What do you think?
Rate this book
Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology
This collection of essays examines the ways in which disputes and controversies about the application of scientific knowledge are resolved. Four concrete examples of public controversy are considered in detail: the efficacy of Laetrile, the classification of homosexuality as a disease, the setting of safety standards in the workplace, and the utility of nuclear energy as a source of power. The essays in this volume show that debates about these cases are not confined to matters of empirical fact. Rather, as is seen with most scientific and technical controversies, they focus on and are structured by complex ethical, economic, and political interests. Drs. Engelhardt and Caplan have brought together a distinguished group of scholars from the sciences and humanities, who sketch a theory of scientific controversy and attempt to provide recommendations about the ways in which both scientists and the public ought to seek more informed resolutions of highly contentious issues in science and technology. Scientific Controversies is offered as a contribution to the better understanding of the roles of both science and nonscientific interests in disputes and controversies pertaining to science and technology.
652 pages, Hardcover
First published March 27, 1987
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Read
April 25, 2024Overview:
I read this book to sort through my mixed feelings about non-scientists who protest against science. Scientists aren't perfect, but the mistakes they make can only be corrected by themselves, so outsider distrust doesn't have much place in their work. But that doesn't matter anyway. The argument over scientific correctness is merely a decoy of the real issue of how much power we permit science to have over our lives. Like most things, science only finds a place in our lives when it entices us or benefits us.
I wasn't able to work these things out until I read Dr. McMullin's article "Scientific Controversy and its Termination". The book contains several other interesting articles about how controversies end, how culture influences science, and there are four case studies on recently ended controversies such as the FDA regulation of a cancer remedy and the changed status of homosexuality in the DSM-III. Below I elaborate on how my notes helped me reckon with my mixed feelings.
Points of Interest:
Exclusion - Why doesn't public opinion direct science? It's helpful to think of "human concerns" and "scientific inquiry" as separate domains that do not significantly overlap. Even though the problem solving people do every day is a kind of science, "modern science" is different. Modern science is directed toward Nature on Nature's own terms rather than nature for the sake of humanity. Scientists use scientific discoveries primarily to advance the work of science. The article by Ernan McMullin talks about what happens in science when there are multiple competing theories for explaining a particular thing. Sometimes it takes too much work to prove a theory wrong, so it may be ignored. Sometimes a prevailing theory will be dismissed if a new theory does a better job. Multiple conflicting theories might be used for different tasks. Whether a discovery is interesting, or controversial, or useful, or accurate is less important to the scientific community than the discovery's power to advance their project of exploration.
Scientists and non-scientists can become personally invested in the truth or falseness of a scientific theory. That investment places the theory in the realm of human culture, and is thus a deviation from the work of modern science.
Alienation - Because science is not bound by its relevance to human culture, the ideas that come out of science may conflict with values that people place in higher regard than science. Or, perhaps more painfully, scientific innovations can change laws or behaviors in a way that negatively impacts people's sense of security, their personal comfort, or their livelihood. These consequences (economists might call them "externalities") will naturally alienate the public, but scientists are completely unqualified to account for the social impact of their work because modern science excludes human concerns.
Science communicators might be able to encourage some reconciliation if they are sympathetic to science protesters as victims of a shift in culture or economy. But the ultimate decision on what to do with scientific discoveries falls to politics.
Action - The exclusion of the public from science actually cuts both ways. The answers to questions and the solutions to problems that science so miraculously provides which properly deserve honor and glory from all mankind nevertheless do not compel action. An effective, safe, and free medicine does not require its own use and an objective proof of imminent global destruction does not command any sacrifices for its prevention. Science gives us tools to make better decisions, but the question of how much consensus should precede an action is fundamentally political and outside the domain of scientific investigation.
Practical Implications:
There are no practical implications. Even though I recognize the value of science, I still imagine that all science protesters have legitimate grievances. I don't think that a greater public understanding of science would resolve any conflicts of value, not even the absurd ones. Despite this helplessness, I do wish that both sides of a scientific controversy could see that the other side is neither ridiculous nor malicious despite the fact that (and because) they are self-serving. The only way to change their mind is to serve them better than they serve themselves.
I read this book to sort through my mixed feelings about non-scientists who protest against science. Scientists aren't perfect, but the mistakes they make can only be corrected by themselves, so outsider distrust doesn't have much place in their work. But that doesn't matter anyway. The argument over scientific correctness is merely a decoy of the real issue of how much power we permit science to have over our lives. Like most things, science only finds a place in our lives when it entices us or benefits us.
I wasn't able to work these things out until I read Dr. McMullin's article "Scientific Controversy and its Termination". The book contains several other interesting articles about how controversies end, how culture influences science, and there are four case studies on recently ended controversies such as the FDA regulation of a cancer remedy and the changed status of homosexuality in the DSM-III. Below I elaborate on how my notes helped me reckon with my mixed feelings.
Points of Interest:
Exclusion - Why doesn't public opinion direct science? It's helpful to think of "human concerns" and "scientific inquiry" as separate domains that do not significantly overlap. Even though the problem solving people do every day is a kind of science, "modern science" is different. Modern science is directed toward Nature on Nature's own terms rather than nature for the sake of humanity. Scientists use scientific discoveries primarily to advance the work of science. The article by Ernan McMullin talks about what happens in science when there are multiple competing theories for explaining a particular thing. Sometimes it takes too much work to prove a theory wrong, so it may be ignored. Sometimes a prevailing theory will be dismissed if a new theory does a better job. Multiple conflicting theories might be used for different tasks. Whether a discovery is interesting, or controversial, or useful, or accurate is less important to the scientific community than the discovery's power to advance their project of exploration.
Scientists and non-scientists can become personally invested in the truth or falseness of a scientific theory. That investment places the theory in the realm of human culture, and is thus a deviation from the work of modern science.
Alienation - Because science is not bound by its relevance to human culture, the ideas that come out of science may conflict with values that people place in higher regard than science. Or, perhaps more painfully, scientific innovations can change laws or behaviors in a way that negatively impacts people's sense of security, their personal comfort, or their livelihood. These consequences (economists might call them "externalities") will naturally alienate the public, but scientists are completely unqualified to account for the social impact of their work because modern science excludes human concerns.
Science communicators might be able to encourage some reconciliation if they are sympathetic to science protesters as victims of a shift in culture or economy. But the ultimate decision on what to do with scientific discoveries falls to politics.
Action - The exclusion of the public from science actually cuts both ways. The answers to questions and the solutions to problems that science so miraculously provides which properly deserve honor and glory from all mankind nevertheless do not compel action. An effective, safe, and free medicine does not require its own use and an objective proof of imminent global destruction does not command any sacrifices for its prevention. Science gives us tools to make better decisions, but the question of how much consensus should precede an action is fundamentally political and outside the domain of scientific investigation.
Practical Implications:
There are no practical implications. Even though I recognize the value of science, I still imagine that all science protesters have legitimate grievances. I don't think that a greater public understanding of science would resolve any conflicts of value, not even the absurd ones. Despite this helplessness, I do wish that both sides of a scientific controversy could see that the other side is neither ridiculous nor malicious despite the fact that (and because) they are self-serving. The only way to change their mind is to serve them better than they serve themselves.
Displaying 1 of 1 review