STS 200

Introduction to
Science,
Technology and
Society

STS 200 INTRODUCTION TO SCIENCE,

TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
Instructor: Dr. Richard Kover
Office: St. Josephs College 0-15
Telephone: 780-492- 7681 ext.241
E-mail : kover@ualberta.ca
Office Hours: Wednesdays 3:00 - 4:00
Thursdays 3:00 4:00

Or by Appointment

C4W CENTRE FOR WRITERS

University of Alberta - Centre for Writers
Offer tutorials and workshops
http://c4w.ualberta.ca/

WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Science comes from the Latin scientia meaning
knowledge
This is a rather broad definition as it can denote
any sort of body of knowledge indeed up until
the modern age it was used rather loosely in
this manner

ARISTOTELEAN SCIENCE
-

Aristotles natural philosophy was considered the premier model of

science until well into the 16th century .

It was a coherent , unified framework of concepts which purported to

explain everything in the natural world.

Aristotelean science was a metaphysical system in the truest sense of the

word

WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?
- We tend to think of metaphysics as vaguely supernatural or spiritual
-

Often a term of derision among scientists and academics.

Not necessarily so

Metaphysics, simply put, is the framework or

background of fundamental assumptions, concepts
or notions by which we understand the world .
These assumption can be implicit or explicit but in some sense we all have
them.

We are all in some sense metaphysicians. Metaphysical systems are like

bellybuttons We all have them.
Hegel The scientist denying that he is doing metaphysics, is like the
Englishman denying that he is speaking in prose .

ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY

A fundamental aspect of metaphysics is ontology and epistemology

Ontology The investigation of the fundamental categories of being or existence.

Good way to think of it is - What is the furniture of the world?

Epistemology -

The nature and scope of our knowledge of the world.

or How we know what we know

ARISTOTLE
Aristotle had a theory of forms . All matter was
compromised and organized into certain forms and if
you wanted to know about an object or make
predictions about an object you had to know its
form.
In other words, you start from your metaphysics and work
your way out.

THIS DIFFERS CONSIDERABLY FROM

CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE
In contemporary usage science refers to less to a
specific body of knowledge than a way of procuring
and acquiring knowledge.
It is understood as more of a methodology than a
metaphysical system
Indeed its very methodology aims to curtail as much
as possible overt metaphysical theorizing

If you want to understand the world according to

modern science you dont start from a set of
abstract premises or metaphysical
assumptions rather you come up with a
hypothesis and you test it.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

A body of techniques and practices for investigating
natural phenomenon which allows new knowledge to
be tested, discarded, and integrated with previous
knowledge
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the Scientific
Method as a method or procedure that has
characterized natural science since the 17th century,
consisting in systematic observation, measurement,
and experimentation, and the formulation, testing and
modification of hypotheses

STEPS TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

1. Formulate a hypothesis which makes a testable
prediction
2. Test this prediction through an experiment
3. If this prediction fails then discard or reformulate the
hypothesis
4. If succeeds then repeat numerous times to make
sure
5. Independent verification
6. Publish your findings

FORMULATE A HYPOTHESIS
After reading the associated literature you come up with
a good question , What is the cause of a certain
disease or natural phenomenon
- You formulate a hypothesis which can be testable
- The hypothesis makes a prediction which can be
falsifiable there must be the possibility that a
possible outcome could disprove the hypothesis.

DESIGNING AN EXPERIMENT AND TESTING THE

HYPOTHESIS
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations
of the real world confirm or deny the predictions of the
hypothesis
Experiments should be designed to minimize errors, bias and
alternative explanations or interpretations
Often designing an experimentation the most difficult part
Analysis Did the experiment prove or disprove the hypothesis ?

INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION
Other scientists can repeat and verify this
experiment
The results are then published in an academic
journal and made know to all.
These finding are then incorporated into the
greater body of scientific knowledge

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ACTION

Beriberi
In 1887 strange new disease called berberi afflicted people in the Dutch East Indies
Symptoms included weakness , loss of appetite and finally heart failure.
-Scientists originally thought it might be caused by bacteria
They injected one group of chickens with infected blood and the other with a placebo
Both groups of chickens got beriberi
Then one of the scientist Dr Eijkman noted that before the experiment all the chicken were
fed whole grain rice but during the experiment they were fed polished rice.
So he fed one group of chickens only polished rice and the other group whole grain rice.
The result only the chicken with polished rice got beriberi.
Conclusion He conjectured that beriberi was caused by some nutrimental deficiency .

Richard Feynman on The Scientific Method

THE VIRTUES OF SCIENCE Knowledge is cumulative and acquired though careful testing
Always subject to be falsifiable
No appeals to outside authority (antiauthoritarian)
No absolute certainty or appeal to hidden principles
It seems to provide us with a body of knowledge that is fairly reliable and depend
able
We can use this knowledge to correct ageold diseases, etc.

