Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?

This book will change the way you read literature discussing the theory of Evolution. I stongly recommend that you read this book if you are interested in the debate about what we should teach our children in science class.Michael Ruse is a philospher and an expert in the history of Biological Evolutionary thought. His goal is to evaluate two alternatives about about the nature of science. He wishes to evaluate if science measures a reality that is independent of the scientist, as Karl Popper would propose, or alternatively that what we see is governed by the paradigm or world view we have selected (and which is often inpenetrable to new concepts), as Thomas Kuhn might propose. His method is to analyse the writings of a selection of Evolutionists from Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles) to current day Evolutionists. Ruse's favorite word is "epistemic" (from the Greek word meaning "knowledge"). He uses it in the sense of "objective testable, reproducible science".For me much of the value of this book was the analysis rather than the final conclusions. What becomes clear is that Evolutionists simply cannot resisist the temptation to expand their writing outside of pure scientific study into the "non-epistemic" world of reading between the lines and speculating what might have happened in the earth's past history. This is particulary true of Evolutionists public or lay literature. What you can be fairly sure of is this, if you have read anything about evolution lately, and you are not a specialised scientist, what you read is almost certainly of the non-epistemic unscientific kind. Why would evolutionists do this? They are creating coherence, making sense of the world around them, scientific or not.This leaves me with some conclusions thanks to Ruse.1)Much of what appears as literature in "evolutionary science" is surely no better scientifically than literature about "intelligent design". The desire for Coherence drives both paradigms. 2)If the Thoery of evolution has become progressively more scientific over the last 150 years as Ruse proposes, is the theory we have now merely a scientific veneer covering a non-epistemic core?3)Ruse says that in 1981 in the Little Rock Arkansas "balance treatment" case he argued that Creationism was unscientific. Would he now take the stand and warn parents that most of what their children heard about evolution was like-wise non-epistemic?

Michael Ruse may be the gentlest man in the world. Here, he certainly has no peer in providing a comprehensive history of evolutionary biology without descending into the acrimony and vituperation that has plagued the field. He opens with a review of "the science wars," particularly the humanities' assault on science over the past generation. He chooses evolutionary thought for his focus, because he's familiar with the topic, having addressed several books to the field. In this book, he evokes the work of twelve scholars in assessing the impact of "culture" on evolutionary research.As Ruse sees it, "the debate is between objectivity and subjectivity." These "scientific values" are used in reviewing the work of his chosen personalities. They are assessed in light of his overview of Karl Popper's "objectivism" versus Thomas Kuhn's "paradigms of thought." Ruse follows the tortured path of this debate with compelling skill. His guidance is sure-footed, keeping our attention and maintaining a balanced course along the way. It's a perilous journey, since many of the personalities are current and none hesitant about making known their displeasure. Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin and Edward Wilson have all tilted at the academic lists. Ruse negotiates this hazardous milieu effectively. Ruse synthesizes many works in assessing the cultural milieu of each of his subjects. Darwin's comfortable upper-middle class lifestyle, Gould's rampant Marxism, Wilson's Southern fundamentalist upbringing have been examined by many others over the years. Ruse adds a fresh level of organization to these accounts, giving each of his subjects a "level playing field" position as he relates them to the larger issue. He faults none of them, for none consciously sought to inflict a social standard on society. They were all men of their times, writing to an audience they understood. Although Ruse has some mild reservations about the "popularization" of science by such figures as Dawkins, Gould or even Ed Wilson, he doesn't openly condemn them, nor does he feel they're honing axes. He understands the need for science to reach a broad public, even at the risk of flawed comprehension.As a philosopher, Ruse's conclusion may surprise the unwary. He finds the charge of "cultural determinism" wanting, especially among today's active scientists. The quest for objectivity has intensified over succeeding generations to become the fully established standard. Is the assault on science responsible for tightening the discipline of its practitioners? Again, Ruse rebuffs the claims of the deconstructionists, arguing that science, by the very nature of its practices, has provided a core of self-discipline improving the way in which science is reported by its members. Even if they stray from the norm in other ways, it isn't the impact of "cultural" mores that tempts them from the path of full objectivity. Ruse deserves full accolades for this study, long n

