The Ideals of Science
Rethinking Science
The other day someone compared me to Noam Chomsky- you know the Noam Chomsky- the guy who revolutionized an entire field and helped create numerous others. But this comparison was meant as an insult due to Chomsky’s takes on philosophy and politics.
Chomsky is seen as ignorant about politics, even though there are whole Wikipedia pages dedicated to his political stances. I guess the crux of the critique is the idea scientist should be impartial arbitrators of truth and not discuss politics. But this is a misguided assumption essentially asking scientists to be more than what they are, human.
For example, I study public health, the field is intrinsically political as public health professionals deal with government and private sectors, policy, the implementation of health programs, and more. Therefore, I need to consider how the political systems in place will impact the health of the population, this would require me to get involved in political decision-making and discussions.
Other scientists from other professions are also reliant on political systems. Climatologists have to contend with the fact that American conservatives largely deny or downplay the impacts of climate change. Evolutionary biologists have to deal with a certain section of America believing in creationism over evolution. Physicists, chemists, psychologists, medical scientists, and scientists from various other disciplines all depend to some degree on federal money.
Whether that money comes from grants, other funding sources or the existence of the very institution the scientist is working in… politics underpin all of these major allocation decisions.
How could a scientist not be involved or at least concerned about politics with all of these considerations?
The Myth of Ideals
When I speak of “scientific methodists” related to the philosophy of science, I am talking about those who perceived science as distinct from other fact-finding activities because of the scientific method.
Scientific methodists include philosophers, other academics, and philosophical schools of thought whose central focus is the methods utilized by science and scientist. Examples are Karl Popper (falsification), Thomas Kuhn (paradigms), and Auguste Comte (positivism).
From the 16th to about the mid-20th century, the central focus of the philosophy of science was method… Science is different because of its’ method; the method is seen as ideal and the perversion of that ideal comes from individual bad actors, not science itself.
However, the methodist was missing an essential piece of the puzzle, the scientist conducting the science. Sociologist Robert K. Merton and others came up with a new field, the sociology of science.
The sociology of science showcases the idea that knowledge itself and the activities by which we use to become knowledgable, science, are subjected to sociological factors.
The Reward System of Science
An essential piece of reading on the sociology of science is The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations by Robert K. Merton.
There is a chapter in this work dubbed The Reward System of Science that covers the impact of the personal interaction of scientists on the scientific process. It is well known within the history of science that certain disputes arose over scientific findings, theories, and hypotheses.
There are often social conflicts in science over findings, discoveries, and funding. Merton argues these disputes are rooted in the perversion of social norms within science. This is to say there is perceived unfairness in a situation that violates the norms of science, the response is often hostility.
For, as I shall suggest, it is these norms that exert pressure upon scientists to assert their claims, and this goes far toward explaining the seeming paradox that even those meek and unaggressive men, ordinarily slow to press their own claims in other spheres of life, will often do so in their scientific work.
- Robert Merton
But what are these norms within science? Merton gives us some insight again.
Four sets of institutional imperatives-universalism, communism, disinterestedness, organized skepticism-are taken to comprise the ethos of modern science.
- Robert Merton
The norms within science influence the social aspect of science which is just as or more important than the method.
The Norms of Science
The norms of science make up the ethos of science, they’re the unofficial rules by which those conducting science should abide.
Let’s cover the four previously mentioned:
Universalism- science is independent of a person’s attributes or status. It should, in theory, apply to all of us equally.
Communism- there should be a collaboration amongst scientists within the scientific community. Results, findings, studies, etc. should be shared amongst scientists not hidden.
Disinterestedness- scientists should work towards building up our knowledge base rather than for personal gain. A scientist should not commit fraud to get ahead.
Organized Skepticism- scientific claims should be open to scrutiny before being accepted.
Merton argues that these norms can be violated due to numerous sociological factors, but overall scientists tend to follow these norms.
However, there is still a chance scientists can violate these norms anyway. How can we trust science if the scientists conducting science violate their own norms? Are these actually the norms of science? What can we trust in science overall when the norms are violated?
These are good questions and we do have a few potential answers.
The True Nature of Science
In a previous article, I discussed the value of science from the perspective of Naomi Oreskes and her book Why Trust Science?.
Oreskes gives us an interesting answer for resolving the limitations of method. Ultimately, her solution reflects Merton’s norm of organized skepticism but from the perspective of social epistemology. I talk more about this in my other article, but diversity leads to a better critical appraisal of evidence which gives us a better idea of what’s really going on. Oreskes dubs this approach critical interrogation.
Philosopher Michael Strevens’ book The Knowledge Machine offers a slightly different take on the nature of science. While he admits science is ultimately a social endeavor as showcased in the history of science, what makes science different is its ability to explain.
When there are controversies or disagreements amongst scientists they typically do not go to war or commit acts of violence. Scientists instead settle their disagreements through empirical investigation, this means they actually put their hypothesis to the test via experiment. This is similar to Oreskes’ critical interrogation and Merton’s norms, Strevens’s iron rule of explanation posits the cooperation of scientists can be found via empirical investigation towards what is most likely the case.
However, Strevens’s rule falls into a few problems because of the theoretical drive of scientists. This is to say experiments alone are insufficient for scientists when they do not know what they’re studying. In science, we often have theories, laws, and assumptions which are the foundation of scientific investigation. For instance, without the theory of evolution, the field of evolutionary biology wouldn’t have a solid foundation from which to study. How would scientists know what to look for? What to research? Or what to study in general?
Strevens addresses these concerns more in his book. Right now the stress of this article is to showcase the ideal of science as all-knowing, all objective, divorced from political forces, and perfect… is delusional. The fact of the matter is science is extremely complex almost like a mishmash of culture, ideology, economics, society, psychology, and more.
Final Thoughts
The value of this work is not to suggest never trust science, scientist, or the scientific process. What this work aims to do is to get people to appreciate the complexity of science from a different dimension.
Typically, in science classes, there isn’t an emphasis on the philosophy, sociology, or history of science. The focus is rather on a particular field of interest, the terms within that field, and the methods within the said field.
By seeing science as more complex and nuanced we can bridge the gap between what we think science is and what it actually really is. This is especially important considering many people are making many bad arguments about science.
I will definitely explore this topic with you more.