Week 1

Why take this module?

I chose this module partly because I like challenges and also because it came on high recommendation from a friend who took the module two years ago. To quote him, "Hazel, this was the singularly most impressive module of the year. To miss it is to miss out.". How can you argue with that?

I assume this module will be a challenge to my primal ideas and education because I am a scientist by trade. It is not that I have an aversion to philosophy. Quite the opposite. I am intrigued by it despite having only a basic knowledge of the discipline. I have been so concerned with learning science in recent years, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level, that my only philosophical education has been to read ‘Sophie’s World’, a task which took me almost a year.

I found last semester’s ‘Science in Society’ module difficult. Not difficult in the sense that I did not have the intellectual capacity to understand the material but difficult in that it contradicted all my opinions of science. At first, this caused me a lot of discomfort and I was not sure I wanted to remove science from the pedestal I had placed it on. Despite this I found the material challenging and as I grappled with it I found I got a new perspective on science. Being encouraged (or persuaded, as was the case with Kirk in ‘Science in Society’) to reassess your thinking and consolidate your views, to me, is healthy. ‘Science and Society’ kick started this process for me last semester. In choosing this module, I hope this process will continue. I expect this module will further challenge my inherent beliefs but at the same time I hope it will be instrumental in clarifying my own worldview.

As a footnote, I quite like the idea of keeping a course diary of my intellectual development throughout the course. It has been a long time since I have written in my own authentic voice, however, so be patient, please!

History of ideas

Maybe it is because I have been immersed in the scientific community for so long, but I have always regarded the scientific method as a blend of both induction – the formulation of general laws and theories from particular occurrences that can be repeated- and deduction – the use of general theories to predict particular occurrences.

Hence, I was surprised to learn, in today’s lecture and in subsequent reading, of the centuries old battle for supremacy between rationalism and empiricism.

For the rationalists, including Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, the main source of knowledge was deductive reasoning based on self-evident principles whereas for the empiricists, beginning with Bacon and Locke, the final test of knowledge was sense perception.

Descartes believed that arithmetic and geometry represented the ideal for all sciences and philosophy. He believed that by reason alone, certain universal, self-evident truths could be discovered, from which the remaining content of philosophy and the sciences could be deductively derived. He assumed that these self-evident truths were innate and present from birth, not derived from sense experience. His a priori ideas and belief in deduction are summed up in his Cogito, ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am".

Locke's empiricism emphasizes the importance of the experience of the senses in pursuit of knowledge rather than intuitive speculation or deduction. The empiricist doctrine was first expounded by the English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon early in the 17th century, but Locke gave it systematic expression in his Essay ‘Concerning Human Understanding’ (1690). He regarded the mind of a person at birth as a tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which experience imprinted knowledge, and did not believe in intuition or theories of innate conceptions. Locke also held that all persons are born good, independent, and equal.

The German philosopher, Kant attempted a compromise between empiricism and rationalism, restricting knowledge to the domain of experience, and thus agreeing with the empiricists, but attributing to the mind a function in incorporating sensations into the structure of experience. This structure could be known a priori without resorting to empirical methods, and in this respect Kant agreed with the rationalists. So, Kant’s answer was that our experience of an orderly world of objects results from the co-operation of two faculties – our senses and our minds.

For me, Kant’s ideas come closer to explaining what happens in the practice of science. In the lab, through the process of induction, facts are acquired through observation. When enough facts have been collected, the scientist generalises from these facts to create a universal law or theory. The scientist then deduces from these formulated laws or theories to make predictions about or give an explanation for a particular event. The two processes work together to produce knowledge. At least that is how I have always experienced and used the scientific method in the lab and I would be confident in saying most scientists use both methods without giving much thought to their actions thus negating the need for debate between rationalism and empiricism. To me, the suggestion that at any point while I was conducting laboratory science, my senses were severed from my mind or that only one of these was in operation at a time, seems absurd.

Week 2

Alternative epistemologies & philosophies of science

Today's lecture was the hardest for me to get to grips with because it centred around a list of terms I had never heard of before. The only familiar ‘ism’ was post-modernism and at that I was not sure what it meant. A philosophy dictionary would have been useful during the course of this lecture (a point of note to aspiring science communication students, perhaps!). Looking back at the lecture and having read around the subject, I have a clearer understanding of the science philosophies discussed and how they operate in the real world.

As an undergraduate biochemist, I was a positivist. Also, most of those around me in the academic realm would have been positivist.

Without realising there was a term for it, I was a proponent of Comte's tradition. I believed the job of science was to produce knowledge about the world we live in and to purify that knowledge to produce fact. I believed in rigourous experiment as the means of producing this knowledge. I was sure this was the only way and I was sure that science alone could produce knowledge. For me, theology and metaphysics produced lame explanations of the workings of the world around me. I was very proud of the scientific method, happy to defend it and believed it could apply even to social science, as well as natural science.

In reading 'The Trouble with Science' I came across a quote from the scientist Max Planck that I think aptly sums the attitude of the positivist: "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry and imagination".

This leads me to the question, is science just the collection of facts and are scientists just the objective organisers of facts? To this question, I would have answered 'yes' until I began my research MSc. and had real experience of laboratory life.