I imagine most readers who are drawn to a book like this have asked themselves something similar while contending with issues that are important to them. Enter Michael Ruse who argues in this thought provoking book that such questions, although critically important, are ultimately futile; there's always going to be a dichotomy. The ongoing debate between the scientific worldview of objective reality on one hand, and the humanistic vision of subjective cultural values on the other hand, still remains unresolved. Ruse as both a philosopher and biologist has as good a chance as any of shedding some light on this MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES. Is there indeed something "real" underlying science or as the book's subtitle suggests "Is Evolution a Social Construction?" Although evolution is the specific subject looked at, the book is excellent in putting all of science and it's practitioners into a useful historical and cultural setting. Ruse normally has a very low opinion of "popular science" but in recognition of the importance of the topic of "science vs culture", he has offered a book that will appeal to a general audience. It's well written with ideas carefully explained and he's humorous in parts. Ruse provides a good glossary to help with the evolotuionary biology and philosophy terminology. Let's start where he does by looking at one of those terms. Science is founded on "epistemic values" which Ruse defines as "those norms or rules that supposedly lead to objective knowledge". Ruse contrasts the "objectivist" view of science - illustrated by the work of Karl Popper - with the "subjectivist" approach of Thomas S Kuhn who saw science in terms of "cultural values". The whole notion of social constructions owes its existence to Kuhn's shifting paradigms. Ruse's first chapter is a short and brilliant explanation on the difference between Popper's and Kuhn's views.Most of the following chapters are mini biographies of some of the better known evolutionary scientists, and case studies of their work to see where it stacks up along the Popper/Kuhn scale. Ruse says "I wanted to present a portrait of individual scientists and ultimately ask the question: Is science what scientists think, something about the real world? Or is it, as cultural studies thinks, a cultural constraint, a reflection of society?" He argues that if the subjectivist view is correct, social constructionism and all its attendant moral, religious, and political content, should be fairly constant features of science throughout history. The first individual he studies is Erasmus Darwin, and sure enough, his science was steeped in the culture of the day. Ruse believes that "science is special" so he expects that as science matured, a more objective nature would emerge - built on predictive capabilities, consistency, and explanative powers. In contrast to his grandfather Erasmus, Charles Darwin's thinking represented a major step forward in terms of epistemic values. Ruse still finds other influe

I found I was of two minds as I read Michael Ruse's Mystery of Mysteries. In fact I was of several minds. On the whole I found much material for thought, but I was also left with a feeling that the author might have subtle ulterior motives of his own to promote.I attempted to begin with chapter one, only to find that it started out as though the author was "mid-conversation." That propelled me to the prologue, only to be confronted with a similar sense of "something is missing." Although I don't generally read what I usually find are just an author's favorite quotes--for which read, "I liked this when I read it, and this is the only way I've found to make use of it." With Ruse, however, the quote that opened the volume, though gobblety gook itself, was absolutely essential to understanding his thesis. Taken as a whole, I thought his style was a very cleaver device. One worthy of a good novelist. It certainly pulled me through the work from start to finish. As I read the prologue, I had to admit that there was certainly meat to the subject: how objective is science? Though I had been aware of the skirmish between the social and the "hard" sciences--finding myself on the former team by natural ability and wistfully a "wanna be" on the latter by a lack of it--I had not given the matter great attention. Ruse does. He makes it abundantly clear that the two have been in a struggle for society's respect and financial support for decades, sort of an academic survival of the fittest, and that the rancor on both sides is both intense and legitimate. Probably the most important theme he posits in this introduction and develops throughout the book is that society has certain preconceived ideas about science and those that practice the discipline, namely that there are no other motives than the pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of society. This is not always the case. As any of you who've read Iceman : Uncovering the Life and Times of a Prehistoric Man Found in an Alpine Glacier by Brenda Fowler (see my review) are aware, cultural biases, personal quirks, and professional jealousies can all distort what passes for objective research. The lack of accountability for the spill-over costs to society of research gone bad and the priority of financial interests in directing the goals of science were the basis for the now very famous novel Jurassic Park. Ruse's contention, then, that the distrust by the social sciences of the physical sciences is not altogether a matter of self interest is a valid one, and one we need to seriously consider. Just what agenda might a person have whose research indicates that black people aren't as bright as white people or women as mathematically inclined as men. How might their personal biases direct his/her research and his/her interpretation of results? The recent book Bell Curve, is a case in point.As a means of demonstrating what is expected of "good science" and of its practitioners, Ruse has chosen to

This book is a lot more than it seems. On the surface it is a book about evolution and current evolutionary thinking. Behind the scenes it is a great dissertation on contemporary science and the modern misuse of science. Ruse, who is a philosopher, has written an engaging book and though is not an easy read. He won't choke you on philosophical jargon. Though it is not a beginner's book on evolutionary thinking, it is easy to digest for someone with some modest knowledge of the field. Mystery of Mysteries begins by showing the two polar philosophers of modern scientific thought: Thomas Kuhn who is best known for "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Karl Popper who wrote many books on science but a good example would be "Logic of Scientific Discovery." Kuhn comes down on the side that scientific reality is based in culture. Popper says science is independent of culture. Ruse then goes on to use a number of evolutionary scientists and their works to show the push and pull between these two poles. Gould, Lewontin, Wilson, and others, share the spotlight for a chapter. It's a great book on contemporary evolutionary biology and philosophy. Ruse also gives us a grand tour of the movers and shakers, and their thinking and personalities. We also get some glimpses of the vicious infighting going on between the camps. But it is much more than this. The biologists and their ideas are only a foil for Ruse to discuss the issues that confront science today. I found it to be a worthy guide to scientific thinking. There is a wealth of ammunition here to be used when one is confronted by much of the irrational garbage that passes for logical thinking today. Though Ruse does not bash Kuhn directly one can see his star gradually fade as the book progresses. Taking Kuhn to its ultimate conclusion, one would have to declare that scientific truth is a consensus of opinion and not fact. Kuhn has become the darling of Post Modernists for this very reason. Karl popper comes of as a breath of fresh air.Anyone who calls himself or herself a Skeptic should consider this required reading. If evolutionary biology is your thing, or if you are at all interested in how science works, or if you are interested in the philosophy of science, order it now.