influenced the imparity of the results.

• However in many cases ideologies and implicit prejudices are not as obvious.

• In order to work and be effective as an ideology, ideological assumptions must be, in some sense, hidden and implicit.

The Opacity of Ideology Some Famous Examples

• Sexism and Science

• Racism and Science

• Class and Science

Postmodernism

All knowledge claims and bodies of knowledge are informed by social dynamics and competing power interests.

Michel Foucault

Influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche – will to power Main idea Foucault aims to demonstrate how certain scientific and epistemic regimes served as a means of social control. 1) Madness 2) Sexuality 3) Crime

Jacques Derrida

Since the ancient Greeks western thought has been characterized by an attempt to

conceptualize and articulate the heterogeneity of reality in terms of binary categories, such as

nature/culture, male/female, and mind/body, in which the former is seen as superior and

dominant over the later, thereby naturalizing and reinforcing certain social hierarchies

Francois Lyotard

Lyotard has dubbed any overarching and coherent account of the real as “a grand narrative” and linked the quest for this grand narrative with a quest for a foundation for totalitarian and authoritarian politics.

Cultural Relativism

• People from different cultures have different epistemological methods and bodies of knowledge that often conflict with “western” science.

• Non-western people are not historical fossils, they have their own culture and ways of viewing and understanding the world and these are incommensurate with ours.

• Okay so…what do we do when we have competing knowledge claims?

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

The T.E.K. debate - Indigenous peoples will often counter the claims of ecologists on the basis of their culture’s store of traditional ecological knowledge contained in their myths and oral traditions.

19th Century Anthropology

The dilemma - Non-Western Indigenous peoples seem to view the natural world in ways that to modern, scientific eyes appear magical, fanciful and completely opposed to what we would consider intelligent and rational. - They refer to spiritual forces and imbue animals and

other natural objects with human consciousness and intentions.

- The stories or myths they tell seem to lack any internal consistency or interest in causality.

- Stories almost seem childlike.

19th Century Anthropology Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (10 April 1857 – 13 March 1939) Distinguishes between two types of mentality - Primitive and Western. Primitive Mentality - Doesn’t address contradictions - Doesn’t differentiate the supernatural from the natural - Uses "mystical participation" to manipulate the world. Western Mentality - Uses logic and reason - Skeptical Levi-Bruhl argued for a historical and evolutionary teleology that led from the Primitive mind to the Western mind.

Levi-Bruhl’s Primitive Mentality

• Fails to distinguish internal and external worlds

• Magic is a form of failed science.

The Beginnings of Western Science David C. Lindberg

Lindberg Pre-literate societies – useful information is passed down through the generations through stories. - These stories contain useful information and elements of cosmology and natural knowledge but there is no attempt to synthesize this information. p.6

• They project “human or biological traits onto objects and events that would seem to us devoid not only of humanity but also of life.” p.7

• “There is an inclination in preliterate cultures not only to personalize but also individualize causes, to suppose things happened because they have been willed to do so.” p.7

Lindenberg’s question

• “Add to this the seemingly ‘fanciful’ nature of many of the beliefs described above, and we inevitably raise the question of “primitive mentality”: do members of preliterate societies posses a mentality that is prelogical or mystical or in some other way different from our own, and, if so, how exactly is this to be explained?” p.10

Lindberg asks the question and then sidesteps it.

Stories embodied in oral traditions • convey and reinforce social attitudes • Legitimate the current social structure • No reason to question them • No rewards for skepticism • “Indeed, our [western society’s] highly developed

conceptions of truth and the criteria that a claim must satisfy in order to be judged true (internal coherence, for example, or correspondence to external reality) do not generally exist in oral cultures and, if explained to a member of an oral culture, would probably be quite useless .” p.11

So Lindberg seems to be giving an answer to his own question.

There are two mentalities!!!

