In the 1970's a new approach to
the sociology of science, called the strong program began emerge.
This new approach deviated from the older approach to the sociology
of science which sought to explain the place of science as a whole in
society, by instead trying to explain the individual beliefs and
behaviors of scientists over time. The strong program's central
motivation for the critique of science is derived by what
sociologists of science, Barry Barnes and David Bloor, describe as
the symmetry principle. This principle, which sought out to explain
the beliefs of scientists, can have some striking consequences on the
role of science in society.
The symmetry principle states
that all beliefs and behaviors are to be approached using the same
form of explanation. In a scientific setting this would mean that all
scientific beliefs are the products of the same kinds of forces. The
strong program sociologists do not consider scientists to be
disinterested individuals that exist in an isolated community outside
of society, but rather they exist in a community that has established
norms that regulate belief. These norms are an example of the common
forces that produce scientific belief. The belief of blood
circulating through the veins, and the belief that a fire god makes a
volcano erupt, are explained by the same factor. In both examples,
norms, such as the norm to justify phenomenon, establish and maintain
the belief in the community. Henceforth, both examples are approached
using the same kind of explanation.
It
is apparent from the strong program approach that science is heavily
tied with the norms within the scientific community as well as that
of the whole society. Another aspect that can provide explanation for
beliefs are political factors. Consider the development of modern
statistics and evolutionary thinking of the nineteenth century. The
development of statistics encouraged the study of eugenics, which
encouraged some people to continue to breed and discouraged others to
do so. This practice gave middle class white Englishmen an incentive
to declare there superiority over other races, and therefore it can
be said that the development of the scientific belief of eugenics was
beneficial for the middle class Englishmen. An explanation for the
development of eugenics can therefore be attributed to the political
norms that were shared by the white English scientists. Henceforth,
there continues to persist a common form of explanation for
scientific beliefs.
This sort of conclusion leads
to apparent striking consequences. Eugenics exists in the explanation
given above, insofar as it is agreed upon and is accepted by the
norms of the community. Its application and practice apparently seem
to be dependent on the benefit that it provides for the
practitioners. Though the kinds of explanation that are produced
under the symmetry principle have a common form, it appears, that
these kinds of explanations result in a form of relativism, as there
is no one single set standard that determines the justification of
beliefs. Instead there exists different groups of people who have
different norms. The different norms the different groups have
ultimately mean that there are different explanations for a same
subject. For example, the rising of the sun over the Earth's horizon
can be explained in terms of the movement of the Earth as well as in
terms of a fire god who is reborn each morning depending on the norms
of the community. These two explanations, in this case, are both
valid under the symmetry principle. The problem is, how does one
determine which theory is more truthful? Surely one cannot conclude
that if one visits one group the rising of the sun is attributed to
the movement of the Earth, and if one visits the second group the
rising of the sun is then attributed to the rebirth of a fire god.
Both explanations hold two distinct and incompatible accounts of the
world. The only seemingly plausible solution that one could give is
to state that one of the groups does not exist. This would be
intuitively and empirically absurd.
The
relativism that is associated with the strong program also posses a
problem about the role of science in society. Scientists have
traditionally argued that science has a special role in society as it
provides objective knowledge about the nature of the world. This
knowledge they have argued has many useful applications in society
(such as creating sturdier bridges) using scientific theories. The
strong program sociologists argue that scientific belief is no better
than any other theory as it is a product of social and political
norms just as other beliefs. Therefore, according to this symmetry
principle, anyway of understanding the world is a good one. But, if
scientific beliefs are relative to local norms then the role of
science is undermined as it does not really play the role of truth
seeker, but is rather just another belief and equally important as
any other projected from society.
I argue that that symmetry
principle is not a convincing and appropriate principle to explain
scientific belief. If we consider another example we will see
explicitly how a relativist view could not work. In spirit of the
symmetry principle, historian of science Paul Foreman postulated an
explanation for the development of Quantum Physics in connection to
political factors. Foreman noted that after the Second World War,
there was a great deal of resentment in German citizens because they
lost the war. This resentment caused a decreased support towards the
study of Classical Physics which was fundamentally deterministic,
because the Germans believed they should have won the war due to
their superior strength. Classical Physics implied that Germany lost
because they weren't superior to their enemies. Quantum Physics on
the other hand was non-deterministic and implied that Germany only
lost the war out of sheer bad luck. Foreman therefore concludes that
the development of Quantum Physics was only a response to the
political situation at the time. Under the symmetry principle this
may seem like a good explanation as to why scientists believe in
quantum mechanics, but it does not make any practical sense. The
political factors do explain why scientists in Germany would adapt
the study but it does not explain why other scientists from different
countries such as the United States adapt the study as well.
Foreman's thesis leaves no reasons for American scientists to adapt
the study but rather it gives reasons why they should not accept
Quantum Physics. The acceptance of Quantum Physics by American
scientists demonstrates that social and political factors do not (or
at least not necessarily) explain why scientists believe a certain
scientific idea. Therefore, an explanation for scientific belief
should not have the same form as other beliefs, but rather should
stretch beyond social and political factors.
Though the strong program
provides an arguably impractical principle, it leaves its lasting
impact on both the sociology and the philosophy of science. The
symmetry principle has made aware the importance of the role and
beliefs of the individual scientist. This point continues to be a
major point of debate in philosophy and the sociology of science.
0 comments :
Post a Comment