Within the past two years, due to my experiences within the scientific community as I finished my research MSc. ( I will talk more of this later) and my endeavours in science studies on this MSc. programme, my outlook has changed.

Presently, my ideas are more in line with pragmatism. I can identify with this philosophy because it expounds that while experience is primary and to be trusted, reason is also part of experience. Hence, allowing for both the deductive and inductive modes of science. Also, tt defends sensations as being more than just chaotic and isolated.

I think most scientists, in the academic field at least, believe in the individual passive model of knowledge. They believe that in science objective truth is produced by individuals who passively carry out experiments in the lab. The reality I think is somewhat very different. What is refreshing about pragmatism is that it suggests knowledge production occurs by a social contextual active model. The pragmatist theory unites the subject and the object and the art of knowing and doing.

Last semester Kirk made the point that science is constituted only by rhetoric and that if you take away the language of science you have nothing. I think this neo-positivist idea simplifies science. Wittgenstein said "It is only in language that one can mean something by something". I believe science is much more than this and so I have to disagree.

Likewise, the extremism expressed by post-modernists does not appeal to me. Feyerabend's philosophy that "anything goes", annoys me. His claim of an equivalence between science and poetry is an insult, I take personally. Sure, I like poetry but I see it as just reflection on life and the world about us. Science is not just reflection on nature. It provides explanations of how nature works. I concede these explanations are not infallible but the strength of the scientific method is that it constantly re-evaluates these explanations and where necessary modifies them.

Pragmatism stands on middle ground between traditional ideas about the nature of reality and radical theories of nihilism. Many have claimed it is unsatisfactory as it is a philosophy that offers no final answers or absolutes and appears to be vague as a result of trying to harmonise opposites. To these critics, I say is not all philosphy vague? As Richard Rorty put it, philosophy is "an attempt to see how things, in the broadest possible sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest possible sense of the term".

What probably appeals most to me about pragmatism is the freedom it bestows to believe something beyond the available evidence because the belief’s benefits are relevant to its justification. So, just like Fox Mulder of the X-files, as a pragmatist I am justified in believing that "the truth is out there".

Week 3

Relativity & rationality: escalating epistemological crises in science

Last semester we had a lecture from Ewan Morris on the sociology of scientific knowledge. Most of the class grew visibly bored with him very quickly. Afterwards as we talked about the lecture most people said he was simply a bad lecturer and did not know what he was taking about. In hindsight I think they were hostile to his ideas given their scientific backgrounds.

In my opinion, a scientific training moulds a person into thinking that science is a pure and objective search for truth. As I said in the last entry, this was the opinion I held as an undergraduate. For many who study science, I think it replaces God and religion or if not occupies a similar esteemed position. Hence, criticising science in the company of scientists is as sacrilegious as mocking a priest’s belief in God.

I was not so shocked to hear Ewan Morris express the opinion that science is socially constructed and that the sociology of scientific knowledge is an important discipline. I have had my suspicions for a long time that other factors contribute to the production of scientific knowledge.

Working in a lab for two years during my last MSc., I became aware of the many pressures on scientists. I worked under a young lecturer who was on a temporary contract and so had a lot to prove if he was to be made permanent staff. His goal was to produce as many papers as possible, apply for and obtain as many grants as he could and increase the number of staff in his lab. All this as well as adopting his role as a father of two young children. I believe these social and cultural pressures shaped the scientific knowledge that was produced by our lab.

Even my own work was shaped by outside forces. I was working in the area of obesity. This is a huge area of research that often elicits feverish competition. Although there are as many underfed as overfed people in the world, the number of people engaged in researching obesity cures far outweighs those looking to solve the maladies that accompany malnutrition.

Why is this so, you might ask?

The answer is there is so much money to be made if a quick fix can be found for obesity. There are so many overfed, rich people in this world that would pay any amount of money to shed their excess pounds (pardon the pun!). Conversely, there is not much to be gained financially from helping the ill in third world countries.

This is a classic example of science being driven by a social factor: money.

In the 1970s, The ‘Strong Programme’ in the sociology of scientific knowledge was developed by the Edinburgh School. The basic theory of the ‘Strong Programmers’ was that science as much as any other human intellectual activity simply reflects the interest of the culture in which it is embedded.

In ‘The Trouble with Science’ Robin Dunbar points out that their approach was to take a particular scientist and attempt to show that his interest in a particular problem was shaped by the environment he lived in.

Dunbar says "Darwin’s interest in the problem of evolution was thus largely determined by contemporary society’s concerns with explaining the origins of life in the aftermath of the Enlightenment’s devastating attack on religion".

My two examples add fuel to the cause of the ‘Strong Programmers’ but does the fact that science is socially constructed skew the knowledge that it produces? I think the answer must be ‘no’.

The work I undertook during my last MSc. yielded novel results using a technique that was exclusive to our lab. This led to publications in high-profile journals and soon my supervisor was contacted by a very successful American pharmaceutical company and offered contract work. The result of this collaboration was that my work after this point was directed according to the wishes of the company. I felt immense pressure and felt like I had to perform. If I did not, I was fearful that it would affect my career in a negative way. This combined with my lack of freedom to pursue my own line of interest meant my work took a very different course. However, that did not mean the knowledge I produced was tainted as any knowledge that I produced was tested and re-tested. Not just by me, but by others.