Lindberg on Literate cultures

Information can be written down and remembered. “Writing thus served a storage function, replacing memory as the principle repository of knowledge. This had the revolutionary effect of opening knowledge claims to the possibility of introspection, comparison, and criticism.” p. 12 -The invention of writing was the prerequisite for the development of philosophy and science.

The Savage Mind Claude Levi-Strauss

Famous statement “The Savage Mind is our own.”

*Contra Levy Bruhl – Levi-Strauss argues that there are no two different mentalities

“Man has always been thinking equally well.” Pre-literate societies demand coherence and consistency from their body of knowledge. *The key difference is not the acuity of their mental facilities but the level at which it is applied. *The savage mind, unlike modern science, starts with classifying what is perceived in the sensible world. *It is not irrational, it is simply not Cartesian.

Taxonomy

• Classifies the sensible world into contrasting sets of similarity and difference.

• Starts with a fundamental contrast or binary division and then go onto make further distinctions.

Furthermore, because it is one system, elements from one part of

the taxonomical chain can be compared, contrasted and related

to other elements in the system.

Bricolage

• Levi-Strauss claims that myth is a bricolage. Bricoleur – Handyman – uses whatever is at hand • A myth, that may seem to be strictly practical,

can also be used to solve another more metaphysical or ethical problem.

Oral Cultures and the Nature of Myth

Walter Ong on pre-literate cultures • Mythic narration as means of mnemonic recall. • Encoding details in stories make them easier to

remember • Robin Ridington calls myths humanity’s earliest

“information technology” Examples – the songlines of the Australian aborigines


STS 200

Possible Midterm Questions

• What are the two cultures in C.P. Snow’s two cultures? • What is an Institution of Legitimation? • What are Lewontin’s 3 criteria for an institution of

legitimation? • Why does Lewontin argue science functions as an

institution of legitimation? • Does Kuhn believe in progress in science? Why? • In the “Wind-up Girl” What is a calorie company? • Why was the Copernican revolution so important to

the Scientific revolution?

Recap Cultural Relativism

• What do we do in the case of cultural disagreements about nature?

• Levi-Bruhl –Primitive mentality versus Modern mentality

• Claude Levi-Strauss – The Savage mind is our own.

Oral Cultures and the Nature of Myth

Walter Ong on pre-literate cultures • Mythic narration as means of mnemonic recall. • Encoding details in stories make them easier to

remember • Robin Ridington calls myths humanity’s earliest

“information technology” Examples – the songlines of the Australian aborigines

• Myth and ritual less about magic or instrumental efficacy, more about storage of information.

• A little (myth)understanding Example -!Kung bushman rain dance

Myth and Human Intelligence

• It is not a matter of degree of intelligence and deductive rationality

• However there seems to be a difference in forms of reasoning

• Could !Kung knowledge of their ecology be understood as scientific?

The Scientific Revolution

The beginning of modern science is usually tracked to the Copernican

revolution.

Ptolemaic Cosmos – Sun revolved around the earth. Copernican revolution – The earth revolves around the sun

Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) - Polish mathematician, devoted Catholic, and Cannon lawyer Published De revolutionibus ordium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) just before his death in 1543.

Big Question

Why was the Copernican

Revolution such a big deal?

Well, initially, it wasn’t - No fierce controversy erupted - Passed pretty much unnoticed. - Indeed, several church authorities had pointed out several centuries

before that the mathematics behind placing the sun at the center was more mathematically elegant.

- Bishop Nicole Oresme discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis.

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa pondered whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe.

- So long as it remained at the level of a mathematical hypothesis the church didn’t have much of a problem with it.

- The problem was with positing that Copernican heliocentric hypothesis was “physically” true.

The Church’s position

• Copernican revolution seems to counter scripture – i.e. God had made the sun stand still in the heavens.

• It completely countered all the available science of the day, which was Aristotelean.

