The Science Wars

The 1990s were years of hot contention over the problem of which means of inquiry produced reliable
knowledge. "These wars arrayed humanist intellectuals and many social scientists against natural
scientists over the very possibility of objective knowledge....In the 1950s, the natural sciences had, after
350 years, arrived at the very center of social power and influence...having a monopoly on knowledge,
truth, and reason, a monopoly on disclosing reality" (Goldman, 2006, p. 3). Science was one of many
social institutions attacked during the 1960s: was it ethical, moral, and value-neutral, or basically a tool
of the military-industrial establishment? Intellectuals, such as Foucault and Derrida, claimed that
objective knowledge was not really possible. Post-modernism championed the idea that knowledge is
socially constructed--what is "real" depends upon the prevailing convictions of a social group rather than
objective knowledge of an external reality.

A Long-standing Debate
Such conflict has been a part of Western philosophy from its beginnings in Greece (particularly
expressed by Plato in The Sophist). It was continued in the 17th century among early scientists ("natural
philosophers"). Descartes, a mathematician, stood for rationalism (reasoning ability could help us find
truth), thus his belief in "innate ideas." Rationalism uses deductive argument, as does mathematics: if
premises are true, the conclusion must follow--arguing from a general principle accepted as true, to
specifics. Remember "proofs" in geometry?
In contrast, Francis Bacon represented empiricism (experiment and experience led to accurate
knowledge). In his masterpiece, The New Organon (1620), he argued against depending on the mind's
ideas and identified four "idols of the mind" which lead us astray. Empiricism utilizes inductive
argument (albeit, carefully controlled). By observing many particular cases (collecting data without
presuppositions or anything to prove), one can detect correlations through analysis of the data. Testing,
forming hypotheses, further testing of the hypotheses, should arrive at knowledge through what is
confirmed by testing (which is experience). Although today the research enterprise values "theorydriven" research over "data-driven" such as Bacon proposed, grounded theory is theory based on initial
observations prior to hypothesis or theory formation. Simple time-management recommends that the
scientist plan research to study hypotheses that have at least some indication of being true! Thus, the
two sides of the Science Wars: deductive-rational (Descartes) and inductive-empirical (Bacon). Of
course, few people are purely one or the other (Goldman, 2006).

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

To make everything more complicated, in the 1920s quantum physics demonstrated that the field of
physics (long the epitome of objectivity in discovering knowledge of the natural world) is itself subject to
uncertainty. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle pointed out that on subatomic levels, position and

momentum cannot be simultaneously known with precision.

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
The popular version of this is that you cannot observe something without changing it and therefore
what you see is not what was there before you started looking at it! This relates to the ideas of
reductionism and determinism. If you reduce a phenomenon under study to its component parts, do
you really come to know it better? Or are you losing the real nature of it by dividing it up like that?

Complexity Science
Complexity science (derived from chaos theory) is devoted to the study of 'wholes'--complex
phenomena that have characteristics that exist only in combination. In other words, science that
recognizes that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Sound familiar? It should--Gestaltists
founded their psychology on this very idea! (
For a readable introduction to systems biology and complexity, see The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra.
http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/capra.html The concept is very relevant to efforts to improve
quality in complex human systems, such as health care or education.

What Do You Think?

The Discussion Board topic for Module 2 will deal with these issues: What is your reaction to the two
views of how knowledge can be obtained? Have the results of each been different? What are the pros
and cons of each? What type of viewpoint would each lead to with regard to religion or to spirituality?
Could the advantages of each be combined?

Reference
Goldman, S. L. (2006). Science wars: What scientists know and how they know it. Chantilly, VA: The
Teaching Company.

Dr. Jane Karwoski

PSY 408 History of Psychology

UNLV