| “findings” | “tacit knowing” | “verities”
|
|---|---|---|
“fear of death” |
fear |
|
“tolerance & open mindedness” |
acceptance |
ethical
relativism |
“trivialities of
social science” |
“commonplaces” |
common (cues) sense |
Criteria scientific
method reveals: example
1)
objective facts 46 chromosomes in somatic cells human
being
2)
testable theories = to mass / square of intervening
distance gravity
3)
profound
understandings descent
by means of natural selection evolution
4)
universal laws E= MC2 relativity
Laplace and certainty of method “logical
positivism”
“knew all the forces by which nature is animated...nothing would be uncertain for him; the future and the past would be equally before his eyes.”
1790s; “ Age of Enlightenment ”
Scientism rests on
three related ideas:
1. natural
science methods are applicable to humans
2. scientific findings can rationally reorder society
3. faith in
science is a meaningfully comprehensive view
Visualization of his arguments
1 2 3
methodology reorganization worldview
reinforces Technopoly
faith in technical solutions
Science ( 1831 to 1867 ) came into modern use (Oxford English Dictionary!)
immutable laws arising from (determined by) the structure of nature M. Oakeshott
astronomy not astrology
geology geomancy
physics psychology
chemistry sociology
biology anthropology
p. 147-48
Postman’s argument rests on this tight definition of “science”
“science, then, is the quest to find the immutable and universal laws that govern processes, presuming that there are cause-and-effect relations among these processes.”
p. 148
“the scientist uses mathematics to assist in uncovering and describing the structure of nature.”
p. 148-49
Question to the
class:
Is this an argument over taxonomy?
(pp. 148-149?)
That is the
classification of what is science and what is pseudoscience --
insufficiency of
certain criteria: examples
1. use of numbers, or
counting f
= m*v
2.
observation (use of empirical evidence) black
holes
3.
falsifiable (Karl
Popper) Oedipal
Error of misplaced
concreteness (
p.151 )
technopolists
like to blur the distinctions existing between social, behavioral, and natural
sciences.
social behavioral natural
political
science psychological
testing cholera
polling counseling chemistry
demography epidemiology geophysics
economics marketing astronomy
public
health medicine biochemistry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example
given p. 151:
Stanley
Millgram’s experiments on “Obedience to Authority”
“In the face of what they construe to be legitimate authority, most people
will do what they are told.” regardless of the their impact on the victims.
Everyone “knows” this except for psychiatrists (his sample of)
(p. 151)
Millgram’s study is not empirical
(p. 152)
there is no “causal relationship between the acceptance of legitimate
authority and doing what you are told.” [ 35% refused ]
“does not confirm or falsify any theory that might be said to postulate a
law of human nature.”
Stories:
Lawrence -- Anglo-American writer of great sensuous literature
Kinsey
-- post-war researcher of American sexual behavior
Veblen
-- social critic before World War I, Theory of the Leisure Class
“Unlike
science, social research never discovers anything.” (157)
“all of them are forms of storytelling -- human attempts
to account for our experience in coherent ways.” (159)
but
science carries “an awesome measure of authority” (159)
illusion
makers & illusion believers have different motives (160)
161-62
he redefines scientism ¶
2 [outline it]
he presents more criteria:
Science is open to challenge, needs
refutation and ought to be tested, otherwise it is mere
Scientism. (162)
culture
of contentment breeds pseudoscience:
glorification
of commonplace conclusions
Christian
science health
is a spiritual state
Creation
science humans
are special
Scientology how
you feel is important
social
science characteristics
are measurable
behavioral
science people’s
responses are predictable
political
science voting
behavior is indicative
He,
Postman, argues that
relegating
truth only to science or scientific findings renders older
“stories” that embody cultural truths quaint
“artifacts” of history but nonetheless unimportant to the
maintenance of “Technopoly.” 158-161.
“which
is most likely to serve the human interest, and which to prove most
deadly...?” (
last ¶, 163)
My conclusion (with
reference to last month’s readings):
The
challenge for environmental science is to
separate fact from hypothesis and both from
interpretation and opinion.
Ecology must not become a religion, a substitute illusion (Freud’s
belief that the human illusion of God is not therapeutic, (163)
for some external authority
to whom we may be answerable.
Key
terms to use in writing & research:
social science as opposed to natural science
metaphors & images
commonplaces
trivial, trivialize, trivialities
obvious findings or “expositions of the
obvious”
“processes”
“practices”
story as
narrative; as exposition; as dialogue; as documentary
judgment
criteria
technicalities
truth
error
falsifiable
knowledge
certainty
evidence (sufficient vs. insufficient)
People to Know more about:
Sigmund Freud
Thorstein Veblen
D. H. Lawrence
Stanley Milgram
Hannah Arendt
Michael Oakeshott
Pierre-Simone de Laplace
Old terms (in blue) to relate to this chapter (new
terms in red):
What is the dialectic that Postman argues is necessary to recognize and
distinguish science from scientism?
