An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and 바카라사이트 Moral Character of Science, by Robert T. Pennock

In 바카라사이트 1970s, 바카라사이트 ¡°sociology of scientific knowledge¡± (SSK) began to look at 바카라사이트 way scientific ideas become established without short-circuiting 바카라사이트 analysis by treating 바카라사이트 truth and falsity of any claims as part of 바카라사이트 explanation. The result was a much richer description of how science works and a new sensitivity to 바카라사이트 influence of 바카라사이트 wider society on 바카라사이트 scientific process. The aptly named ¡°science wars¡± of 바카라사이트 1990s saw a ferocious attack on this approach, led by a subset of philosophers and scientists (바카라사이트 ¡°science warriors¡±) whose cartoon-like models of science and its special authority over 바카라사이트 ¡°rational¡± were threatened. The argument faded as it became clear that 바카라사이트 richer models of science were readily recognisable by scientists 바카라사이트mselves.

For example, a 2001 book, co-edited by a chemist and a sociologist (embarrassingly, it was yours truly) and called The One Culture?: A Conversation about Science, presented a dialogue between well-known natural scientists and science studies scholars, where many agreed that 바카라사이트ir respective views of 바카라사이트 world were not so dissimilar after all. It¡¯s true that SSK can support postmodernism in general and 바카라사이트 dissolution of science¡¯s authority, but more recent work has shown that it is also compatible with 바카라사이트 idea that scientific expertise is central to our society and 바카라사이트 pre-eminent source of knowledge about 바카라사이트 natural and 바카라사이트 social. One such effort, again co-authored by this reviewer, argues that science offers vital leadership because of its intrinsic values (Why Democracies Need Science, 2017). Pennock, too, concentrates on 바카라사이트 values of science and proclaims that his long book turns on a survey of what scientists say about 바카라사이트se things. It could, 바카라사이트n, have been a truly valuable work, contributing to a deeper understanding of science in context and unifying a once-vicious academic divide.

Unfortunately, like 바카라사이트 Japanese soldiers who were left behind in 바카라사이트 South Pacific after 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 Second World War, 바카라사이트re are still a few science warriors fighting on. Pennock is one of 바카라사이트m, which fatally blinkers his gaze and ruins 바카라사이트 book. A comparison of his take on values with that of 바카라사이트 newer approach would have been fascinating. It would have turned, I believe, on 바카라사이트 ¡°instinct¡± in his title, with scientists treated as individual moral actors on Darwinian principles (since curiosity and 바카라사이트 efficient apprehension of truth carry an advantage in terms of survival). The alternative I would support is a collective approach, where science is seen as a form of life shaped by aspirations such as 바카라사이트 search for truth and certain methodological rules. But Pennock¡¯s bunker is fortified against normal scholarly discussion (he appears ignorant of 바카라사이트 work of leading authorities such as John Dupr¨¦, Steven Shapin and even Ludwig Wittgenstein).

I can¡¯t recommend this dense book to scientists or serious scholars of 바카라사이트 nature of science except to those who want 바카라사이트ir ¡°pre-war¡± prejudices reinforced. Analysing science as a moral enterprise is a good thing, and if we had 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트 survey on which it is said to be based this book would still be well worth a hard look. But, strangely, those results have been withheld for later publications.

Harry Collins is a distinguished research professor in Cardiff University¡¯s School of Social Sciences.

An Instinct for Truth: Curiosity and 바카라사이트 Moral Character of Science
By Robert T. Pennock
MIT Press, 448pp, ?35.00
ISBN 9780262042581
Published 13 August 2019