The examples I have listed, both personal and observed by another author, demonstrate the cultural, social and other pressures on scientists and the science they produce. Regardless, I still believe science produces rational truth.

In class today, Helena asked "How do we reconcile the rationality of science with the socio-historical character of science ? How can science be the complex, uncertain, precarious process that it is, inextricably bound up with all sorts of philosophical assumptions & all sorts of wider socio-historical processes, & still be reliable knowledge of nature?".

Robin Dunbar answers these questions in a satisfactory way. He says "two things help prevent malpractice on a massive scale becoming universal among scientist". First, the competitive individualism of science, that is, the eagerness of colleagues to repeat and re-assess any piece of work produced by a scientist in attempt to falsify the theory in favour of their own. Second, the intransigence of nature, which does not entertain the imposition of fraudulent theories.

I acknowledge the pressure of social, cultural and political forces on science because I have had direct experience of them. Further I think scientists are human and can fall prey to all the mistakes humans are prone to. I also acknowledge the place of historicism and social contextualism in adding depth to the understanding of science. Nevertheless, like Dunbar, I do believe the integrity of science can still be maintained.

Week 4

The rise of the repressed in the history of knowledge

"But history, real solemn history, I cannot be interested in. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all -- it is very tiresome" - Catherine Morland in Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey (1817).

I have left this entry until last because I missed the lecture. Unfortunately, it seems I missed out on a lively debate too as the rest of my classmates informed me that it was the most interactive of all the lectures we have had. Such is life. It could not be helped seeing as I had a viva to attend to!

Looking at the notes from the lecture, the take-home message seems to have been that history was written by a minority of middle-class white males and this has had the effect of excluding vital information on the achievements of women and other classes and races.

In essence, history has been written largely about men and by men of the same gender and class even though they constitute only a small percentage of the population. I had never thought along these lines before and so it was a bit of an eye-opener reading this. But as I thought more and more about the concept, it did not seem so alien to me and I smirk as I recall the above quote. How insightful of Jane Austen?

I have never been an advocate of feminism. Maybe because it has never been something I have had to think too deeply about because I have grown up in an age where women have enjoyed equality. I guess I am very lucky. Niamh told me about the passion with which Helena spoke about the fight for equal rights and the feminist movements. I cannot begin to imagine the trials and tribulations faced by brave feminists in past decades. All I can say is I am grateful for their conviction or else I may have not had the freedom to be where I am today.

I am reminded of the day of my graduation from my primary degree in Trinity. I was intrigued as to why the females had to wear hats with flat tops as part of their attire. I was informed that traditionally the flat top symbolised the end of a woman’s career. Women were lucky to get as far as college and if they did, as soon as they graduated that was the end of their freedom because after that they were expected to marry and become slaves to their husbands. There would have been no such thing as taking a second or subsequent degree for those ladies.

Niamh told me of her experiences as a female engineer and how little provisions there were to accommodate pregnant female engineers or those seeking to work part time in order to spend more time with their children. She said the latter was simply unheard off. I am surprised because I think female scientists are provided for quite well. It has always puzzled me that there are so many females in undergraduate science – there was a ratio of three girls per boy in my year – yet so few in the higher ranks of industry and academia. However, I do not think it is a case of them being squeezed out because of circumstances such as Niamh described. I have known female scientists who balance family and career with the aid and approval of their superiors. It is more likely due to personal career choice.

While thinking about this topic I turned my attention to the historical portrayal of women scientists. The only famous female scientist I could think of offhand was Marie Curie. Then it struck me, is that because she was the only notable female scientist that history has recorded or is it because history has been written from such a perspective that so many of the ingenius female scientists have been excluded?

As an experiment, I looked to find the names of more female scientists who’s achievements have not been recorded in traditional history books. Here is what I found:

Did you know that;

the second ever technologist was a woman back in 2354BC?
comets were discovered by women?
the automatic dishwasher was invented by a woman back in the 1890s?
the original idea and patent that led to cellular phone technology was a woman’s?
the craters on Venus are named after famous women of history, many of them scientists but since there are many more craters known than there are famous women who are known, some of the craters remain unnamed?

Already history begins to look different if we include the contributions of these few women and I am sure this is just a sample of what our history books are missing. Maybe then it is true that our knowledge may be tainted by the exclusion of gender, and beyond this, class and race too. As Helena asked in class, how do we correct this distortion? It is a difficult question to answer but maybe the first step is to include achievements of all classes, gender and race in a thorough rewrite of the history books.

Week 5

Marxism as epistemology and philosophy of science

The phrase ‘waking up and smelling the roses’ came to mind during this lecture.

I have always thought of Marxism as a political movement and as directly associated with communism and a time of revolt in Russia. That was the extent of my history education on the subject at school. Now, it seems to me that it is indeed a lot more besides.

Helena asked at the end of her impressive multimedia presentation if we could see the connection between Marxism and the philosophy of science. To be honest I could not.