SCIENCE IS VALUE NEUTRAL

It aims to chastise unchecked assumptions and social prejudices
It doesnt purport to offer moral guidance
Its theories do not purport to offer any moral or evaluative assessments

Nevertheless
Many have suggested that the scientific method and enterprise itself promotes
certain virtues
Oppenheimer , Snow etc.
-anti-dogmatic
Progressive
Rigorous search for the truth

CARL SAGAN A WAY OF THINKING

Science is more than a body of knowledge it is a way of
thinking.
Carl Sagan

LOGICAL POSITIVISTS VIENNA CIRCLE

Logical positivists accepts only testable
statements as meaningful
-reject metaphysical interpretations
We need to ground philosophy on the basis of
the empirical sciences
Get rid of all the metaphysical baggage and
make it into a science.
Very hostile to the humanities

THE TWO CULTURES

The Two Cultures the Sciences and the Humanities
Each speaking a different language

THE RETURN OF METAPHYSICS?

Can we get rid of Metaphysics ?
Doesnt science itself rely upon, assume and
promote certain principles?
Is the falsification principle fallible?
What about the parsimony principle ?
Is it really devoid of cultural influence?

STS 200 B-1

Introduction to Science,
Technology and Society

The Unbelievers
Questions

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Why do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the debunking and questioning
religion is so important?
What do they see as the distinction between religion and science?
Do they believe that science and religion are asking essentially the same
questions?
Do they believe that the clash between science and religion is
inevitable?
Why does Dawkins think why questions are silly questions?
Do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the religious faith of scientist or a
politician should matter in public debate?
How successful do you think Dawkins and Krauss are at convincing or
winning over their opponents? Do you think ultimately this is very
important to them?
What is the difference between the notion of the Abrahamic faiths of
creation ex nihilo and Lawrence Krauss notion of creation from nothing?
What do the unbelievers believe in?

STS 200 B-1

Introduction to Science,
Technology and Society

Recap
Science is a methodology which aims to procure
objective and secure knowledge of the external
world
Disavows metaphysical assumptions the
metaphysics (in principle) are derived through
experimentation and the careful accumulation of
tested and empirically verified facts
Aims to build up a gradual accumulative picture
of the natural world.
Aims to remove cultural and subjective bias

Recap 2
Yet if science claims a sort of cultural and
metaphysical neutrality, this does not mean
that it does come into conflict with other
cultural, metaphysical and religious views or
that somehow not tried to put forward
science as its own sort of worldview.
The Unbelievers is example of this

The Unbelievers
Questions

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Why do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the debunking and questioning
religion is so important?
What do they see as the distinction between religion and science?
Do they believe that science and religion are asking essentially the same
questions?
Do they believe that the clash between science and religion is
inevitable?
Why does Dawkins think why questions are silly questions?
Do Dawkins and Krauss believe that the religious faith of scientist or a
politician should matter in public debate?
How successful do you think Dawkins and Krauss are at convincing or
winning over their opponents? Do you think ultimately this is very
important to them?
What is the difference between the notion of the Abrahamic faiths of
creation ex nihilo and Lawrence Krauss notion of creation from nothing?
What do the unbelievers believe in?

The Unbelievers
Dawkins and Krauss seem to present science
as a replacement for religion or metaphysical
systems and the final arbitrator on all
epistemological, ontological and ethical
matters.

The Scientific Conception of the World

We should reduce Culture to Science
Wait a sec
How uninfluenced by culture is science?

Social or Cultural Constructivism

What is the role that history and
culture play in the construction of
scientific knowledge?

Cultural Constructivism
Merold Westphal suggest that claims of cultural constructivism can be
understood as employing two different but intertwined hermeneutic
(interpretive) strategies the hermeneutics of finitude and the hermeneutics
of suspicion.
The Hermeneutics of Finitude There is no view from nowhere or Gods
eye view. There is no unimpeachable epistemic access to the real. We
always do this limited perspective of our subjective historically and
culturally informed categories.

It alerts us to the perspectival and limited nature of our knowledge of the

world and expresses doubt over the possibility of ever achieving absolute and
certain knowledge.

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion - Explores how certain metaphysical and

scientific frameworks were used to uphold and enforce certain vested
authorities and power interests
Why is a certain story being told? Whose interests does it serve?

The Hermeneutics of Finitude

Perhaps the best and certainly the most
influential example of the hermeneutics of
finitude is
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions
1st Edition - 1962
2nd Edition - 1970
3rd Edition - 1996

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Challenged the basic linear or development by
accumulation model of scientific history.

Scientific knowledge and theories are built up by the

steady accumulation of verified facts

Kuhn argues that this isnt the way science

actually historically developed.

