In Kuhn’s final chapter of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he writes, “…the unit of scientific achievement is the solved problem,” (169). For a human society in which discovery and understanding the world is highly valued, it makes sense that Kuhn boils scientific achievement down to the very thing humans crave the most—answers and resolutions.
Humans are not happy to situate themselves in a world where things are uncertain. Whether the explanation of life is scientifically-based or spiritually-based, the answer to the origin of life explains the very nature of human existence. Were we created? Have we morphed over billions of years? Creationists say yes to the first, and evolutionists say yes to the latter. Either way, it seems that the point of each theory is to grant some truth to human life.
Scientists are quick to denote that creationism is not a part of science—this is ultimately supportable because science is rooted in hypothesis, experiment, and evidence, which cannot be done regarding the theory of creationism. However, the theory of evolution is also not testable. It is, though, able to be witnessed over a long period of time and noted through the examination of fossils.
What Kuhn found to be most revolutionary about Darwin’s theory of natural selection and evolution was its inference that science has no ultimate goal. He writes, “But nothing that has been or will be said makes [science] a process of evolution toward anything,” (170). In other words, because evolution distinguishes that there is no definitive existence of any living thing, it also infers that there is no ultimate end goal to science.
With this in mind, I read “Backward, Christian Soldiers!” by Kurt Andersen from New York Magazine’s website. He writes vigilantly against the implementation of intelligent design being taught in schools, and on the second page of his rant he writes, “In science, there is no such thing as fixed, irrefutable truth. That’s the difference between empiricism and faith.”
There is something assuming in that statement, though. If science is not rooted on a fixed, irrefutable truth, why is it truth that creationism is ultimately wrong? While I myself do not find creationism to be a scientific theory which should be taught in science class, it seems definitely worthy of being considered in a humanities course as a means of explaining human life. If science prides itself in promoting an environment without truth, it should be all the more ready to support the discussion of intelligent design. There is, after all, no ultimate fact battling its validity. For many Christians, evolution is as much fact as creationism.
And if science is a process in which humans attempt to explain the world, why is religion so easy to chastise? Is it not equally a means of explaining human life? And even if it was created by humans, was not also science created in the hands of humans? Are not numbers an invention of the human brain? Language? Concepts? Time? These are all measurements of human understanding.
Reading Andersen’s piece I became angry for creationism because he described it as “believing in magic.” Wizardry, fairytales, and alchemy have been proven as incorrect explanations of the world. Religion itself has evolved—no longer do people believe in Zeus. This parallels science in that people do not believe the earth to be the center of the universe any longer. It is not fair to discount faith as a means of rationalization because of what was once believed; archaic scientific explanations are equally as ridiculous.
Not one person ultimately knows what is and what is not on such large terms. Kuhn saw this too, writing, “The Origin of Species recognized no goal set by God or nature,” (172). He goes on to end his work with the following: “Any conception of nature compatible with the growth of science by proof is compatible with the evolutionary view of science developed here. Since this view is also compatible with close observation of scientific life, there are strong arguments for employing it in attempts to solve the host of problems which still remain,” (173). Arguably, there is no ultimate answer to how humans came to be and where they are going.
Why close the mind to a rational possibility?
WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/14721/
“Backward, Christian Soldiers!”
Kurt Andersen
New York Magazine Website
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas S. Kuhn
Chicago University Press
Chicago, Illinois and London, England
1962, 1970, 1996
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Contemporary Modalities: Abstinence Study Statistics
In bolded letters, a pull quote in Sharon Begley’s column titled “Just say No—to Bad Science” from Newsweek May 7, 2007, reads, “No one is saying that researchers cheat, but how they design a study of sex education can practically preordain the results.” Immediately, I thought of Latour’s chapter on modalities in Science in Action. Modalities, in Latour’s terms, are statements which “modify (or qualify) another one,” (22).
Latour describes instances in which facts are distorted by the phrasing of arguments and perspectives. Similarly, Begley criticizes factual distortion. She writes, “Choosing the wrong methodology can lead science, and the public, astray.” Begley went on to criticize a number of studies done on abstinence programs in teens due to the conditions and biases involved.
For instance, Begley wrote, “Many evaluated programs where kids take a virginity pledge. But kids who choose to pledge are arguably different from kids who spurn the idea.” She infers here that the study following those who took a pledge is incomplete because it does not follow all teenage sexual choice. It only looked at the way children who pledged their virginity behaved.