To make sense of this topic, I made my way to the library and immersed myself in basic material on Karl Marx and some of his original writings. Consequently, much of what I have written in this entry reads as a summary of Marx’s ideas and the birth of the Marxist tradition. Forgive me if it appears as a history lesson but seeing as this diary is a record of my intellectual development, I felt it was worth including the facts as I discovered them.

Karl Marx

In searching for the meaning of his life and what purpose it should serve, Marx began studying philosophy and it was Hegel’s philosophy of history that he was first attracted to. According to Hegel, humanity advanced only because of conflicts, wars and revolutions, that is, through the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. Hegel was not talking about social struggle, only religious struggle so Hegel’s dialectical method influenced Marx but it was not quite enough to satisfy him.

Marx’s other great influence came in the shape of Feuerbach who was a materialist. Marx favoured materialism because it sought the scientific explanation of things and relinquished any claims of life beyond natural things. While idealists explained things to themselves through religion, materialists sought to explain things only through science. So, Feuerbach’s materialist theory appealed to Marx but he preferred to adapt it to exclude its metaphysical component. Feuerbach believed that things changed very little and only by repeating themselves but Marx believed that society and nature must constantly develop and evolve. Hence, Marx and Engel’s unique dialectical materialism was born. Marx proclaimed that what causes humanity and nature to evolve is the struggle between contraries such as between capital and labour.

Marx began to question the exploitation of the majority by a minority of the privileged rich and in his first work ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844’ arrived at the conclusion "the alienation of the worker is expressed thus: the more he produces, the less he can consume; the more value he creates, the less value he has……..labour produces fabulous things for the rich, but misery for the poor, machines replace labour, and jobs diminish, while other workers turn into machines".

Marx questioned if the invention and labour of thousands of years should be the exclusive privilege of the wealthy few and concluded that the deepest essence of man, his creative act, had been transformed into a possession. But how could this be changed? He singled out the Proletariat as the potential saviours by predicting they would be the ones to bring about change.

Marx dwelled on the class struggle, economic problems and surplus value and saw only one way towards self-emancipation for the workers: union. He set out his theories on the transformation of society and the liberation of the poor from their chains in the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

Marx’s and Engel’s manifesto makes for powerful reading and their arguments are still potent today. It encourages one to take a definite stance against the structure of a society in which the unjust division of wealth contradicts basic decency.

Marx proclaimed capitalism was incapable of resolving the problems of humanity. He believed that as long as the system continued to develop everything would go from bad to worse and so he set out the first practical programme for constructing socialism.

Marx’s theory of historical materialism showed that history was made not by destiny or the so-called hand of God but by man himself. Humanity, thought Marx, did not need outside help to invent its tools. No angels had appeared from heaven to teach man how to construct ploughs and wheels. He believed each generation comes along to create and gradually perfect new tools by working and not thanks to God or the holy spirit (even if not all the great scientists were atheists).

So, Marx predicted that capitalism was going to have to retreat before a newer and fairer system: socialism. But he knew perfectly well that the rich would never freely surrender their wealth and privileges. He laid out the recipe for transforming society into a socialist one by advocating the expropriation of the private means of production, the replacement of government and state administration. In short, he urged the proletariat to seize power by proclaiming "Workers of the world, unite".

Union, however, would not be enough. If the worker was to be successful, he had to be politicised. Only a politicised working class could move to the next stage. Some believed that union campaigns only served to obtain higher wages and better living conditions. Marx agreed but claimed this was only the first stage. "Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class, but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement".

Marx’s theory had to wait twenty four years after his death before being put into practice. In Russia, in 1917, thanks to the vision and struggle of a bourgeois Marxist, Lenin, Marxism finally came to power.

My thoughts

Having waded through the history of Marxism, I have gained a lot of respect for Marx and Engels. While I have learnt before of their admirable idea of a society based on equality this was my first time to come upon the Marxist theory of dialectical materialism.

I can now see that this theory is a way of interpreting the world of both nature and society. Marx used it to support his idea that society is in a constant process of change and constantly evolving. By dialectical materialism he advocated that man controls his own fate and not God. Kant had gone so far as to say there was no proof to justify the existence of a God. Marx extended this by saying God was man made. Man had used the idea of God to explain the inexplicable, the supernatural, the metaphysical. He said the truth was man himself could explain all these things through science.

Marx decided that it was time to leave God out of things and turn attention to nature and humanity. From here, he and Engels set out a theory of development. He claimed everything had its origins in matter and that this matter was subject to constant evolution.

In this respect, I see how Marxism was a philosophy of science and perhaps even a science in itself. It sought not only to explain and develop theories about society but about nature too. Also, I think Marx’s view of nature as dictated by dialectical materialism resembles closely Darwin’s theory of evolution and so was very visionary for its time.

I admire Marx’s originality and his pure devotion to seek out answers to what his life was about and what purpose it should serve. The result of his diligent efforts is a political and intellectual movement that has had worldwide influence.

Helena spoke in class with such emotion about Marxism, what it meant to her and the dismay she felt as it fell apart. I wondered at the time what all the fuss was about but having read into it – and only scratched the surface at that – I understand her passion a bit more. I feel the ideal society as portrayed in Marx’s writings is so similar to the ideal everyone has had of Utopia or Heaven, at some stage in their life. And sure, Marxism may have taken a blow in past decades but I feel its ideology cannot die. It will rise like a phoenix from the flames again.

