The One Culture?: A Conversation about Science

This book is an attempt at an ecumenical reconciliation between two loosely knit factions of scientists and philosophers over whether or not natural scientists (physicists, chemists, biologists...) are, by their profession, in the best position to speak authoritatively on whether history, philosophy and sociology have anything interesting to say about the efficacy of the scientific enterprise. During the 1980s some passionate lines were drawn in academia over this issue - resulting in what has become called The Science Wars. The lines were drawn roughly between natural scientists on one side and practitioners of the humanities and social sciences on the other. A similar episode took place during the 18th century when leading figures of the Enlightenment pushed the notion that priests and theologians might not be the best persons to consult when asking the question, "What makes religion go?" Thankfully, these Enlightenment historians and literateurs (critiquing a discipline for which they had no formal training or expertise), influenced discourse on religion, shifting it away from theology and toward the social, historical-political dimension. This has resulted in the sort of talk and thinking we lay-persons regularly conduct on religious matters today. I don't make this comparison in order to draw a similarity between science and religion per se -- they are very different -- but only because both of these things have in turn served as the primary institution of knowledge production in Western culture. They have both at times been the transparent lenses through which we inquire about the world. Examining the lenses themselves has historically led to intellectual conflict over who is entitled to perform the examination and from what perspective. The question that vexed the Science Wars was whether or not there is anything intrinsic about science that made it fundamentally immune to Enlightenment-style critique. Most of the impressive contributors are represented in this book and I was amazed at how careful they each were in really trying to understand each others' position. I was particularly surprised by Steven Weinberg's even-handed criticisms of the historian's treatment of science. Almost every essay was gripping. I really liked Jane Gregory and Steve Miller's essay on public perception of science. I also really enjoyed physicist Peter Saulson's report of what he learned from spending almost his entire professional career as a sociological case study. Even though this collection is supposed to represent a road toward closure of a thirty-year war, it can still be read as an introduction to the issues that compose the so-called Science Wars. Lest the reader fears that this book will be bogged down by careful scholarship and close, mutually nuanced readings of each essay, the editors have included three rich essays by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont which serve as a sort of comic relief to the otherwise serious and careful treatment. One has to w

The above quote is from scientist AND sociologist of science Michael Lynch, characterizing the type of arguments to be found in this book (as opposed to the 'science wars' as they are carried out in the mainstream press). While the science wars have largely consisted of ad hominems, bitter denunciations, and fuming tempers, Lynch is correct. What one finds in this book is, "more peaceful arguments." This book, edited by a chemist and a socioloigist of science, is a collection of essays by scientists and sociologists of scientists to do with the 'science war.' the questions at issue involve: Can science reach a truly objective reality? Is science 'socially constructed' (and what does such a term mean?) How much do social rather than natural factors influence science discovery and consensus-building? etc. It grows apparent in the give and take of articles in this book taht the answer to all of these questions is harder and stickier than it first appears. For instanace, we learn that when scientists and sociologists of science hear a term like 'socially constructed,' they hear two very different things. To the scientist, this means 'not real' and is taken as a criticism. To the sociologist of sceince, it means that sceince is irreducibly a social enterprise (not 'not real'). This volume is refreshing because each side is quite eager and willing to listen to eachother, avoid caricature, argue calmly, and respond calmly. There is much vigorous debate, to be sure, but there is also many an essay that starts out with something like: "After reading the essays submitted, i am shocked at how much my colleages actually agree..." While consensus isn't fully reached (why should we expect THAT?) there are a few things that are unilaterally agreed upon (as quoted from David Mermin's essay, "How to converse with sociologists" pg. 97-98): "Rule 1: [Participants should f]ocus on the substance of what is being said, and not on alleged motives for saying it... Rule 2: Do not expect people from remote disciplines to speak clearly or understand the nuances of your own disciplinary language... Rule 3: Do not assume that it is as easy as it may appear for you to penetrate the disciplinary language of others." With that said, this is a book that makes an honest attempt to air both sides of the 'science war' while getting both sides to honestly understand the other. As you will quickly discover, the two sides that are often conveyed as radically divergent from the other, as often as not, meet in the middle. "[T]he more peaceful arguments," indeed.

This is a good compendium of essays trying to recover from the mess of the Sokal affair and seems to be a sort of peace pipe conference of Science Warrriors. Between the two cultures of Snow and the much hyped 'Third Culture' of Brockman we might indeed aspire to the 'one culture', but that keeps getting turned into the two cultures all over again. It is worth going back to the last century to see the more sophisticated version of this debate to see that the current version is a hot house plant inside Big Science. We need the _real_ Science Wars, not between antagonists, but in the minds of the scientists themselves.

In the late 20th century we began to see a number of books and journal articles out of some academic disciplines that criticized the positivist approach to science and its claims to authority. Many of these have been themselves brutally criticized with such characterizations as "fashionable nonsense," "anti-science" and "higher superstition." This has been variously associated with such terms as "confused academic left," postmodernist philosophy, and social constructionism. At their most dramatic, the so-called wars seem to revolve around a core of scientists, such as Norm Levitt, Paul Gross, Alan Sokal, and Stephen Weinberg, and their reaction to the way science is being characterized by people outside their fields. They present a largely united front in expressing that some pure and essential form of science and clear human reasoning is under siege from several fronts. The opponents of the hardcore scientists are more varied and thus harder to characterize. The most persuasive criticisms come from people who study science and scientists and publish in academic journals: historians of science, philosophers of science, and sociologists of science. It is this sub-group of critics, and especially the people considered sociologists of science, that are the antagonists for the hardcore scientists in The One Culture. _The One Culture_ is not (quite) another salvo in these wars, it is an uneasy and often difficult attempt at an open dialog between the sides. Notably, the participants here don't even agree on whether there is a war going on, or if there is, whether it makes sense to be declaring a truce. In spite of the confusion, a number of important concessions are declared and I learned an awful lot about the variety of perspectives on each side, and how fuzzy the boundaries between the sides really is. It is quickly apparent from this book that the extremes often presented in popular accounts are not accurate. The people studying science are not necessarily trying to undermine it, nor are they necessarily contributing to an unhealthy or unrealistic view of science. It is a legitimate topic of academic study to observe scientific research and study the effects of various factors on its conduct and its results. Also, the scientists here are not necessarily trying to present science as a great bolt of Truth from Mt. Olympus, and recognize that there are social forces that do influence their work, at least when controversies arise. At times, I got a real sense from this book that people were almost deliberately misinterpreting each other, but then would concede that they may not quite be representing their opponent fairly. The result is ironically and strangely confusing. Reading these essays I felt like I wanted to accept one of the views as true and just be done with the whole thing. It was confusing because the concessions made helped me realize that the sides were seeing things differently, and I think ourinstinct is to want to choos