Scientific history is not marked by a slow, gradual, linear

accumulation of facts and conceptual continuity but
rather it is interrupted by episodic revolutionary periods
in which previous deeply entrenched conceptual
frameworks are overturned and new avenues of
investigation opened up.

Scientific Paradigms and their

Revolutions
Kuhn is famous for the phrase paradigm shift - he
didnt actually coin it.
He characterizes science as a search for coherence
A search to find models which will account for as many
observations as possible within a coherent framework
Doesnt take place in a vacuum rather there is a preexisting framework of intellectual options and
strategies.
As normal science progresses anomalies accumulate
which can only be solved with the introduction of a
new explanatory framework or paradigm

5 Phases of Scientific Revolutions

1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

Pre-paradigm There are several incomplete and incompatible

competing theories. Eventually agents in the community gravitate
towards one conceptual framework and a consensus emerges over
methods and terminology, etc. Kuhn suggests that this phase is usually a
singular one time affair.
Normal Science Research and empirical conundrums are solved with in
the context of the dominant paradigm. Widespread consensus exists
over the legitimacy of the paradigm.
Crisis Over time as research progresses anomalies occur which cannot
be satisfactorily explained within the paradigm of normal science.
Generally these anomalies can be resolved, but sometimes these
anomalies grow to the point where normal science becomes difficult.
Revolutionary Science The underlying assumptions and framework of
the field are examined and a new paradigm is proposed.
Post Revolution - The New Paradigm is accepted and becomes dominant
and normal science resumes, with research and questions being
conducted within the framework of this new paradigm.

STS 200 B-1

Introduction to Science,
Technology and Society

Recap Social Constructivism

Social Constructivism explores the role that
history and culture play in the construction of
scientific and other forms of knowledge
Extreme and weak forms of Social constructivism
Weak Social Constructivism Looks at how the social
and historical milieu of scientists influence the
construction of their hypotheses and theories.
Extreme Social Constructivism Science is just
another story like astrology, etc. that we tell about the
world and nature.

Recap Social Construction

The Hermeneutics of Finitude There is no view from
nowhere or Gods eye view. There is no unimpeachable
epistemic access to the real. We always do this limited
perspective of our subjective historically and culturally
informed categories.

It alerts us to the perspectival and limited nature of our

knowledge of the world and expresses doubt over the possibility
of ever achieving absolute and certain knowledge.

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion - Explores how certain

metaphysical and scientific frameworks were used to
uphold and enforce certain vested authorities and power
interests

Why is a certain story being told? Whose interests does it serve?

Recap - The Hermeneutics of Finitude

An example of the Hermeneutics of Finitude is Thomas Kuhns The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn challenged the basic linear or development by accumulation
model of scientific history which held that scientific knowledge and
theories are built up by the steady accumulation of verified facts. Kuhn
argues that this isnt the way science actually historically developed.
Scientific history is not marked by a slow, gradual, linear accumulation
of facts and conceptual continuity but rather it is interrupted by
episodic revolutionary periods in which previous deeply entrenched
conceptual frameworks are overturned and new avenues of
investigation opened up

Recap - Scientific Paradigms and their

Revolutions
He characterizes science as a search for coherence
A search to find models which will account for as many
observations as possible within a coherent framework
Doesnt take place in a vacuum rather there is a preexisting framework of intellectual options and
strategies.
As normal science progresses anomalies accumulate
which can only be solved with the introduction of a
new explanatory framework or paradigm

5 Phases of Scientific Revolutions

1.

2.
3.

4.
5.

Pre-paradigm There are several incomplete and incompatible

competing theories. Eventually agents in the community gravitate
towards one conceptual framework and a consensus emerges over
methods and terminology, etc. Kuhn suggests that this phase is usually a
singular one time affair.
Normal Science Research and empirical conundrums are solved with in
the context of the dominant paradigm. Widespread consensus exists
over the legitimacy of the paradigm.
Crisis Over time as research progresses anomalies occur which cannot
be satisfactorily explained within the paradigm of normal science.
Generally these anomalies can be resolved, but sometimes these
anomalies grow to the point where normal science becomes difficult.
Revolutionary Science The underlying assumptions and framework of
the field are examined and a new paradigm is proposed.
Post Revolution - The New Paradigm is accepted and becomes dominant
and normal science resumes, with research and questions being
conducted within the framework of this new paradigm.

