gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (08/06/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR FAVORITE CULTURAL BIAS ***
I have a few reflections on the course of discussions in this newsgroup.
These reflections are based on some recent incidental readings. Just by
accident, most of the articles have been concerning cultures, the influence of
society on science, and the lack of understanding between cultures. A recent
submission by T. Holden concerning a creation-evolution debate in Virginia has
prompted me to generate this article (for what it is worth).
In a recent NOVA episode on Stephen J. Gould (the paleontologist), Gould
tried to point out how many concepts in (especially) biology are merely
restatements of cultural biases and expectations. From western Christian
perspective, history is seen to be linear, gradual, and progressive. This is
in contrast, for example, to eastern thought which considers history to be
cyclical. Anyway, the popular formulation of evolution (now identified as
Darwinism) sees evolution as progressive and gradual. When *homo sapiens*
appeared, the predecessor primate obligingly became extinct. This is a
statement concerning progressiveness, not science. When a so-called *living
fossil* is discovered, it is the conflict with the cultural expectations for
progress that leads to charges that evolution is wrong. Science has not been
involved.
Another article, from SCIENCE 85, was based on interviews with an
anthropologist who studies modern societies. He said that cultural
differences between societies usually lead to gross misunderstandings, so that
two people can use the same language but fail to communicate. While most
people attempt to deal logically with situations, a culture introduces many
unstated postulates and expectations that influence perceptions and actions.
He had several critical things to say about the U.S. State Department's
insensitivity to cultural differences.
The debate in this newsgroup, as well as the conflict in courtrooms and
school board meetings around the country, appears to be an example of the
conflict of cultures and not a debate concerning science. It is a clash
between (primarily) fundamentalist Christian society and the secular
scientific society over important human values. As I might learn to speak
French but never identify with the people of France, the creationists have
acquired the language of science without adopting its values (cultural biases
and expectations). Scientists have analyzed the creationist's position, and
appear to be content that to analyze is to understand (a typical scientist's
bias). The conflict and misunderstanding between these two cultures continues
(at least in this newsgroup). (For example, it is ironic that science is
being faulted for overlooking catastrophism in favor of gradualism, which is
ultimately a view that has been adopted from society and is not native or
required within science.)
Personally, I have seen fit to contribute only in my area of expertise
(physics, the second law of thermodynamics) because I thought that this would
be far enough removed from the value judgments being debated over human
evolution. This has not turned out to be so. Mr. Holden said that he
considers most of W. Brown's 116 points (as posted by R. Kukuk) to be
reasonable. That is his cultural bias. As a physicist, I consider many of
the points concerning the physical aspect of nature (physics, astronomy,
chemistry) to be wrong or misleading. It is unlikely that a Baptist minister,
no matter how competent, could utterly destroy evolution for me (though I have
no vested interest in Darwinism). Such is my cultural bias.
To the public, the issues of elections and voting are very important
democratic principles. But, what are the issues suitable for a public
referendum? While science is not monolithic or a dictatorship, it does behave
as an oligarchy. In politics, the U.S. was established as a republic so that
a few people might inform themselves of the issues and make policy decisions
which are binding on all. Science has become a similar arrangement, with its
own culture and values. Now it appears as if parts of the general public want
a recall of the scientific society because of its failure to support the
fundamentalist Christian agenda.
At the creation (!) of this newsgroup, I commented that the creationists'
focus on the popular misconceptions of science indicated to me that the debate
in which we were engaged was not about science but about values. Now, I would
clarify this charge by claiming that the creationism-evolution debate is not
about science but a conflict of cultural values. Until this issue is
recognized and addressed, the arguments in this newsgroup will continue to
make no progress.
