Scientism and Philosophism
Comment on ‘Kinder, Gentler Science Wars’ by Gabriel Stolzenberg
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11923926 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Patrick Lynch (0000-0001-9535-6461, Cornell University, corresponding author), Michael S Lynch (0000-0002-1016-5090, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University, 302 Clark Hall, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA; fax: +1 607 255 6044) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 93-98 |
| Publication date | 2004-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Studies of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0306-3127 • E-ISSN: 1460-3659 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306312704041340 |
| OpenAlex | W2061708117 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 6 |
Gabriel Stolzenberg's (2004) review essay of Labinger and Collins (2001) raises a number of provocative points, but I will respond only to one that he makes in passing. While discussing my essay in the collection (Lynch, 2001), Stolzenberg (2004: 80) refers to a statement of Steven Weinberg's (2001: 240) with which I express agreement: 'Less thoughtfully, ... Lynch endorses Weinberg's anti-intellectual conceit that philosophers may be able to help us sharpen the way we understand words like 'real' and 'true' and 'cause', but they have no business telling us not to use them'. This is a minor point of criticism in the context of Stolzenberg's entire essay, but it provides me with an opportunity to clarify something that I believe is important and easily ignored. To begin to specify what I had in mind when endorsing Weinberg's line, I would like to return to a remark that Gilbert Ryle made 50 years ago. This is a remark that I have often found helpful to think about in connection with the science wars (see Lynch, 1996). Ryle (1954) used the phrase 'poison-pen effect' to describe a Baconian literary device with which a writer enlists the authority of science in an effort to show that everyday knowledge is illusory. He likened this literary device to 'poison' because of the way it appears to undermine everyday life experience, inviting distrust in familiar appearances. Ryle was objecting to the way some of the prominent scientists in his day would astonish popular audiences by claiming, for example, that the apparent solidity of familiar objects like tables and chairs is really an illusion created by our sensory receptors and brains, whereas, in fact, such objects are composed entirely of tiny atoms surrounded by vast amounts of empty space. Ryle attacked this rhetorical device first by questioning its scientific authority. He pointed out that '[t]here is no such animal as Science', no total knowledge system that contrasts with everyday knowledge. He added that there
Context (archaeology · Criticism · Distrust · Epistemology · Linguistics · Literature · Phrase · Scientism · Sociology · Statement (logic · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · History · Philosophy · Psychology · Rhetoric and Communication Studies · Science and Climate Studies
| Citations per year | 0.14 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2004 - 2024 (21) |
| Highly cited | No |