Examples of Paradigmatic Shifts

Copernicus Heliocentric model of the solar
system
Galileos unification of terrestrial and celestial
physics
Darwins theory of Evolution
Mendels theory of Genetics
Plate techonics

Incommensurability
Kuhn claimed that scientific paradigms preceding
and succeeding a paradigm shift are so dissimilar
that they cannot be proved or disproven by the
old paradigm and vise versa
Not a matter of the verification principle
The Paradigm shift changes not only how
scientists view their field but also what questions
are regarded as valid, and what criteria is used to
judge the truth and validity of new knowledge

In other words
It is not possible to resolve the conflicting
claims of competing paradigms according to
principle of verification
To do so would be to apply the rules and
language of one paradigm according to that of
another, rather Kuhn claim new paradigm
succeed over paradigms due to growing
consensus among a community of experts of
its greater explanatory power

This is very problematic

This seems to suggest that the validity of a particular
theory is really just based on communal scientific
consensus.
Generally Kuhns theory of scientific revolutions has
been interpreted as an out and out scientific relativism.
If various scientific paradigms are incommensurate and
there is no way of adjudicating between them then
how do choice one paradigm over the other?
How do we decide in favor of Newtonian cosmology
over Mayan Cosmology? After all they are speaking
two incommensurate languages as it were.

Problems with Paradigms

What Constitutes a True Paradigm Shift?
Kuhn not very clear about this.
In contemporary science there seems to be a
proliferation of talk about and appeal to
paradigms
Example The New Ecological Paradigm

The Problem with Incommensurability

Is absolute incommensurability even possible?
Surely even to have a discussion we have to
have some shared framework.

Kuhn denied that he was a relativist!

End of the first edition he provides two criteria
1)The new paradigm must seem to resolve some
outstanding and widely recognized problem
2)Preserve a relatively large part of the problem
solving activity and enterprise of science

Kuhns 5 Criteria for a Successful New

Paradigm Shift
1. Accurate reliable with empirical data,
experimentation and observation
2. Consistent internally coherent as well as
consistent with other wider theories
3. Broad Scope the consequences of the theory
extend beyond what it was originally designed
to explain
4. Simple It is the simplest, most parsimonious
explanation
5. Explanatorily Fruitful discloses new avenues of
investigation

Progress in Science?
Kuhn didnt deny scientific progress in science
New paradigms, he holds, better explain the
world and phenomena
That is not a relativists position, and it displays
the sense in which I am a convinced believer in
scientific progress. SSR 2nd ed. p.207.

Still he may be protesting too much

He does seem to suggest our scientific body of
knowledge and the scientific enterprise itself
can never rely on total objectivity
Kuhn is caught between the Scylla of
objectivism and Charybdis of relativism
Too much of a relativist for the objectivists
and too much of an objectivist for the
relativists

What are we left with?

How damaging is Kuhns account to the
legitimacy of contemporary science?
If foundations of scientific knowledge
rest simply on consensus is this enough
to continue the scientific project or has
it been irredeemably compromised?

Hermeneutics of Suspicion
If scientific paradigms rest ultimately on the
consensus of scientific community upon what
grounds is this consensus reached?
Are there other factors besides scientific rigor
and rationality that contribute to this
consensus such as the social position and
attitudes of scientists.

STS 200

Introduction to
Science,
Technology and
Society

Recap
Cultural Constructivism investigates the social and cultural
situated-ness of our knowledge claims about reality
- Challenges the understanding of science as completely
objective, impartial and unbiased, and seeks to
understand science as a cultural enterprise arising out of
certain historical and cultural contexts
- Seeks to uncover the influence of culture upon
scientific thought.

Recap
I suggested that cultural constructivism could be
understood as employing two different interpretive
strategies
1) The Hermeneutics of Finitude the
limits of our capacity to know the world
- No view from nowhere or absolute
unshakable epistemic foundations
2) The Hermeneutics of Suspicion Why is
this knowledge claim being made? Whose
political or cultural interests does it serve?

Recap
The Hermeneutics of Finitude one of the best
examples of this is Thomas Kuhns Structures of
Scientific Revolutions
S.S.R- challenged the conception of the history
of science as a straight-forward linear
progression, arguing instead that the history of
science is marked by periods of revolutionary
upset.

Recap
Paradigm Shifts
He distinguishes between periods of Normal
Science and Revolutionary Science
1)Normal Science the scientific enterprise is
carried on under the direction of the widely
accepted paradigm
2) Crisis- Anomalies which cant be explained under
the old paradigm accumulate
3) Revolutionary Science A new paradigm is
proposed that can account for these anomalies
4) The revolutionary paradigm is accepted and we
return to normal science under the new paradigm.