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwmrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/13/85)
In article <423@iham1.UUCP> gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) writes: > At the creation of this newsgroup, I commented that the creationists' > focus on the popular misconceptions of science indicated to me that the > debate in which we were engaged was not about science but about values. > Now, I would clarify this charge by claiming that the creationism- > evolution debate is not about science but a conflict of cultural values. > Until this issue is recognized and addressed, the arguments in this > newsgroup will continue to make no progress. What makes you think a direct confrontation of values would "make progress"? Frankly, I feel that the roundabout route of attacking the credibility of static, authoritarian, religious thought and values through a leading example of their abusrdity (creationism) is one of the few ways open to change peoples' minds. A direct attack tends to provoke a reactionary response. I've read articles by creationists who feel much the same way about secular humanists, atheists, etc. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (08/15/85)
> I have a few reflections on the course of discussions in this newsgroup. > These reflections are based on some recent incidental readings. Just by > accident, most of the articles have been concerning cultures, the influence of > society on science, and the lack of understanding between cultures. A recent > submission by T. Holden concerning a creation-evolution debate in Virginia has > prompted me to generate this article (for what it is worth). > > In a recent NOVA episode on Stephen J. Gould (the paleontologist), Gould > tried to point out how many concepts in (especially) biology are merely > restatements of cultural biases and expectations. > > The debate in this newsgroup, as well as the conflict in courtrooms and > school board meetings around the country, appears to be an example of the > conflict of cultures and not a debate concerning science. It is a clash > between (primarily) fundamentalist Christian society and the secular > scientific society over important human values. As I might learn to speak > French but never identify with the people of France, the creationists have > acquired the language of science without adopting its values (cultural biases > and expectations). Scientists have analyzed the creationist's position, and > appear to be content that to analyze is to understand (a typical scientist's > bias). The conflict and misunderstanding between these two cultures continues > > To the public, the issues of elections and voting are very important > democratic principles. But, what are the issues suitable for a public > referendum? While science is not monolithic or a dictatorship, it does behave > as an oligarchy. In politics, the U.S. was established as a republic so that > a few people might inform themselves of the issues and make policy decisions > which are binding on all. Science has become a similar arrangement, with its > own culture and values. Now it appears as if parts of the general public want > a recall of the scientific society because of its failure to support the > fundamentalist Christian agenda. > > At the creation (!) of this newsgroup, I commented that the creationists' > focus on the popular misconceptions of science indicated to me that the debate > in which we were engaged was not about science but about values. Now, I would > clarify this charge by claiming that the creationism-evolution debate is not > about science but a conflict of cultural values. Until this issue is > recognized and addressed, the arguments in this newsgroup will continue to > make no progress. > > > Patrick Wyant > AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) > *!iham1!gjphw [] Thank you for a very nicely written article. I hope that I have not excerpted it too badly. There are just a couple of points upon which I wish to comment. A "conflict of cultures" is a good way to express disagreement over certain basic principles; it is certainly one way to capture the evolutionism/creationism debate. It seems to me that there is another aspect to the problem: Physicists and chemists and biologists consider themselves to be studying phenomena that are much _deeper_ than culture and cultural phenomena. This, in fact, is a quite appropriate stance for them to take. The mistake is the assumption, shared byn many scientists, that because their _subject matter_ is not subject to cultural determinants, their _practice_ is not subject to them, either. This sort of thinking culminated in the Logical Positivism of the 1930s. In general, the positivists sought to characterize scientific method in such a way as to be utterly impervious to cultural and historical exigencies. Good science was taken to be ahistorical and acultural. While this was perhaps an admirable goal, it was a mistake to suppose that it really describes the practice of real scientists. I cannot comment upon how creationism fits into this; I have never found that it had sufficient _explanatory_ power to be worth my time. I recognize this as a bias of my own. Stephen Jay Gould indeed exhibits an admirable sensitivity to the interdependence of science and culture. I recommend his _The Mismeasure of Man_ to anyone interested in a case study of this sort of thing. If anyone wishes to discuss these topics further, I suggest that we take it to either net.philosophy or net.science, since it is tangential to what I take to be the purpose of this newsgroup. Thanks again to Mr. Wyant. Todd Moody {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody Philosophy Department St. Joseph's U. "I couldn't fail to disagree Philadelphia, PA 19131 with you less."