What dangers does Postman provide evidence for in his
argument that
studies masquerading as science are another form of “information
control” adding to the confusion between facts and opinions?
Distinguish between two types of questions that ecologists may ask
about nature and natural behavior in the environment:
give examples of
scientific facts and contrast these with
“truthful” or reliable opinions.
SUMMARY:
• Postman discusses evidence, experiments and
philosophers’ opinions
He does so to prove his thesis that scientism confuses us. It saps our ability
Thus information overload may
more
• His disturbing finding is that stories from great thinkers are no longer valued in our society. His examination of different modes of story-telling distinguishes fictional narrative from expository or documentary styles; but both come from
evidence of human characteristics.
• Beyond disturbing findings that historically significant writers are no longer valued in Technopoly, Postman proposes that the real danger today persists because we surrender our capacity for judgment -- not because we trust authority more than we distrust our motives -- but because we enjoy our comforting illusions. The power of
illusions enslaves our critical faculties of mind!
• the external “image of ultimate
authority” is a deadly delusion.
INTERPRETATION:
Postman is developing an argument about information
overload and the inability of our information control structures to deal with
this flood of data.
He argues that our educational institutions (media, laboratories, publishers and practitioners of social science) foster a misplaced
confidence in the processes and practices of analysis.
By systematically using examples from social studies Postman criticizes our thinking because we are equating of our social data gathering processes with
the skeptical practice of refutable, contestable, and repeatable science.
Just because numbers, observation and analysis are used to derive truths about human behavior Postman argues that social science is magical, wish fulfillment that reveals nothing about laws of human existence. |
That is because human behavior varies due to
historical context (Danish resistance),
cultural inheritance (French & Lithuanian complicity), and
socialization (reading Hannah Arendt on Eichman )
to such an extreme degree that prediction becomes too uncertain to be
of any value.
We are fools to surrender critical mental faculties for dialectically
examining people’s conclusions because dangerous illusions are
perpetuated by lazy habits of mind, easy examinations and
our yearning to find answers even where there are no
ultimate answers!
Synopsis
12/5/1989
9/11/1990
New York Times reports the obvious
Auguste Comte’s influence [positivism]
current scientists are more skeptical [uncertainty]
Scientism defined initially as three related ideas
second idea
third idea
spiral into Technopoly
the word science, origins of
philosophy of processes vs. practices
quest to find immutable & universal laws
mathematics as a useful device
observation as empiricism
scientists goals or objectives
corruption of social-science
Oedipus complex & God’s existence are
non-refutable
misleading use of social as a science
admiration for Millgram’s “experiment”
non-empirical character of Millgram’s
laboratory observations
contradicts his own theory (hypothesis {opinion})
purposefully
human behavior as too non-specific [true vs. false]
to be scientific
Lawrence & Kinsey are contrasted
Styles of each: narrative and exposition are called
good stories
archetypes and metaphors are essential for great
stories
great novelists have been replaced by social
researchers
metaphors: social research explain differently from what fiction shows
Christ’s’ parables &
Veblen’s Theory are
comparable stories
Technopoly does not want stories, but “hard
... scientific facts”
discusses proof as arising from “objectively
determined facts”
storytelling reveals different kinds of truths that
Technopoly fears
Why are spectators so willing to perpetuate
recognizable illusions?
Deep confusion arises when we consent to maintain
dangerous “.
redefines Scientism: authority of procedures
creates illusory facts
applies Freud’s Future of an Illusion to dangers of scientism in
a technical, or automated society.
STRUCTURE:
He returns to the introductory theme of misplaced confidence in the
social data gathering process to prove his thesis: scientism confuses
our ability to distinguish fact & fiction;
in doing so it sustains Technopoly by
fostering comfortable illusions, i.e. “we know”.
Presentation
Title: Since science is so specific don’t misuse it to mystify people
Question Is this an argument over taxonomy ?
Argument
Trivializing obvious facts as an example of
information overload
Extension of scientific methodology to
“unscientific” questions
Scientism is based on 3 sustaining errors that
nourish Technopoly
Technopoly thrives when confusion persists as to
the
means we use to reach common ends
the
limitations of our means
the
differences in expertise of competing authorities
It may be inappropriate to subject all matters to
science
truth
telling is not the same as error detection
certainty
is not ultimately attainable
story-telling
reveals eternal verities
Real science welcomes scrutiny, skeptical
challenges & argument
False science thrives on acquiescence, illusion,
and mystification
Conclusion:
operational knowledge is not the same as critical
thinking
Technopoly uses operational knowledge
critical
thinking is required for science
knowledge is at once contingent & conditional
illusion
arises when we insist that knowing is absolute
Technological systems and science must be
based on critical thinking.
