Lewontin et al's Not In Our Genes -- I spent so much time reading this paper. I had heard the word bourgeoisie before but never in any sort of context (have yet to read The Communist Manifesto) so it was fascinating to learn through the lens of science studies where exactly this thing we now call "science" came from. Of course we haven't always had scientists, we used to have natural philosophers, but I'd simply never realized that there had to be a major shift of consciousness at some point.
I had heard quite a few times "Oh, science isn't any more trustworthy than religion. I have a belief in God, you have a belief in Science." I'd scoffed at such a claim before, thinking it had no basis (If I believe in science, at least there's evidence to back me up... ha) but maybe there was a hint of truth in there.
From Not In Our Genes: "[A]ny attempt to revolutionize society must use ideological counterweapons that deprive the old order of its legitimacy and at the same time build a case for the new." I highlighted, underlined, and wrote "YES" in all caps beside this. Scientists have fostered an ideological replacement of rule-by-objectivism for rule-by-divinity, which they claim is legitimate because the scientific method leaves no room for subjective error. (o rly?) My favorite sentence from Lewontin's paper: "The characteristic of science ... is that it is an activity of a special group of self-validating experts: scientists."
I've learned from our class how to read really critically and watch out for that old "argument from authority" fallacy; as a hard science major I had been overlooking or ignoring it when it came from fellow scientists whom I otherwise respected. I also feel more determined to continue on with one of my favorite pastimes, skepticism, since everything we covered in class provides ample justification: there's a LOT of bullshit going on in the world that I didn't even know or think about before.
But the most important thing I've drawn from this cultural studies class is the concept of a science-society "hybrid." Science is inseparable from social relations, no matter how many times the phrase is repeated "science is objective!" I'd brushed off before claims that science is akin to religion; no supernatural stuff is going on in the lab (that's what science sets out to disprove) and the findings don't require blind faith to accept. Skepticism is healthy, and not only do scientists get to claim something is bullshit and refute it through using the scientific method, we also must call out all suspicious statements or actions of theirs, and refute claims using a scientist's favorite tool: logic. The fallacy isn't "argument from authority (unless it's scientific authority)."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've heard people say the same phrase you mentioned - "that 'science isn't anymore trustworthy than religion" - and I too have snickered and thought, "you are so wrong". But science, too, requires a lot of faith in the invisible. Even gravity is technically a theory, and although I belief in it, there exists the slightest chance that we all might be wrong and some dude in the sky is playing with a magnet. While that isn't all that likely, this class has shown me that it is a good thing to be skeptic.
ReplyDelete