• There were also significant problems with Copernicus’ account. i.e. If the Earth was continually spinning on an axis, why weren’t objects and people continually spinning off into space.

15th to 17th Century

Time of great social, economic, religious and political upheaval. • The Protestant Reformation • The Discovery of the Americas – No mention

of the Americas either in scripture or Aristotle Old sources of knowledge were being questioned and being shown to be inadequate.

The Real Controversy over the Copernican Hypothesis came with

Galileo

• Galileo claimed that the Heliocentric system was not only more mathematically elegant but “physically true”

• Galileo was one of the first modern thinkers to clearly state that the laws of nature are mathematical. In The Assayer he wrote "Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures;....

• He launched a series of attacks on Aristotelean physics. • If the Heliocentric universe didn’t make sense according to

Aristotelean physics then it was Aristotelean physics that was wrong.

Aristotle’s Celestial and Terrestrial Physics

Aristotle’s physics – Physics was the study of motion and movement. - It explained an objects motion according to its

teleology. Everything was attempting to find its natural place.

- Aristotle was primarily a biologist and saw biological growth as a model for all natural phenomenon

Different physics for Heavens and Earth

• Four elements –Fire, water, air, and earth • Each had its natural resting place

– Earth and water are heavy elements so their natural resting place is at the center.

– Air and Fire are light elements so they have a natural tendency to rise.

• The Fifth element -Quintessence (ether) – was what heavenly bodies were made of. It was incorruptible, perfect and moved in perfect circles

• So it was argued Galileo’s experiments in physics on earth didn’t count because earthily physics is different from heavenly physics

So Galileo trained his telescope on the Heavens to challenge how

immutable and perfect they were.

Galilean physics

- Natural motion was not to be understood in terms of teleology but matter and motion.

- Biological processes were not to be the model for the motion of inert bodies rather it was the other way around.

- The primary metaphor for nature was to be the machine – specifically the mechanical clock

Mechanism and the Clockwork Universe

• At the time, Europe was fascinated with clocks The Explanatory Appeal of Clocks was… • Very intricate motions are explainable from

the interaction of a series of smaller clogs and springs.

• The action might appear very mysterious but it was all explainable in terms of the movement of the smaller parts.

• Very regular and orderly

The Appeal of Mechanism

• Intelligible – no appeal to special forces. The clock was totally intelligible to the clock maker.

• Atomistic – you could explain the whole in terms of the functioning of the smallest constitutive components

• Reductionism – the most basic level of explanation is at the lowest and most micro-constitutive level.


STS 200

Possible Midterm Questions

• Why was Galileo focusing his telescope on the moon important? What was he trying to prove?

• What did the scientific revolutionaries consider “occult properties”?

• Why was the Copernican revolution so important to the Scientific revolution?

Recap -Aristotle’s Celestial and Terrestrial Physics

Aristotle’s physics – Physics was the study of motion and movement. - It explained an object’s motion according to

its teleology. Everything was attempting to find its natural place.

- Aristotle was primarily a biologist and saw biological growth as a model for all natural phenomenon

Recap -Different physics for Heavens and Earth

• Four elements –Fire, water, air, and earth • Each had its natural resting place

– Earth and water are heavy elements so their natural resting place is at the center.

– Air and Fire are light elements so they have a natural tendency to rise.

• The Fifth element -Quintessence (ether) – was what heavenly bodies were made of. It was incorruptible, perfect and moved in perfect circles

• So it was argued Galileo’s experiments in physics on earth didn’t count because earthily physics is different from heavenly physics

Galileo’s physics

- Natural motion was not to be understood in terms of teleology but matter and motion.

- Biological processes were not to be the model for the motion of inert bodies rather it was the other way around.

- The primary metaphor for nature was to be the machine – specifically the mechanical clock

Mechanism and the Clockwork Universe

• At the time, Europe was fascinated with clocks • Very intricate motions are explainable from

the interaction of a series of smaller clogs and springs.