She also attacked a study based on memory and abstinence. She states, “…up to half of kids forget whether they took a virginity pledge, or pretend they never did….Both factors inflate the measured efficacy of pledge programs.”
Depending on the way the information of these studies is presented the studies seem to be more or less effective. Latour uses examples in his text to demonstrate the peculiar means of tinting fact. On page 22, Latour elaborates on this:
“What happens when someone disbelieves a sentence? Let me experiment with three simple cases.
(1) New soviet missiles aimed against Minutemen silos are accurate to 100 metres.
(2) Since [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres] this means that Minutemen are not safe any more, and this is the main reason why the MX weapon system is necessary.
(3) Advocates of the MX in the Pentagon cleverly leak information contending that [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres].”
Latour then describes these 3 sentences by stating that (1) is the initial fact, (2) is a positive modality in that it uses (1) to push an idea, and (3) is a negative modality because it refutes (1)’s validity.
In this way, one can set up a code of modalities related to Begley’s article:
(1) Abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges show that pledges are “effective in reducing early sexual activity.”
(2) Because [abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges show that pledges are “effective in reducing early sexual activity”] this means that virginity pledges prevent teenage sexual behavior, and this is the reason all children should take virginity pledges.
(3) Conservatives cleverly use [abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges] to push conservative ideals despite the fact that the studies were incomplete.
Overall, modalities seem to boil facts so that they seem flimsy and plump, unable to stand on their own. Perhaps Begley said it best when she ended her article with the following line: “Authors of the problematic studies say they did the best they could with the time and money they had. OK, but as Trenholm says, “there is such a thing as good science and less good science.” And you can really tell the difference.” In this way, as the American public, we should be wary of science done under motivation. The existence of biased science makes it our duty to sift through the opinion for the fact.
WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
“Just Say No—To Bad Science”
Sharon Begley
Newsweek
May 7, 2007
Science in Action
Bruno Latour
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1987
Latour describes instances in which facts are distorted by the phrasing of arguments and perspectives. Similarly, Begley criticizes factual distortion. She writes, “Choosing the wrong methodology can lead science, and the public, astray.” Begley went on to criticize a number of studies done on abstinence programs in teens due to the conditions and biases involved.
For instance, Begley wrote, “Many evaluated programs where kids take a virginity pledge. But kids who choose to pledge are arguably different from kids who spurn the idea.” She infers here that the study following those who took a pledge is incomplete because it does not follow all teenage sexual choice. It only looked at the way children who pledged their virginity behaved.
She also attacked a study based on memory and abstinence. She states, “…up to half of kids forget whether they took a virginity pledge, or pretend they never did….Both factors inflate the measured efficacy of pledge programs.”
Depending on the way the information of these studies is presented the studies seem to be more or less effective. Latour uses examples in his text to demonstrate the peculiar means of tinting fact. On page 22, Latour elaborates on this:
“What happens when someone disbelieves a sentence? Let me experiment with three simple cases.
(1) New soviet missiles aimed against Minutemen silos are accurate to 100 metres.
(2) Since [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres] this means that Minutemen are not safe any more, and this is the main reason why the MX weapon system is necessary.
(3) Advocates of the MX in the Pentagon cleverly leak information contending that [new Soviet missiles are accurate within 100 metres].”
Latour then describes these 3 sentences by stating that (1) is the initial fact, (2) is a positive modality in that it uses (1) to push an idea, and (3) is a negative modality because it refutes (1)’s validity.
In this way, one can set up a code of modalities related to Begley’s article:
(1) Abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges show that pledges are “effective in reducing early sexual activity.”
(2) Because [abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges show that pledges are “effective in reducing early sexual activity”] this means that virginity pledges prevent teenage sexual behavior, and this is the reason all children should take virginity pledges.
(3) Conservatives cleverly use [abstinence studies of children who took virginity pledges] to push conservative ideals despite the fact that the studies were incomplete.
Overall, modalities seem to boil facts so that they seem flimsy and plump, unable to stand on their own. Perhaps Begley said it best when she ended her article with the following line: “Authors of the problematic studies say they did the best they could with the time and money they had. OK, but as Trenholm says, “there is such a thing as good science and less good science.” And you can really tell the difference.” In this way, as the American public, we should be wary of science done under motivation. The existence of biased science makes it our duty to sift through the opinion for the fact.
WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
“Just Say No—To Bad Science”
Sharon Begley
Newsweek
May 7, 2007
Science in Action
Bruno Latour
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1987
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
