Parson's book is divided into four parts, three of which are taken up by what can be called "leftist" critics of science. There are the "constructivists" who argue that instead of discovering objective knowledge about our world, the "facts" of science are "constructed" socially and/or are mere linguistic conventions. There are the postmodernists who argue that science is one more form of "discourse" that is no more objective or rational than any other.
And, finally, there are the feminist critics who argue that science as it is currently structured is heavily biased against women - either incidentally because of the culture in which it is embedded or inherently because the very nature of modern science is exploitative and patriarchal:
- "They see science as a product of Western, linear, male (all bad things) ways of thinking, and logic itself as a tool of coercion. Even the scientific ideals of objectivity and impartiality have been derided as smokescreens hiding an ideology of male dominance. ...At its outer fringes, feminism merges with New Age themes of goddess worship and toys with very dubious notions, such as that women have an innate, mystical bond with nature that men lack."
In the fourth section we are introduced to the conservative critics of science. Most such criticism has traditionally occurred whenever science has challenged the social status quo, but today conservative criticism can be found primarily in a religious context. Thus, conservative religious critics complain that science has inappropriately adopted methodologies and dogmas which exclude the possibility of God and the truth of traditional religion. This criticism, in turn, produces the popularity of creationism, Intelligent Design, and other challenges to mainstream science.
Although all of these critics come from a variety of very different - and sometimes incompatible - perspectives, they do share one thing in common: their criticisms are primarily ideological rather than scientific. This is not to say that all of their criticisms are invalid - feminist critics are, for example, quite right to point out the historical and ongoing sexism in the sciences which relegates women to what amounts to a secondary status.
Nevertheless, those criticisms which are valid can also be made on a scientific basis, for example by showing just how sexist prejudices in the past have helped produce faulty data - and exactly that has indeed happened in a number of areas, like primatology. This is an example of how science works and corrects its errors over time, despite the flaws introduced into it by flawed humans.
Other criticisms, however, completely ignore the principles of actually producing hard data to support their claims or showing that they have alternatives which can produce a better and more accurate understanding of our world. Parsons' book is balanced in its presentation of such criticism because it lets critics speak for themselves. Sometimes, however, that is also exactly the way to emphasize the fact that they have nothing of great value to say.
« Back...