I think Lenin expressed what I am trying to say best: "the teaching of Marx is all-powerful because it is true. It is complete and harmonious, providing men with a consistent view of the universe, which cannot be reconciled with any superstition, any reaction, any defence of bourgeois oppression".

As a footnote, I was apprehensive when my best friend told me she had joined the Socialist Party. That fear was borne out of ignorance. Now having a little knowledge of the ideology embodied in Socialism, I am not so fearful for her!

Week 6

Science and socialism: Marxism in power

As I have stated earlier, I believe that science is socially constructed yet I like to believe that it produces objective truth regardless. This may be a direct product of my background. Having studied science for so long, I do not want to lose my ‘faith’ in it, so to speak.

The Lysenko affair scares me because it is an example of how social conditions can mould science and produce fraudulent theories and simply science that is not true.

I admire Lenin’s attempt to strike a balance between old and new when he came to power. He sought not to wipe out the old intelligentsia but to win them over to the new soviet regime and use their expertise to train a new intelligentsia from the Proletariat. He embodied the true nature of Marxism (in my opinion) in encouraging the Proletariat to take the best from their past; the best science, the best art, etc. After all, if they were to believe Marx’s teachings, they were the ones who were essential to its creation and if they were to take stock of what was theirs and seize power, taking their past with them was a core step.

As Helena states in her book "a pre-eminent position was accorded to science. Marxism had from the first staked its lot with science and in this tradition Lenin and the bolsheviks believed firmly that science was essential to socialism".

He wanted to gain the support of natural scientists but also called for the alliance of communists and scientists inclined towards materialism. Lenin feared the natural sciences could not hold their own in the new Soviet Union against bourgeois ideas unless they had a solid philosophical grounding. He saw this grounding in dialectical materialism.

He encouraged full definition of everything and all round consideration. He believed "a really full definition of anything must include the whole of human experience" (‘Marxism and the Philosophy of Science’, Helena Sheehan).

The visionary, fair, diligent Lenin was gone from power by 1924. He had done much to mesh old and new intelligentsia but what was to come was a radically different regime under Stalin which sought to stamp out any natural science that did not fit with Marxism, or should I say the government’s take on Marxism.

In the 1920s, debates in biology focused mainly on the contending claims of genetic and Lamarckian evolution. By 1929, the geneticists had the edge on the battle as they proclaimed that their biology was the realisation of dialectical materialism and therefore in the interests of Marxism whereas Lamarckism was in direct conflict with Marxist traditions.

What I find interesting in this debate is the groveling of both sides to Marxism, in claiming theirs was the mantle of proletarian science. The Lamarckists claimed their theory meant "the working class were not slaves of the past but creators of the future" while geneticists claimed their theory of heredity explained the survival of the working class through the working class through the hard times of unfavourable environmental conditions.

Despite the amount of groveling done, it was not to be enough for militant bolsheviks who wanted to stamp out both theories because they viewed them as foreign and of bourgeois origin.

Enter Lysenko. The peasant plant-breeder was the ideal mascot for the bolsheviks in their attempt to create a truly Marxist biology. And Lysenko himself was only too willing to take full advantage of the tense political atmosphere.

And so began the witch hunt. Science, aside from the Lysenko brand, fell from its pre-emptive position accorded by Lenin. Geneticists were described as idealist and bourgeois and their theories rubbished as contrary to the Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism.

With his new theory of evolution, Lysenko managed to almost completely destroy the Russian school of genetics in the name of Marxism. Some geneticists groveled, writing public letters confessing the error of their ways and the righteousness of Lysenko’s wisdom but those who failed to accept the new cult were laid off, imprisoned, or even killed by authorities.

As I said in the previous entry, as I read my way through the origin of Marxism I developed an admiration for Karl Marx and his ideas. Seeing Marxism used by Lysenko as a means to develop fraudulent science and suppress other scientists is a cruel blow to my thinking. Surely, the core of Marxist theory is to condemn oppression in any form. Yet here was the bullying Lysenko, and his supporters, trying to stamp out any theory that did not fit with theirs.

To me, the triumph of Lysenkoism was not only a demonstration of the intellectual degeneracy of the communist system, but at the same time it was an extraordinary demonstration of the power of applying cult-style methods in the scientific community.

Helena says in the conclusion of her chapter on Lysenkoism, that in order to understand what it embodied and to put its influence in context it is important to remember the "temper" of the times in which it happened. This is the only defence I can find for the detriment Lysenko caused.

The following is a Soviet joke I came across quite some time ago. It did not make much sense to me at the time but having read into the Lysenko affair, it seems quite apt.

Week 7

The Science Wars

Today we debated the science wars with Niamh in one corner defending Sokal and Declan and Manea battling in the ‘anti-science’ corner.

Declan started off by saying "Sokal is a sneak". In what followed he took the angle that science is socially constructed and that Sokal did not prove anything with his trick.