Recap
Important point- Incommensurability
Kuhn claimed that scientific paradigms preceding
and succeeding a paradigm shift are so dissimilar
that they cannot be proved or disproven by the
old paradigm and vise versa
Not a matter of the verification principle
The Paradigm shift changes not only how
scientists view their field but also what questions
are regarded as valid and what criteria is used to
judge the truth and validity of new knowledge

Recap
It is not possible to resolve the conflicting
claims of competing paradigms according to
principle of verification
Kuhn claims new paradigms succeed over
older paradigms due to growing consensus
among a community of experts of its greater
explanatory power

Recap
So this seems to suggest that the validity of a
particular theory is really just arbitrary.
Kuhn denied this
Provided 5 criteria
1)Accuracy
2) Consistency
3)Broad Explanatory Scope
4)Simplicity
5)Explanatorily fruitful

Recap

So he does argue for scientific progress

However
- It does seem to deny the possibility of ever
achieving absolutely objective knowledge.
-Also, in arguing that ultimately the
acceptance of the new paradigm only rests on
communal scientific consensus, it does seem
to open the doors to a consideration of other
social factors that might influence scientists in
coming up with this consensus.

Recap
After all, scientists are humans. They are not
disembodied intellects or computers but
embodied human beings, who grow up in human
social communities, occupy certain social
positions, engage in social relationships and are
influenced by their social, cultural and historic
circumstances.
They also, like everybody else, have certain
prejudices and interests.
How deep does this cultural influence go?

The Hermeneutics of Suspicion

Why are you telling me this?
The hermeneutics of suspicion looks not at
how accurately knowledge claims map onto
the truth but whose interests do they serve?

Biology as Ideology
Richard Lewontin Famous molecular
geneticist
Scientists are people and they inhabit a social
community.
They occupy a certain class.
Scientists earn money and the scientific
enterprise, particularly today, takes a lot of
money to pursue.
Electron microscopes dont grow on trees.

Lewontins Two Functions of Science

1) Technological function It provides a means
of manipulating the material world by
producing a set of techniques, practices and
inventions by which new things are produced
and by which the quality of our lives are
changed. Lewontin p.4
2) Explanatory function why things are the
way they are. ibid

Lewontin argues that the social order is

characterized by inequality of wealth, status,
etc., so it requires what he terms institutions of
social legitimation in order to convince people
that the society in which they live is just and fair,
or if not just and fair, then inevitable. (Lewontin
p.6)

Previously in Western Civilization

this institution of legitimation
was the church. Now, Lewontin
argues, it is science.

Lewontins Three Features Needed for

an Institution to Function as a
Legitimating institution
1) The institution must appear to be impartial and
above the fray of ordinary human relationships.
The institution as a whole must appear to
derive from sources outside of ordinary
human social struggle. It must not seem to
be the creation of political, economic, or
social forcers, but descend from society from
a super-human source. Lewontin p.7

2) The institution must appeal to some

transcendent truth that goes beyond the
possibility of human compromise. p.7

3) Lack of epistemic transparency

- It must have an esoteric language, which
needs to be explained to the ordinary person by
those who are especially knowledgeable and
can intervene between everyday life and the
mysterious sources of knowledge p.7

So, Lewontin argues, not only are

scientists social being informed by
their social circumstances but science
is a social institution which functions
as an institution of social legitimation.

STS 200

Introduction to
Science,
Technology and
Society

Recap- Biology as Ideology

Richard Lewontin

Science as an Institution of Legitimation.

Science can make certain political positions and
forms of authority appear to be natural.

Recap -The Opacity of Ideology

We discussed some cases where scientific
research was funded by private interests and
we wondered whether such funding
influenced the imparity of the results.
However in many cases ideologies and implicit
prejudices are not as obvious.
In order to work and be effective as an
ideology, ideological assumptions must be, in
some sense, hidden and implicit.

The Opacity of Ideology

Some Famous Examples
Sexism and Science
Racism and Science
Class and Science

Postmodernism
All knowledge claims and bodies of knowledge
are informed by social dynamics and competing
power interests.

Michel Foucault
Influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche will to power
Main idea
Foucault aims to demonstrate how certain
scientific and epistemic regimes served as a
means of social control.
1) Madness
2) Sexuality
3) Crime

Jacques Derrida
Since the ancient Greeks western thought has
been characterized by an attempt to
conceptualize and articulate the heterogeneity
of reality in terms of binary categories, such as
nature/culture, male/female, and mind/body, in
which the former is seen as superior and
dominant over the later, thereby naturalizing
and reinforcing certain social hierarchies

Francois Lyotard
Lyotard has dubbed any overarching and
coherent account of the real as a grand
narrative and linked the quest for this grand
narrative with a quest for a foundation for
totalitarian and authoritarian politics.

Cultural Relativism
People from different cultures have different
epistemological methods and bodies of
knowledge that often conflict with western
science.
Non-western people are not historical fossils,
they have their own culture and ways of viewing
and understanding the world and these are
incommensurate with ours.
Okay sowhat do we do when we have
competing knowledge claims?

Traditional Ecological Knowledge

The T.E.K. debate
- Indigenous peoples will often counter the
claims of ecologists on the basis of their
cultures store of traditional ecological
knowledge contained in their myths and oral
traditions.

