Topic Blog Post 1-Based on readings from The Mismeasure of Man
As Stephen Jay Gould extrapolates, there has been a continuous attraction to biological determinism even in modern society. Science as a completely objective observation of the world is a certain fiction, and yet coming to terms with this fact is too unnerving for many (in both professional and academic fields). Science is quite subjective due to its cultivation and production in a cultural context of prejudice, bias, religion, politics and economic systems within states. The author pointedly confronts the issue of biological determinism as a problem facing the hard sciences, but I would also like to state that it is a concern also for the newer science of anthropology, especially within the last twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This is one of the central arguments against anthropology as being labeled a "science," due to the innate prejudice that could be exemplified through ethnographic accounts of cultures.
But as seen through the historical examples provided within this book (the Eugenics movement, intelligence tests, etc.), everything that is studied by people is conflicted with the ideologies that culture provides. Yet, should these scientific results, which may come from culture, be known as nothing more than failed or fraudulent scientific data? Rather, I propose that these scientific-valued prejudices produce an image of the human condition-an image that entails of our inherent fear of the unknown, and our unwavering desire to ensure that there is a certain order within this world that must be followed. To articulate this order, I project that the pursuit of numbers-"recognizable factual" variables- becomes the focal point of any social, political or economic movement that springs forth.
I disagree with the statement that "science as a completely objective observation of the world is a certain fiction." Science is inherently objective, and the scientific method is capable of answering our questions with pure truth. The earth revolves around the sun; whether particular cultures or people believe that to be true or not doesn't change that fact.
ReplyDeleteHowever, scientists themselves are certainly subject to cultural and societal influences when interpreting their raw data. For example, Gould cites Morton as an example of an honest scientist who was unconsciously biased. It is too easy to reject data that is deemed ridiculous or clearly far outside of what was expected; sometimes, this instinct to throw away data that contradicts your reality is based in procedural errors, and should indeed be remeasured. Other times, as in Morton's case, the data only seems appropriate to ignore or smudge because it contradicts the scientist's own beliefs, preformed not by reality but by the opinions of his society. Even Gould, in his original recalculations, accidentally reported “corrected” results showing that Caucasians had much lower cranial volume than they did, and admitted that he didn’t catch his error because he unconsciously wanted it to be true (98). The raw data itself was not fraudulent or skewed by society. This is not an example of math or science being flawed. Scientists (and all other humans) are flawed and subjective in their interpretations, and some more than others.
Emma, I have to disagree with you on this. The fact that you said that humans "are flawed and subjective in their interpretations" tells us right there that science is not completely objective. One of the definitions of the word science (www.dictionary.com) is the "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." How we choose to design an experiment and collect/interpret data is the science and it is subjective. Pure truth is regrettably unattainable, but we can at least get close...often VERY close.
ReplyDeleteSometimes even the actual data collection is subjective. Particularly in quantum mechanics, simply by observing/measuring the phenomena and their effects we are changing them. The classical example of this is quantifying the speed of an electron. We can't see the electron with any technology, so the only way we can measure the speed of one is to shoot another particle at it. By going about it in this way, we are changing the speed of the electron due to an inelastic collision with the other particle. The only pure truth is basic mathematics like arithmetic.
-Lee