Niamh ridiculed the journal ‘Social Text’ for printing Sokal’s article saying that it was clearly a hoax and that it was negligent of them not to notice. First, having read Sokal’s article (parody) I can safely say he could have fooled me. The language is very difficult to follow and I would not have been alerted to the fact that what he was saying was rubbish had I been sitting on the board of editors and I have two science degrees to my name. I think the crucial difference is the way journals from the natural and social scientists receive articles. It seems that the editors of ‘Social Text’ knowing Sokal’s reputation, took his article at face value whereas the peer review system of the natural science journal would have filtered the hoax article quite easily.

In my opinion, Sokal’s antics do not prove the objectivity of science over sociology or even that natural science journals are better at filtering rubbish compared with social science journals. What this affair does prove is that the two systems are different and there are arguments for and against both as we discovered in last semester’s ‘Science in Society’ module.

I have always admired the peer review system of the natural sciences. I like the idea that a scientist has to justify his work to experts in his particular field. Like I said when I was discussing the sociology of scientific knowledge, I think it is the competitive individualism of science that helps it to produce truth and the peer review system is part of this.

However, Kirk made the point last semester that maybe this system is not ideal in that a certain snobbery exists among the reviewers leading to articles being accepted not just on their scientific merit but according to what institute and by whom they were produced. He cited the example of a sociological study whereby articles that had been accepted for publication in previous decades were resubmitted to top journals but with the names of the authors and the institutions they came from modified. This time they were rejected.

Scientists, especially Sokal, should re-assess their thinking that the peer review system is the only one that works. If what Kirk said is true then it may be that the social science procedure of publication is no less than the latter. In fact, by publishing articles without review it probably encourages the reader to make his own evaluation and also prevents contending claims from being concealed by reviewers who do not believe the work being presented is valid. Of course, what I have said is somewhat speculative.

What is clearer to me is the unrealistic view that scientists, such as Sokal, have of the ‘science wars’. I made the point in the debate that the science wars was an unimportant battle among a small group of intellectuals. Helena was not too impressed. Maybe I should have made my remark clearer.

I think scientists have become paranoid about their status in society as the science studies have opened up. As a result, the ‘war’ has been dramaticised by people like Sokal and Gross and Levitt. I just feel that this drama is unnecessary and I wonder what is to be gained from dividing the academy into warring factions.

Dorothy Nelkin illustrates well the point I am trying to make in her essay ‘What are the Science Wars Really About?’. She says "it is true that scientists are subject to more public scrutiny than before, but they still enjoy considerable public respect and support. It is also true that some "big science" projects have been cut, but government still spends billions of dollars to support scientific research. Moreover, surveys consistently show that, despite a general lack of science literacy, the public is convinced of the overall value of science. And the role of science as a model of rationality in human affairs is not really in question. Indeed, most historians and sociologists who study science validate the credibility of their work in terms of scientific standards of rigorous methodology and peer review".

As I have said before I believe other disciplines have the right to study science. I think it can only improve the understanding and development of science. I think some scientists have come to accept this fact. As Paul Gross says in his essay ‘The So-Called Science Wars and Sociological Gravitas’, "Not all sci-tech-studies participants, by any means, disparage science. Good Work is being done in the social study of science". However, some scientists are still running scared.

I do believe science produces rational knowledge about our world and was horrified by Manea’s opinion that "science is just another way of looking at the world". For these reasons I understand the readiness of scientists to defend their discipline against what they see as ‘anti-science’. However, I think that more is to be gained from co-operation between both sides in the ‘science wars’ and so maybe scientists should re-evaluate their perceived enemies.

Week 8

Are Religion and Science compatible or contradictory?

My speech

I will set out my position from the start; I do not believe in religion, I do not believe in God but I do believe in science.

I would like to begin my argument today by giving you a little insight into my upbringing and my early inherited beliefs in the hope that I do not bore you right from the start.

I was raised Catholic, the product of a devoutly Catholic mother and an Atheist father. At school, I learnt of God creating the world in six days. A wonderful world, that from then on contained heavenly bodies and all kinds of plants and animals. Into this world God introduced man in the form of Adam and fretful that Adam would be lonely he took a rib from him while he slept and from this he miraculously created woman, Eve. This exciting, beautiful story took an unsuspecting twist when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden and the all powerful, all encompassing and what I was taught to believe, all forgiving God decreed that they and all their posterity should be mortal and after death suffer eternal punishment in hell. From the moment of Adam and Eve’s punishment from the Garden, animals took to preying on each other, thistles and thorns grew up, there came a difference in seasons and the ground was cursed so that it no longer yielded sustenance to man except as the result of painful labour. Presently man grew so wicked that all were drowned in the Flood except Noah and his three sons and their three wives. It was not thought that man had grown better since but the Lord had promised not to send another universal deluge but now contented himself with occasional eruptions and earthquakes.

At the age of four or five, I was content to absorb this story and took it at face value yet even as a child it was no long before I started questioning the authenticity of the creation story. At first the questions I asked were simple, like how could we all have descended from Adam and Eve? And just how did Noah manage to fit all those large animals like elephants and giraffes into the ark, yet it was clear that even at this early age the cracks were emerging in my faith.

The questions continued. As for getting satisfactory answers, I didn’t. The "God did it" hypothesis simply didn’t work for me. I wasn’t offered any plausible alternatives and so I didn’t begin to satisfy my questioning nature until I came to college and first heard of and studied Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. From this point, my love affair with science began and has since developed to a stage where I see science as almost totally incompatible with religion.

