The Unnatural Nature of Science [Paperback]

Excellent essay about the real nature of science and the fact that day-to-day common sense will never give an understanding of the nature of science.
Absolutely to the point are his analyses of science and technology (science produces ideas whereas technology results in the production of usable objects), science and philosophy (science has been immune to philosophical doubts) & science and morality (decisions are political and economic).
His viewpoint on genetic engineering is 'common sense': "... genetic engineering ... has so far damaged no one. By contrast, smoking, AIDS, drugs and alcohol have caused massive damage to children in utero." (p.168)
Particularly impressive are the chapters on 'Science and religion' (7) where the author defends secularism, and on 'Moral and Immoral Science' (8).
This book contains some very painful paragraphs on Konrad Lorenz.
A must read for everybody interested in western and scientific culture.

I agree that Lewis Wolpert's language is "measured and thoughtful" in "The Unnatural Nature of Science", as advertised. He asks thought-provoking questions (What catalysts produced the scientific revolution? What are the origins of creativity?). The book, though, does not fully answer the questions and suffers from three fundamental problems:

1) "Unnatural" is not clearly-defined
2) He relies on unsubstantiated assertions and generalizations
3) He disparages psychology and philosophy as unscientific, yet psychology and philosophy (or, his own version of them) comprise his argument.

The first problem is the biggest. If Wolpert had provided a coherent definition of "natural" and "unnatural", we could verify or falsify his argument. As it is, we are left to infer his precise meaning from examples and assertions about "common sense" versus science, which he apparently contends are mutually-exclusive. Because he does not clearly define his terms, the book prods in search of an objective.

Wolpert generalizes heavily from anecdotal evidence, asserting various assumptions (i.e., 'phlogiston leaves burning materials', 'the earth is the center of the universe', 'science is dangerous and produces monsters like Frankenstein') to be common-sense and natural, while the scientific explanation presumably defies a common-sense, natural approach. This seems to be a straw-man, as the scientific explanations are often more natural, more common-sense (by my own understanding), when all the facts are reviewed.

Besides: granting his assertion for argument's sake, how did "unnatural" science arise from natural origins? Wolpert is no Design proponent, so attributing its cause and stewardship to Greek and Christian thought as he does simply multiplies the questions he means to answer.

Finally, Wolpert denigrates the philosophy of science (which forms the basis of science) while embracing his own version of philosophy (namely, that science is "unnatural"). He largely scorns psychology while promoting it in every chapter. While touting scientists as "self-aware", Wolpert apparently fails by his own definition. This simply doesn't work.

"Science does not fit with our natural expectations," Wolpert says, but he has not defined "natural expectations", has generalized from anecdotal observation, and has failed to realize that his own psychology (the study of which he scorns) apparently provides all but a rough outline for his thoughts. Though it wanders through some promising territory, his "unnatural" argument never gets off the ground. Disappointing.

I arrived at this book by way of a reference to it in Chasing Reality: Strife over Realism (Toronto Studies in Philosophy). There I learned about the limits of common sense and intuition in exploring the real world.

Wolpert's book makes clear the fact that scientists investigate the reality our ordinary senses are incapable of apprehending. Scientists amplify ordinary senses by using instruments designed for that purpose. They enhance our understanding.

The concept I most appreciate which Wolpert explicates is that of "unnaturalness." It is a very useful tool in oppososing the concept of "supernaturalness." Naturalism fails to take the limits of common sense into account. So, we need a concept to effectively step beyond common sense. Using the concept "unnatural" does exactly this.

Another term for unnaturalness is "artificiality."

Mario Bunge's system of philosophy takes full advantage of this concept.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 6 reviews  3.8 out of 5 stars