19th Century Anthropology

The dilemma
- Non-Western Indigenous peoples seem to view the
natural world in ways that to modern, scientific eyes
appear magical, fanciful and completely opposed to what
we would consider intelligent and rational.
- They refer to spiritual forces and imbue animals and
other natural objects with human consciousness and
intentions.
- The stories or myths they tell seem to lack any internal
consistency or interest in causality.
- Stories almost seem childlike.

19th Century Anthropology

Lucien Lvy-Bruhl (10 April 1857 13 March 1939)
Distinguishes between two types of mentality - Primitive and
Western.

Primitive Mentality

- Doesnt address contradictions

- Doesnt differentiate the supernatural from the natural
- Uses "mystical participation" to manipulate the world.
Western Mentality
- Uses logic and reason
- Skeptical
Levi-Bruhl argued for a historical and evolutionary teleology
that led from the Primitive mind to the Western mind.

Levi-Bruhls Primitive Mentality

Fails to distinguish internal and external
worlds
Magic is a form of failed science.

The Beginnings of Western Science

David C. Lindberg

Lindberg
Pre-literate societies useful information
is passed down through the generations
through stories.
- These stories contain useful information and
elements of cosmology and natural knowledge
but there is no attempt to synthesize this
information. p.6

 They project human or biological traits onto

objects and events that would seem to us
devoid not only of humanity but also of life.
p.7
There is an inclination in preliterate cultures
not only to personalize but also individualize
causes, to suppose things happened because
they have been willed to do so. p.7

Lindenbergs question
Add to this the seemingly fanciful nature of
many of the beliefs described above, and we
inevitably raise the question of primitive
mentality: do members of preliterate
societies posses a mentality that is prelogical
or mystical or in some other way different
from our own, and, if so, how exactly is this to
be explained? p.10
Lindberg asks the question and then sidesteps it.

Stories embodied in oral traditions

convey and reinforce social attitudes
Legitimate the current social structure
No reason to question them
No rewards for skepticism
Indeed, our [western societys] highly developed
conceptions of truth and the criteria that a claim
must satisfy in order to be judged true (internal
coherence, for example, or correspondence to
external reality) do not generally exist in oral
cultures and, if explained to a member of an oral
culture, would probably be quite useless . p.11

So Lindberg seems to be giving an answer to his

own question.
There are two mentalities!!!

Lindberg on Literate cultures

Information can be written down and
remembered.
Writing thus served a storage function,
replacing memory as the principle repository of
knowledge. This had the revolutionary effect of
opening knowledge claims to the possibility of
introspection, comparison, and criticism. p. 12
-The invention of writing was the prerequisite
for the development of philosophy and science.

The Savage Mind

Claude Levi-Strauss

Famous statement
The Savage Mind is our own.
*Contra Levy Bruhl Levi-Strauss argues that there are no two
different mentalities
Man has always been thinking equally well.
Pre-literate societies demand coherence and consistency from their
body of knowledge.
*The key difference is not the acuity of their mental facilities but the
level at which it is applied.
*The savage mind, unlike modern science, starts with classifying what
is perceived in the sensible world.
*It is not irrational, it is simply not Cartesian.

Taxonomy
Classifies the sensible world into contrasting
sets of similarity and difference.
Starts with a fundamental contrast or binary
division and then go onto make further
distinctions.

Furthermore, because it is one

system, elements from one part of
the taxonomical chain can be
compared, contrasted and related
to other elements in the system.

Bricolage
Levi-Strauss claims that myth is a bricolage.
Bricoleur Handyman uses whatever is at
hand
A myth, that may seem to be strictly practical,
can also be used to solve another more
metaphysical or ethical problem.

Oral Cultures and the Nature of Myth

Walter Ong on pre-literate cultures
Mythic narration as means of mnemonic recall.
Encoding details in stories make them easier to
remember
Robin Ridington calls myths humanitys earliest
information technology
Examples the songlines of the Australian
aborigines

STS 200

Introduction to
Science,
Technology and
Society

Possible Midterm Questions

What are the two cultures in C.P. Snows two cultures?
What is an Institution of Legitimation?
What are Lewontins 3 criteria for an institution of
legitimation?
Why does Lewontin argue science functions as an
institution of legitimation?
Does Kuhn believe in progress in science? Why?
In the Wind-up Girl What is a calorie company?
Why was the Copernican revolution so important to
the Scientific revolution?

Recap
Cultural Relativism
What do we do in the case of cultural
disagreements about nature?
Levi-Bruhl Primitive mentality versus Modern
mentality
Claude Levi-Strauss The Savage mind is our
own.