By saying almost, I do not wish to concede an weakness in my argument. The only point of compatibility that I see is there are well-meaning, honest people on both sides who are genuinely and deeply concerned with discovering the truth about this world. Having said this, I see no other common ground, in terms of compatibility, between science and religion.

Science examines issues publicly, exchanges information openly, discusses awkward points objectively, and builds up a network of ideas and theories that expose the complex as an outcome of the simple. Conversely, religion’s inwardly directed sentamentality reflects on issues privately, exchanges information by assurance and assertion, discusses awkward points only by warfare, terror and coercion, and builds a network of conflicting ideas that conceal ignorance in the disguise of highly ornate yet empty prose.

For me, science reveals where religion conceals and the reason I have grown to love and respect the ways of science and the truth it provides is because it respects the power of human intellect whereas religion belittles it. For too long religion has arrogantly claimed to hold the answers to issues not explained by science but science continues to push back the boundaries, so much so that religion will soon have nowhere left to hide.

In his book ‘Religion & Science’, Bertrand Russell claims the reason science has gained so much respect is due to the tangible information, comforts and luxuries it has afforded mankind, things that were impossible in a pre-scientific era. He highlights that science’s contribution to the "improvement of health and longevity is one of the most remarkable and admirable characteristics of our age. Even if science had done nothing else for human happiness, it would deserve our gratitude on this account. Those who believe in the utility of theological creeds would have difficulty in pointing to any comparable advantage that they have conferred upon the human race".

Science does not seek to answer deep questions by words alone but draws on the rigour of countless experimenters and their struggles to make sense of the raw data obtained. Meanwhile, religion speculates wildly from personal opinion that is never put to the test, except perhaps beyond the grave (if indeed life exists beyond this point!).

According to Richard Dawkins, religious people split into three groups when faced with science: the ‘know-nothings’, the ‘know-alls’ and the ‘no-contests’.

The ‘no-contests’ are reconciled to the fact that religion and science are incompatible, that religion cannot compete with science on its own ground. They think there is no contest between science and religion because they are simply about different things.

The no-contests regard it as naïve in the extreme to ask of the Bible, is it true. True? Of course, it is not true in any crude literal sense. Science and religion are not competing for the same territory. They are about different things. They are equally true but in different ways.

Yet, what do the ‘no-contests’ say about those parts of scripture and religious teaching that once upon a time would have been held as unquestionable scientific as well as religious truths; the creation of the world, the creation of life, the various miracles of the Old and New Testaments and survival after death?

In the hands of the ‘no-contests’, these stories have become little more than moral fables. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is irritating that they almost never admit that this is what they are. Respected members of religious communities continue to uphold the bible as a true account of our past. They still preach of the miracle of creation and still instruct children that the world was created by God over 6 days without reference to evolution.

The present Pope has decreed that the Church should embrace the idea of evolution as part of the creation story and instruct followers accordingly. But why the does my youngest brother, at the age of 11, still believe in the story of Adam and Eve while knowing nothing of evolution. It is because he receives religious instruction at school and at church that is not balanced by comparable scientific explanation.

The ‘no-contests’ concede there is no positive evidence for the existence of God but re-inforce their security by arguing that equally there is no evidence against his existence. The claim science has produced no valid proof that there is no such thing as a creator.

At first sight, this may seem a fair point but to me it is a cop-out because the same argument could be used in favour of the existence of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Santa Claus may exist (and believe me, I really wish he did!). There is no evidence refuting his existence and so why shouldn’t we be agnostic towards Santa Claus in the same way that the ‘no-contests’ advocate agnosticism when it comes to God?

The trouble with agnosticism is it can be applied to almost anything. There is an infinite number of beliefs we could hold that cannot be disproved such as fairies, dragons and unicorns. On the whole, people do not believe in most of them but they do believe in God. My suspicion is that most people feel that Darwinian evolution is not big enough to explain everything about life.

The second class I mentioned are the ‘know-nothings’. These in one way are more honest because they are true to history. They recognise that until recently one of religion’s main functions was scientific: the explanation of existence, of the universe, of life. Hisorically, most religions have had or even been a cosmology and a biology. I suspect that today if you asked people to justify their belief in God, the dominant reason would be scientific. I think most people think that a God is needed to explain the existence of the world and the existence of life. They are wrong but our education system such that many people do not know it. In this case the education system is to be blamed more than the people themselves.

The third group, the ‘know-alls’ think religion is good for people and perhaps good for society. Good because it console them in death or bereavement, perhaps because it provides a moral code. Whether or not the actual beliefs of the religion are true does not matter to these people. The fact that there is precious little evidence for a God does not perturb these people because there need for a God to guide them surpasses all else.

I would like to conclude my speech today with a quote from Richard dawkins on the subject of science and religion: "Many consider that the conflict of religion and science is a temporary phase, and that in due course the two mighty rivers of human understanding will merge into an even mightier Amazon of comprehension. I take the opposite view, that reconciliation is impossible. I consider that science is mightier than the Word, and that the river of religion will (or, at least, should) atrophy and die)".

