ASK A QUESTION

RECENT RESPONSES

CONCEPT CLOUD


CATEGORIES

  • Panelist Login

Science

SEE ANOTHER QUESTION
in Science

i gleaned from a review of d. dennett's "darwin's dangerous idea" the notion that scientists' dogmatic insistence upon a purely materialist frame of reference may not be as justified as most students my age probably assume (also that scientists have brought this view to bear not simply in academia but in the political arena as well).

the review included this outrageous quote from feyerabend: "scientists are not content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as the rules of the scientific method, they want to universalize those rules, they want them to become part of society at large, and they use every means at their disposal -- argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying -- to achieve their aims."

all this is really kind of extraordinary to me! i really don't think that many studets my age were raised to question science on such a level (i'm pretty sure that if we did at this point, we'd be laughed out of the classroom as kooky i.d. proponents). i don't really have a focused question here; i was just wondering if the panel had anything to say about the place of science in modern day society and education.

August 26, 2006

Response from Richard Heck on September 21, 2006

I'll just make a few comments about this. I don't have much detailed to say about it.

First, I'm not sure that "scientists" do insist dogmatically upon a materialist frame of reference. A broadly materialist—or, better, naturalistic—orientation is hardly optional within the practice of science itself, but there are plenty of scientists whose conception of the world as a whole is a bit more expansive. I don't say this to congratulate or insult anyone, just to note it.

That said, it is true that some people, some of them scientists, do sometimes try to push materialism beyond the bounds of scientific practice. The important thing to note is that, in doing so, they are pushing a bit of scientific methodology beyond its natural home. I take it that this is Feyerabend's point, one he makes in characteristically colorful language. But that point has been made by several others, too, sometimes in more local ways. I'd strongly recommend, for example, some of Noam Chomsky's writings on naturalism.

Print PRINT Send2friends E-MAIL
E-MAIL THIS ENTRY

Recipient's e-address: required
(separate multiple e-addresses with commas)
Your name: required
Your e-address: required
Message:

Track TRACK

TRACK THIS ENTRY

If you provide your e-mail address, you will be automatically notified whenever this question receives a response. Your e-mail address will not be used for any other purpose, and it will not be given or sold to anyone.

E-mail:

SHARE
SHARE THIS ENTRY

del.icio.us
Digg! Digg
Facebook
reddit
StumbleUpon