Oral Cultures and the Nature of Myth

Walter Ong on pre-literate cultures
Mythic narration as means of mnemonic recall.
Encoding details in stories make them easier to
remember
Robin Ridington calls myths humanitys earliest
information technology
Examples the songlines of the Australian
aborigines

 Myth and ritual less about magic or

instrumental efficacy, more about storage of
information.
A little (myth)understanding
Example -!Kung bushman rain dance

Myth and Human Intelligence

It is not a matter of degree of intelligence and
deductive rationality
However there seems to be a difference in
forms of reasoning
Could !Kung knowledge of their ecology be
understood as scientific?

The Scientific Revolution

The beginning of modern science is
usually tracked to the Copernican
revolution.

Ptolemaic Cosmos Sun

revolved around the earth.
Copernican revolution The
earth revolves around the sun

Nicolaus Copernicus (19 February 1473 24

May 1543)
- Polish mathematician, devoted Catholic,
and Cannon lawyer
Published De revolutionibus ordium
coelestium (On the Revolutions of the
Celestial Spheres) just before his death in
1543.

Big Question
Why was the Copernican
Revolution such a big deal?

Well, initially, it wasnt

- No fierce controversy erupted
- Passed pretty much unnoticed.
- Indeed, several church authorities had pointed out several centuries
before that the mathematics behind placing the sun at the center was
more mathematically elegant.
- Bishop Nicole Oresme discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on
its axis.
- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa pondered whether there was any reason to
assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe.
- So long as it remained at the level of a mathematical hypothesis the
church didnt have much of a problem with it.
- The problem was with positing that Copernican heliocentric hypothesis
was physically true.

The Churchs position

Copernican revolution seems to counter scripture
i.e. God had made the sun stand still in the
heavens.
It completely countered all the available science
of the day, which was Aristotelean.
There were also significant problems with
Copernicus account. i.e. If the Earth was
continually spinning on an axis, why werent
objects and people continually spinning off into
space.

15th to 17th Century

Time of great social, economic, religious and
political upheaval.
The Protestant Reformation
The Discovery of the Americas No mention
of the Americas either in scripture or Aristotle
Old sources of knowledge were being
questioned and being shown to be inadequate.

The Real Controversy over the

Copernican Hypothesis came with
Galileo

Galileo claimed that the Heliocentric system was not only more
mathematically elegant but physically true
Galileo was one of the first modern thinkers to clearly state that
the laws of nature are mathematical. In The Assayer he wrote
"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe ... It is
written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are
triangles, circles, and other geometric figures;....
He launched a series of attacks on Aristotelean physics.
If the Heliocentric universe didnt make sense according to
Aristotelean physics then it was Aristotelean physics that was
wrong.

Aristotles Celestial and Terrestrial

Physics
Aristotles physics
Physics was the study of motion and
movement.
- It explained an objects motion according to its
teleology. Everything was attempting to find
its natural place.
- Aristotle was primarily a biologist and saw
biological growth as a model for all natural
phenomenon

Different physics for Heavens and

Earth
Four elements Fire, water, air, and earth
Each had its natural resting place

Earth and water are heavy elements so their natural

resting place is at the center.
Air and Fire are light elements so they have a natural
tendency to rise.

The Fifth element -Quintessence (ether) was what

heavenly bodies were made of. It was incorruptible,
perfect and moved in perfect circles
So it was argued Galileos experiments in physics on
earth didnt count because earthily physics is different
from heavenly physics

So Galileo trained his telescope on

the Heavens to challenge how
immutable and perfect they were.

Galilean physics
- Natural motion was not to be understood in
terms of teleology but matter and motion.
- Biological processes were not to be the model
for the motion of inert bodies rather it was
the other way around.
- The primary metaphor for nature was to be
the machine specifically the mechanical
clock

Mechanism and the Clockwork

Universe
At the time, Europe was fascinated with clocks
The Explanatory Appeal of Clocks was
Very intricate motions are explainable from
the interaction of a series of smaller clogs and
springs.
The action might appear very mysterious but
it was all explainable in terms of the
movement of the smaller parts.
Very regular and orderly

The Appeal of Mechanism

Intelligible no appeal to special forces. The
clock was totally intelligible to the clock
maker.
Atomistic you could explain the whole in
terms of the functioning of the smallest
constitutive components
Reductionism the most basic level of
explanation is at the lowest and most microconstitutive level.

STS 200

Introduction to
Science,
Technology and
Society

Possible Midterm Questions

Why was Galileo focusing his telescope on the
moon important? What was he trying to
prove?
What did the scientific revolutionaries
consider occult properties?
Why was the Copernican revolution so
important to the Scientific revolution?

Recap -Aristotles Celestial and

Terrestrial Physics
Aristotles physics
Physics was the study of motion and
movement.
- It explained an objects motion according to
its teleology. Everything was attempting to
find its natural place.
- Aristotle was primarily a biologist and saw
biological growth as a model for all natural
phenomenon

Recap -Different physics for Heavens

and Earth
Four elements Fire, water, air, and earth
Each had its natural resting place

Earth and water are heavy elements so their natural

resting place is at the center.
Air and Fire are light elements so they have a natural
tendency to rise.