My own conclusion is stark and uncompromising. For me, religion is the antithesis of science; in my opinion, science is competent to illuminate all deep questions of existence, and does so in a manner that makes full use of, and respects the human intellect. I see neither a need nor sign of any future reconciliation.

----------------------------------------------

My speech for our debate outlines much of my opinion on this subject. However, my stance is probably not as radical as it appears, a point I made at the end of the debate. What I mean by this is that my debate gives the impression that I see no place for religion in society. This is not true.

When I started to write my speech I began thinking about the value of science in society. As I sat for two hours in a church at my brother’s confirmation this week it dawned on me that religion is about union. It brings people together as a community. It offers hope and support in times of bereavement and trouble and joy in times of celebration, such as confirmation. It is this sense of belonging that I miss now that I have turned atheist. There is no place for God in my worldview. For years, I struggled with the rules and beliefs of the Catholic faith. I found them frustrating and contradictory and eventually turned to science as a ‘religion’. Science answers the fundamental questions I ask of the world around me. It gives me what I perceive as concrete explanations whereas religion only ever offered me armchair speculation. However, just as Helena expressed in class today, I still feel a sense of loss. I feel the loss of being part of a bigger community. I am sure that this is a direct product of my upbringing and I guess it is something I will probably always feel.

Una said today that she does not need scientific proof of God’s existence because the beauty of the world around her affirms her belief in God. I would agree more with Tim’s thinking. He claimed he does not feel the need to believe in God to appreciate the beauty of the world. He said " the fact that it is there is enough for me to go wow".

Una also argued the point of the rationalists, that if we have a concept of God he must exist. As I explained in my speech, that is like saying " I believe in Santa Claus, so he must exist".

As we sat in the sun debating these issues afterwards, Helena expressed her belief that everyone needs to work out where they stand when it comes to religion. Certainly, she has worked hard to clarify her beliefs, as is expressed in her ‘Portrait of a Marxist as a Young Nun’. But I do not think many people think about religion too deeply. Opinion and belief are more often inherited than worked out by individuals of their own accord.

I believe I have been lucky to grow up in a balanced environment. While I was raised Catholic and it has penetrated my essence deeply, the presence of an atheist father always reminded me that there was another opinion to be had and explored. Most Irish people are indoctrinated into the Catholic faith without question because both their parents are Catholics and their education has a strong Catholic influence. Many never question the faith they receive in this way. They just accept it. This would never have been enough for me but I am envious of how comforted these people are. In working out where I stood with regard to religion, I was often bewildered and dismayed. Now having come to a position I am comfortable with, I still experience a loss of belonging, of fitting into a bigger picture. I look at my devoutly Catholic mother and giggle when she tries to defend the creation story but I admire her strong faith. I respect her belief that God will take care of her. I am even jealous and sometimes wonder is she not lucky to have never questioned her religion.

Conclusion

"And so I believe the world is known best by those who most actively take hold of it, interact with it, participate in it." – Helena Sheehan, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science.

My participation in this module and the MSc. in Science Communication as a whole has been my attempt to know my world as best I can from as many perspectives as possible. I have seen it as a chance to take stock of and re-evaluate what I believe in.

I have come a long way since my days as a white-coated scientist in the lab but still I am left thinking I still have a way to go. But that excites me. It leaves me with the feeling there is more to discover and I wait in anticipation.
 

Bibliography

Books:

Appelbaum, R. P. (1988) ‘Karl Marx’ / Richard P. Appelbaum. Sage Publications, California.

Barnes, B. and Bloor, D. (1996) ‘Scientific knowledge : a sociological analysis’. Athlone Press, London.

Chalmers, A. F. (1978) ‘What is this thing called science?’. The Open University

Press, Milton Keynes, England.

Dunbar, R. (1995) ‘The trouble with science’. Faber Press, London.

Feyerabend, P. (1978) ‘Science in a Free Society’. London.

Gross, P. and Levitt, (1994) N. ‘Higher Superstition’. Johns Hopkins UP.

Marx, K. 1818-1883. (1996 edn.) ‘The Communist manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with an introduction’. London, New York

Murphy, J. P. (1987) ‘Pragmatism : from Peirce to Davidson’. Westview Press.

Osborne, R. (1992) ‘Philosophy for Beginners’. NewYork.

Richards, J. R. (1980) ‘The sceptical feminist : a philosophical enquiry’.

Routledge, London, Boston.

Russell, B. (1997 edn.) ‘Religion and science by Bertrand Russell with a

new introduction’. Oxford University Press, New York.

Sheehan, H. (1985) ‘Marxism and the philosophy of science’. New Jersey, London.

Tarnas, R. (1991) ‘The Passion of the Western Mind’.

Wolff, R. P. ‘Understanding Marx : a reconstruction and critique of

Capital’. Blackwell, Oxford.

Essays and articles:

Nelkin, D. (1996) ‘What are the science wars really about?’ from the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Sokal, A. D., (1996) ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative

Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’ in Social Text, volume 46/47, p217-252.

Back to MSc course diaries 2000 page

Back to lectures 2000 index page

Back to CM535 index page

MSc in Science Communication   School of Communication   Dublin City University