The science wars are fought on many fronts. First and foremost is the battle over objectivity. Do scientists make genuine discoveries (which is what they claim to be doing), or do they construct theories that reflect their various (nonscientific) interests? The commonsense view, which is held by most scientists, most philosophers, and most of the general public, is that science is indeed objective. But the case against objectivity has in some instances been impressive. Theories of race and of gender have much too easily been used to support the socially dominant position of the theories’ proponents. They were rubbish at the time and are now clearly seen by all to be rubbish. More contentious are the claims about current theories, though the case varies with the discipline. Many will concede some version of social constructivism when it comes to economics, say, but vociferously deny it in physics.
Keith Parsons has put together a valuable collection on the science wars, well suited for introducing students and others to this important debate. He is not new to this topic; earlier he wrote a very interesting work, Drawing Out Leviathan: Dinosaurs and the Science Wars (Reference Parsons2001). The book under review, The Science Wars: Debating Scientific Knowledge and Technology, consists of four parts, each with three or four essays. All are reprinted from classic statements, each quite well chosen. The first part, for instance, is called “The Constructivist Challenge” and contains pieces by Latour and Woolgar, and by Shapen and Schaffer offering constructivist accounts of science. These are followed by articles by Klee, and by Gross and Levitt directly rebutting them. Subsequent parts are on feminism, postmodernism, and conservative critiques with pieces by Sandra Harding, Donna Haraway, and Steven Weinberg, among others. As well as the essays, each part has a brief introduction by Parsons and some short study questions.
Though the battle is chiefly about the objectivity of the sciences, there are related issues and motivating factors in the science wars that are of crucial importance. Let me mention two.
I suspect that most readers of this journal know about the Sokal Hoax and know that it was aimed at postmodern accounts of science. But do they know why Sokal did it? Sokal reports that left-wing political goals were being hurt by postmodernism, since it undermined the very basis of action, namely that there are facts about, say, poverty and something needs to be done about it. Progressive students are gravitating to postmodern professors who, though they often have left-wing goals that are similar to Sokal's, preach a form of relativism that robs action of any rationale. Science, according to Sokal, should be seen as a powerful tool for radical politics, not something to be dismissed out of hand as just another narrative. There's much confusion of this score, since Gross and Levitt published their polemical work, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrel with Science (Reference Gross and Levitt1994). Many people involved in the science wars have been too happy to accept the implicit Gross and Levitt dichotomy: proscience Right versus antiscience Left. Until recently, the Left has always taken science to be a force for liberation. And many still think that this so, including, for instance, Chomsky, Lewontin, Gould, and, of course, Alan Sokal himself. Helping to break the dichotomy and make elbow room for a proscience Left is, I think, Sokal's biggest contribution.
Parsons is aware of the political component and mentions it briefly a few times in his introductory pieces. Would there were more. Not only is it relevant to the science wars and also intrinsically interesting, but for many students, it would greatly animate an academic debate and get them to relate their views of science to the rest of their lives.
I was glad to see that Parsons has included debates about Darwin versus creationism. This, too, is part of the science wars, even though the antiscience side does not use the constructivist label. Many creationists, especially ID theorists (advocates of so-called Intelligent Design), claim to be doing science in the normal way, it's just that they have come up with a rival theory. Phillip Johnson (whom Parsons includes) is more like a critic of standard science, claiming its ‘naturalism’ is unjustified. Set against this is a piece by Robert Pennock.
In his introduction to this part, Parsons says that science and religion are compatible and points out that many great scientists have been religious. But I doubt the compatibility. A number of books have been published recently, especially in the U.S., claiming that the two can live in harmony. The arguments in these books strike me as rather slippery and maybe even disingenuous. My guess is that they have the very laudable goal of trying to defend science from the onslaught of religious fundamentalism, a form of insanity that is growing in leaps and bounds. Though I do not say this with confidence, but I suspect that this soft-sell strategy is a poor one. Better to tell our students the truth, which is that the conflict is very real and that “among top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever—almost total” (Larson and Witham Reference Larson and Witham1998, 313). Not only is creationism rejected, but there is no ‘convergence’ of any kind between science and religion.
Social constructivists and religious fundamentalists are often portrayed as the chief threats to science. Not so. The principle threat today is the commercialization of research, especially medical research. Pharmaceutical companies, through their support for research ‘partnerships’, paid consultants, conference sponsorships, and so on, have turned intellectual property rights into a cash cow and corrupted a great deal of medical research on the way. A course on science and society covering the science wars should cover this vital topic, too.
Parsons has put together a very useful anthology, eminently suitable for undergraduate use. When it comes to teaching, I would recommend supplementing it with a bit of political material and with something on the commercialization of science, say, selections from Sheldon Krimsky's new book, Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? (Reference Krimsky2003). Such a course would focus on science and society, epistemology and politics bound together—philosophy can't get more interesting or socially important than that.