The Fifth element -Quintessence (ether) was what

heavenly bodies were made of. It was incorruptible,
perfect and moved in perfect circles
So it was argued Galileos experiments in physics on
earth didnt count because earthily physics is different
from heavenly physics

Galileos physics
- Natural motion was not to be understood in
terms of teleology but matter and motion.
- Biological processes were not to be the model
for the motion of inert bodies rather it was
the other way around.
- The primary metaphor for nature was to be
the machine specifically the mechanical
clock

Mechanism and the Clockwork

Universe
At the time, Europe was fascinated with clocks
Very intricate motions are explainable from
the interaction of a series of smaller clogs and
springs.
The action might appear very mysterious but
it was all explainable in terms of the
movement of the smaller parts.
Very regular and orderly

The Appeal of Mechanism

Intelligible no appeal to special forces. The
clock was totally intelligible to the clock
maker.
Atomistic you could explain the whole in
terms of the functioning of the smallest
constitutive components
Reductionism the most basic level of
explanation is at the lowest and most microconstitutive level.

Problem
This might be okay for inert motion but it was
difficult to see how it applied for biological
growth.
It seemed to run completely counter to
commonsense.
Aristotelean physics, for all its faults, appealed
to common sense experience.
Aristotle claimed that knowledge entered
through the senses.

Solution
Commonsense be damned!
The senses give us no access to the real world.
Primary qualities those that were quantifiable
Secondary qualities - Those that couldnt be

Rene Descartes
Central figure in modern philosophy
In the Meditations, Descartes seeks out to subject all our
knowledge of the external world to total skepticism.
- Descartes demon
- The Cogito Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am
- However Descartes claimed I can get reasonably
certain knowledge of the external world though
mathematics.
- Calls on God to vouchsafe the certainty of mathematics

Descartes Hidden Agenda?

He was a particularly strident mechanist and
anti-Aristotelean.
Saw the cogito as a means of debunking
Aristotelianism.

Dualism the Two Worlds

The Objective World - understood in terms of
matter, motion and mathematics
The Subjective World Consciousness, qualities,
perceptions, etc. all the properties of the
first person human subject.
- Our perception of the world gives us no
access to what is really going on in the
outside world.

The Result

The reading of man quite out of the real and

primary realm
E.A. Burtt
The disenchantment of the world
Max Weber
This is not to say that the Scientific revolutionaries
didnt place some importance on perceptual
experience.

Traditional Authority versus New

Knowledge
Medieval and Renaissance thought - looked to past
authorities
The Bible
Aristotle
The Ancients Greek and Roman
sources
The New Mechanistic philosophy looked to gain
new knowledge not from old sources but from
reading the book of nature itself.

Well How do you read and interpret

the Book of Nature?
Empiricism versus Rationalism

Sir Francis Bacon go out and collect numerous

facts
- Then induce general principles from these
facts
Inductive reasoning (Bottom -up) We move
from a set of particular instances to formulate a
conclusion.
Problem Probabilistic not certain

Rationalism
This contrasted to Descartes
We move from a set of first principles and deduce
a conclusion.
Deduction (Top down) We have one of two
certain premises and from this we move to a certain
conclusion.
Not probabilistic knowledge but certain knowledge!
Mathematics -the paradigmic case of this type of
reasoning

The Paradox of Empiricism

If you are appealing to observable facts found in
nature How do you know that other people will
see what you see?
How do you know they will draw the same
conclusions from what you observe as you do?
Mechanistic philosophy want to get to the causal
mechanism underlying the visible world!
But we dont have direct experience of those causal
mechanisms!!!
Our observations must be disciplined!!!

Boyles Air Pump

Set up a series of observable controlled
experiments where the conclusions would be
obvious to all
Artificially controlled experience
Contra Aristotle - Artifice had to stand in for
nature
- How certain was the knowledge provided?
- Surely others could come up with other
conclusions.

Was the Mechanistic Worldview ever

Proven?
Newtons Law of Gravity settled the Copernican
controversy once and for all.
He united terrestrial and celestial physics under one
law the Law of Gravity which applied one
explanation for both the earth and the heavens.
But he didnt supply a mechanism!!!
He supplied a mathematical description.
Could mathematics stand in for supplying an actual
mechanism?

Newton and the Enlightenment

- People would seek to replicate Newtons
achievements in physics to other realms of
natural inquiry as well.
- Social thought
- Biology

- But while the mechanistic paradigm was

accepted as the proper way of doing science,
Newtons achievement kind of let them off the
hook of supplying a real mechanism.