Who Rules in Science?: An Opinionated Guide to the Wars (Paperback)

As a senior citizen I enjoy reading about current affairs, culture, and science, and bought this book because I felt that I should learn more about the modern philosophers of science. Several people had written very comprehensive reviews of this book on the Amazon web site and gave it a high rating, so I assumed it must be worth a read. In hindsight, that was a big mistake.

James Brown, the author, is a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. He states in his preface that "this book is an introduction-an opinionated introduction-to the issues (of who rules in science) for the general reader." The operative word here is "opinionated" and the non-operative words are "general reader."

Early in the book, he begins a discussion of the "Sokal Affair" which was a hoax perpetrated by the physicist, Alan Sokal, on the editors of the journal Social Text, in which he fooled them into publishing an article which, on the surface, appeared to be quite a piece of erudite writing but in reality was nothing but nonsense. If I had not already known what this was about, I would have had a hard time figuring out what he is talking about, because it is certainly not presented in a straight forward manner. His main purpose in bringing up the Sokal Affair is to show how easy it is to fool even supposedly very intelligent people, the unstated implication being that those fooled were somehow deceived because their views of the philosophy of science are wrong.

Some of the reviews at Amazon describe the content of the book in great detail, but in summary it is a discussion of the views of the "social constructivists" in science, who believe that there is a large personal and social impact on the way science gets done and interpreted, as opposed to the views of the "realists", who believe that reason and logic are the only tools which can create a scientific truth independent of human nature.

The author is firmly in the realist camp. To advance his views at the expense of his opponents he sets them up as straw dogs so that he can attack their ideas at his leisure. Even the few actual examples from science he uses are also selected to make it appear that his ideas and criticism are the only correct point of view.

When his argument seems weak, he does not hesitate to abandon reason and logic and resort to assertion, sarcasm, exaggeration, and snide remarks about his opponents' views. He will call an idea nonsense without explaining why, and call his opponents' thinking "silly", "absurd", or "unparalleled ignorance". It is hard to avoid the impression that like a religious fundamentalist, he regards his ideas as the only true religion for scientists.

The book is filled with quite a bit of philosophical jargon and references that the "general reader" would not know. Without any sense of irony, he himself notes that "jargon itself frustrates the average reader."

There are constant references to various "-isms" and "-ists" such as, "Realism embraces objectivity, but it is clear for instance that instrumentalists and verificationists, are also objectivists in the sense that social constructivists are not".

At one point, he complains that he finds someone's statements irritating because they have a habit of making major claims that are not explained or justified beyond citing some author. This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"Evidential reason" appears to be his God, and that this can exist somehow independent of the human mind that creates it. He believes and has faith in his objective rationality and therefore can use rationality to prove that it exists. Sort of Descartes, "I think, therefore I am."

There is a satirical program on Canadian television called "Air Farce". One of the frequent skits is called "The Confused Philosopher". The character in the skit keeps asking himself a series of questions that he never really will be able to answer. This image came to mind frequently as I was reading this book.

The last sections of the book on "The Democratization of Science" and "Science With a Social Agenda" are written in a more calm and reasonable manner. He is at his best when not attacking the views of others. He still insists, however, that values do not in any way determine the theories we come to believe in, but does concede that in practice this is difficult to sort out. In my own humble view, it would take some sort of a scientific God to be able to do this.

Brown's biggest problem is that the value bias he so highly condemns in others, is so highly evident in his own views that he becomes his own worst enemy.

Apparently the author has done very little reading in the neurosciences, sociobiology or psychology. In the bibliography there are no references to any works on the operation of the human brain and the amazing discoveries on how our senses work, how we learn and form memories, and what part nature and nurture play in developing the way we perceive and reason about the world. It seems to me that the research and writings of people like Steven Pinker, Antonio Damasio, E.O Wilson, Rita Carter, and John Searle are much more pertinent to the philosophy of science than many of the people the author has focused on attacking. Even Mark Twain in his book "What Is Man" had a much deeper understanding of the reality of the human condition than James Brown seems to have.

To be honest, it is probably the style and method of presentation that turned me off this book more than the content itself. I did learn the names of some of the important players in the philosophy of science and I now have to find an author who can clearly and objectively explain what the ideas of these people really are.

Brown's reviews the famous "Sokal Hoax" in which a physicist scathingly exposed the limits of "postmodern" language and philosophy. He explains how the Sokal Affair raised the public consciousness about views of what science is and how it works. Brown presents and illuminates the issues with admirable clarity and logic. He is a Professor of Philosophy with a deep respect for rational thinking. Unlike some, he doesn't view "cultural relativism" as a fad. Instead, he's aware of its impact in education and the wider world of social and political life. We are daily confronted with decisions to be made. We must make them on a rational basis and not be misled by "charlatans" who would obfuscate the issues. We make decisions on the basis of the values we hold. Brown enjoins us to be clear on our values - their foundations and how they are derived. This all sounds familiar, even redundant. Brown demonstrates how easily we can be misled if we fail to pay attention to what we are encouraged to believe and how we act on those beliefs.

Brown's answer to the query in his title seems simplistic - you do. You should rule science through democracy. We all believe in democracy [at least most of us reading this book do] and we all feel we know what it means. Brown wants you to reconsider what you believe about democracy and how it should be practiced. In short, he understands that in our form of democracy, knowledge, not emotion or mythology, should rule. Brown demonstrates how "expertise" already plays a significant role in political decisions. Expertise is derived by those who employ scientific methods to increase our knowledge. Our job is to sort through differing views to determine which is most applicable to issues under consideration. He recognizes the difficulty of the task, offering step-by-step solutions to ease the burden. People need to hear "more intelligent and informed voices" in Brown's view. How to find those voices? The starting point is this book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Brown is just as capable as the extremists at dismissing those he disagrees with as "mushy-minded", "bad scientists" whose views are "laughable" and whose sanity should be doubted. All those who think moral norms might have divine origin? According to Brown, they're "naively religious". All those who disagree with Brown about capital punishment? According to Brown, they just must not have studied the matter as much as he has. (For Brown, this is apparently an issue on which it is impossible for there to be an honest, informed difference of opinion.) As someone who sympathizes with both Brown and Norman Levitt on many issues but disagrees with them each on others, I have to say that it's a lot more fun to be insulted by Levitt because he does it with such style! (Incidentally, Brown's analysis of Gross and Levitt's book only seems to make sense if Levitt is on the political Right. My reading of Levitt's _Prometheus Bedeviled_ leads me to believe that that is far from the case.)

One last item: Brown writes: "Most people could achieve a high-level understanding of any branch of science, but only if several years have been devoted to its intense study." I'm not sure whether Brown classifies mathematics as a branch of science, but I see no more evidence that sufficient training could provide most people with a high-level understanding of mathematics than that sufficient training could provide most people with the ability to high jump 7 feet. I used to tell my students that intense study would undoubtedly make them successful; after seeing several hard-workers earn D's, I stopped saying that.