• The action might appear very mysterious but it was all explainable in terms of the movement of the smaller parts.

• Very regular and orderly

The Appeal of Mechanism

• Intelligible – no appeal to special forces. The clock was totally intelligible to the clock maker.

• Atomistic – you could explain the whole in terms of the functioning of the smallest constitutive components

• Reductionism – the most basic level of explanation is at the lowest and most micro-constitutive level.

Problem

• This might be okay for inert motion but it was difficult to see how it applied for biological growth.

• It seemed to run completely counter to commonsense.

• Aristotelean physics, for all its faults, appealed to common sense experience.

• Aristotle claimed that knowledge entered through the senses.

Solution

Commonsense be damned! The senses give us no access to the real world. Primary qualities – those that were quantifiable Secondary qualities - Those that couldn’t be

Rene Descartes

Central figure in modern philosophy In the Meditations, Descartes seeks out to subject all our knowledge of the external world to total skepticism. - Descartes’ demon - The Cogito – Cogito ergo sum “I think therefore I am” - However Descartes claimed I can get reasonably

certain knowledge of the external world though mathematics.

- Calls on God to vouchsafe the certainty of mathematics

Descartes’ Hidden Agenda?

• He was a particularly strident mechanist and anti-Aristotelean.

• Saw the cogito as a means of debunking Aristotelianism.

Dualism – the Two Worlds

The Objective World - understood in terms of matter, motion and mathematics The Subjective World – Consciousness, qualities, perceptions, etc. all the properties of the first person human subject. - Our perception of the world gives us no access to what is really going on in the outside world.

The Result “The reading of man quite out of the real and primary realm” E.A. Burtt “The disenchantment of the world” Max Weber This is not to say that the Scientific revolutionaries didn’t place some importance on perceptual experience.

Traditional Authority versus New

Knowledge Medieval and Renaissance thought - looked to past authorities The Bible Aristotle The Ancients – Greek and Roman sources The New Mechanistic philosophy looked to gain new knowledge not from old sources but from reading the ‘book of nature’ itself.

Well… How do you read and interpret the Book of Nature?

Empiricism versus Rationalism Sir Francis Bacon – go out and collect numerous facts - Then induce general principles from these

facts Inductive reasoning – (Bottom -up) We move from a set of particular instances to formulate a conclusion. Problem – Probabilistic –not certain

Rationalism

This contrasted to Descartes • We move from a set of first principles and deduce

a conclusion. Deduction – (Top – down) We have one of two certain premises and from this we move to a certain conclusion. Not probabilistic knowledge but certain knowledge!

Mathematics -the paradigmic case of this type of reasoning

The Paradox of Empiricism

If you are appealing to observable facts found in nature …How do you know that other people will see what you see? How do you know they will draw the same conclusions from what you observe as you do? Mechanistic philosophy – want to get to the causal mechanism underlying the visible world! But we don’t have direct experience of those causal mechanisms!!! Our observations must be disciplined!!!

Boyle’s Air Pump

• Set up a series of observable controlled experiments where the conclusions would be obvious to all

• Artificially controlled experience Contra Aristotle - Artifice had to stand in for nature - How certain was the knowledge provided? - Surely others could come up with other

conclusions.

Was the Mechanistic Worldview ever Proven?

Newton’s Law of Gravity settled the Copernican controversy once and for all. He united terrestrial and celestial physics under one law – the Law of Gravity – which applied one explanation for both the earth and the heavens. But he didn’t supply a mechanism!!! He supplied a mathematical description. Could mathematics stand in for supplying an actual mechanism?

Newton and the Enlightenment

- People would seek to replicate Newton’s achievements in physics to other realms of natural inquiry as well. - Social thought - Biology

- But while the mechanistic paradigm was accepted as the proper way of doing science, Newton’s achievement kind of let them off the hook of supplying a real mechanism.

PPTs

Documents

Transcript of PPTs