gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (02/29/84)
This brief tirade is partly in response to a comment expressed by qubix!lab
about the difficulty of overcoming the philosophical bias of natural scien-
tists. I claim that there is no difficulty, if one knows where to look, and
that the only issue that remains is the lack of appreciation for the culture
of science.
The part of the discussion on the creationism/evolution issue which focuses
on typifying scientists and scientific activity provides a poor commentary on
both the paucity of natural scientists on the net and the understanding that
schools have transmitted to students about the philosophy of science. The
arguments around creationism and evolution will go nowhere by appealing to an
imagined ideal scientist or an idealized scientific method. Neither exists.
Too much has been taught about the culture of science prior to the early
1900's. This is the time when science was a cottage industry or hobby,
engaged in by people with training in other disciplines, and required little
specific preparation other than a good grounding in analytical reasoning.
The two world wars radically altered this climate.
Today, science of almost any discipline (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)
is BIG BUSINESS. World War I made chemistry into a business while WWII
brought physics and mathematics into the economy. Scientists now act as
entrepreneurs who are in fierce competition with each other for recognition,
originality, university positions, and grant funds. Industry has little use
for a Ph.D. scientist except as a team leader, or for using the Ph.D. to
filter the large number of qualified applicants.
Along with the loss of the *science as hobby* culture is the rise of spe-
cialization. Specific training in a discipline is now required for the suc-
cessful pursuit of a career in science. Science is distinct from engineering
which is distinct from medicine (though clinical medicine has more in common
with engineering than science). Disputes and discussions about what scien-
tists are and expect only reveal the absence of people with specific training
in these disciplines. Most of the articles about the culture of science evi-
dence no experience other than formal coursework at an undergraduate level.
The competitiveness in science has radically altered the *nice guy* practice
of science, though not the image. The number of publications for and about
science has proliferated, making journal reading a full time occupation. The
fraction of high quality research remains low and the amount of duplication is
increasing. There would certainly be room in some of the unrefereed science
journals for articles about creationism. As in science, it would not be
surprising that a refereed creation journal would refuse articles providing
support for evolution or criticism of creationism. Most journals pander to
their known or imagined subscribers. I have not seen either creation science
journals or *Physical Review* (the premier U.S. physics journal) in any public
library.
The incidences of faked research, especially in biology and environmental
studies (which are complex systems), are numerous. While the risks of
discovery are present, scientists who fake their results have much to be
gained if they are successful (money, peer status). These are only some of
the consequences of too many people trying to obtain too few resources.
Unlike the priests of old, scientists are human. Science is an endeavor of
the human mind, and not inspired directly by God (though you may wish to con-
sider the human intellect which allows science to exist as one of the gifts
from God). All of the foibles of humanity (chauvinism, herd behavior, lying,
sacrifice, emphasis on symbolism and abstraction, honor and truth) are con-
tained within the adventure of science. I would find it difficult to easily
typify such a large and diverse crowd as those who practice science today.
Finally, the prototypical natural science is often considered to be physics
(dear to my heart; as I was told in my philosophy of science courses). The
center of the creationism/evolution controversy lies in biology. I don't have
an appreciation for the culture of biology and the techniques used in their
research, but I doubt that it follows the style of physics. Beware when you
make an appeal to *the way science is done* or *the scientific method*. The
practice may be different than you think.
Thank you for your time.
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphw