Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?

For my part, I have no doubt that although progressive changes are to be expected in physics, the present doctrines are likely to be nearer to the truth than any rival doctrines now before the world. Science is at no moment quite right, but it seldom is quite wrong, and has as a rule a better chance of being right than the theories of the unscientific. It is, therefore, rational to accept it hypothetically. [Bertrand Russell (1)]

An intense debate has been raging between the physical scientist on one hand and the philosophers and the sociologists [Science and Technology Studies (STS)] arrayed on the other, regarding the innate nature of physical science. According to many extremist philosophers (postmodernists) and sociologists, physical science is the product of a given culture just like sociology. In their assertions and criticisms, many of them do not care to distinguish the features of physical science that they attack. Criticism of the political aspects of science, e.g., the government funding of science projects versus those of arts, culture, and sociology, for instance, can be overlooked by many pure scientists because it does not tarnish the epistemological character of physical science. But the wholesale and indiscriminate denigration of physical science is ludicrous and completely inane.

To illustrate the true object of the debate and players involved in it, let me quote from Noretta Koertge (2), a Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University. She berates and looks down upon the unwarranted criticism of physical science that has been unleashed by the postmodernists. She observed, “Within their (critics of science, author) veritable carnival of approaches and methodologies, we find feminists and Marxists of every stripe, ethno-methodologists, deconstructionists, sociologists of knowledge and critical theories – those who find significance in rhetoric and others who emphasize the role of patronage and the power of empire. One might expect to find irreconcilable differences between, for example, those who stress material conditions and those who focus on metaphors, and indeed, there are lively debates on such matters… Although it is always hazardous to try to summarize any group’s principles and purposes, the following are some noteworthy precepts that appear to be widely shared:

• Every aspect of that complex set of enterprises that we call science, including, above all, its content and results, is shaped by and can be understood only in its local historical and cultural context.
• In particular, the products of scientific inquiry, the so-called laws of nature, must always be viewed as social constructions. The validity depends on the consensus of ‘experts’ in just the same way as the legitimacy of a pope depends on a council of cardinals.
• ……………̷ 0;……………………&# 8230;…………………… ;….”

To suggest that theory of relativity is of the same nature and genre, for instance, as the sociological theory of Nigerian culture or sub-culture of a Nigerian local region, so to say, is nonsensical and sheer mockery. The two have nothing in common. One is physical science and the other sociology. But this is what has been contested by the vainglorious critics of physical science for the last two or three decades. If physical science could really be constructed sociologically, there would be several theories of gravity in vogue, one for each main culture of the world. By this logic there ought to be an Indian theory of gravity, an Islamic theory, a theory for the Christian world, so on and so forth. The validity of a theory will then be determined by a majority vote and not by empirical evidence.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, the universe was believed to be steady and static. Einstein had to introduce a fudge factor in his equations to produce a static universe in consonance with the popular belief. He refused to give any credence to a theoretically predicted expanding universe which was published by Friedmann in 1922. But he had no choice but to accept the concept of expanding universe which was shown by the data published by Hubbell in 1929. The majority vote was in favor of a static universe but that was wrong as shown by the empirical evidence. Theories of physical science do not care for the majority vote or even the authority of the celebrated scientists in spite of what the postmodernists and social constructionists proclaim and profess. Physical science has its own methodology and tests of verification and validation.

During the rise of Nazism in Germany in the early 1930s, many nationalist German scientists, some of them quite prominent, were carried away in their nationalistic zeal. They banished the theory of relativity from Germany dubbing it as the Jewish science. Heisenberg and Planck, the architects of the theory of quantum physics, among many others, were helpless against the rising tide of Nazism and they watched the trivialization of science with extreme disappointment and frustration. In the end, Germany lost heavily; it not only lost the war, it also lost its gifted scientists to other countries where they had fled for refuge and sustenance. Theories of relativity and quantum physics were diminished in no way; they were further developed and enhanced in other European countries, the US, and the USSR.

One of the points of controversy is about ‘objective reality’. Many physical scientists believe, for good reasons, that physical science is objective. By extension, they also believe that there is objective reality, discovery of which is the goal of physical science. The critics refute the existence of objective reality altogether. To them, reality is relative and it is what a cultural group perceives it is. This debate has generated a plethora of published literature and for the new and unwary readers, it becomes sometime extremely difficult to sort out the crucial points of argument and debate. Thinkers of all brands, shades and callings have entered this fray; for instance, there are the postmodernists and the physical scientists who are the main debaters, additionally there are feminists who have produced their own gender spin in the debate, there are social constructionists, deconstructionists (whatever they are), relativists, the hardcore philosophers, and the whole shebang. Each one of them, with the possible exception of the physical scientists, has produced critiques pertaining to its own calling some of which are laughably naïve and ludicrous. And the pedantic junk that has been produced as a result of this debate owes its creation to many university professors and other prominent professional authorities. Such junk is nonetheless wrapped up in mysteriously attractive discourse, novel metaphors, unfamiliar erudition, and sometime pseudo-mathematical lingo and notation to lend credibility and some ostentatious esteem to their gibberish arguments.

Newton’s laws of motion remain valid and applicable all over the world including all its various cultures and the sociological groups, as they ever were. The theory of relativity holds its sway, universally, in natural science as it did in the first two decades of the twentieth century when it was formulated and published. Newton and Einstein belonged to specific religious and cultural groups but their theories are above and beyond these denominations. And the mysteries of quantum physics will be understood and resolved in due time by the physicists and not by the sociologists and the postmodernists.

Sokal’s Hoax

Although Sokal’s hoax has now become somewhat stale and has lost its original galore, it, nonetheless, had created a storm of controversy when it was revealed by its perpetrator in mid-1990s. I will give a brief account here for those Chowk readers who might have missed reading about it. But, first to illustrate how it caught the ‘science wars’ combatants totally unaware and by surprise, I give a quotation here from Noretta Koertge (2). She wrote, “As soon as the news of the Sokal intervention in the ‘Science Wars (special issue of ‘Social Text’, author) hit the media, I was contacted by various people at my university – several physicists, a sociologist, a comparative literature student, and an historian. They all were asking what on earth is going on in science studies these days? Sometimes the question had an implicit (or explicit) follow up: Is this the sort of thing you people in history and philosophy of science do?”

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the postmodernists started criticizing and denigrating science with ever-increasing intensity. In response, various scientific and mathematics groups started their own conferences in defense of science. They wrote books and papers elucidating the rational and objective aspects of science in contrast to arbitrary theorization of the postmodernists. One of the notable books written in defense of science was Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science authored by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt. It was published in 1994.

Inspired by this book, Alan Sokal, a theoretical physics professor at the New York University, pulled a fast one on the editors of Social Text, a trendy journal devoted to the postmodernist cause. He concocted a fake paper with the awe-inspiring title, Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum gravity, in which he deliberately tinged the facts of quantum mechanics in postmodernist colors and gave it a flavor which was presumably palatable to the editors of Social Text. He submitted the paper for consideration of publication in 1994. The paper was published after a perfunctory and not-very-careful review by the editorial board in the thematic issue of Social Text dubbed as Science Wars in April 1996. According to Richard Dawkins (3), “Sokal’s paper must have seemed a gift to the editors because this was a physicist saying all the right-on things they wanted to hear, attacking the ‘post-Enlightenment hegemony’ and such uncool notions as the existence of the real world. They didn’t know that Sokal had also crammed his paper with egregious scientific howlers, of a kind that any referee with an undergraduate degree in physics would instantly have detected. It was sent to no such referee. The editors, Andrew Ross and others were satisfied that its ideology conformed to their own, and were perhaps flattered by references to their own works. This ignominious piece of editing rightly earned them the 1996 Ig Nobel prize for literature.”
Soon after the publication of the paper, Sokal made a statement published in the New York Times and also published a piece in Lingua Franca asserting that the paper was factually a parody. Afterwards, all hell broke loose. The postmodernists gathered in force behind Social Text claiming ethical treachery on Sokal’s part. The supporters of science gleefully gloated behind Sokal’s expose’. According to Edward Rothstein (4), “The firestorm set off by Mr. Sokal’s hoax became an international scandal; more than a hundred reviews, philosophical papers and debates are now posted on Mr. Sokal’s Website…”

One of the most significant physicists to enter the fray was Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Laureate (he shared the award with Professors Salam and Glashow) for his work on unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces. He has devoted two chapters in his recent book, Facing Up: Science and its Cultural Adversaries (5), to the hoax namely, Sokal’s Hoax and Science and Sokal’s Hoax: An Exchange. Sokal’s Hoax is based on his article published in the New York Review of Books and the second chapter consists of his responses to various noteworthy people who had written their criticism of his article direct to him or published in the New York Review of Books.

In the introductory part of his chapter on Sokal’s hoax, Weinberg wrote, “It seemed to me that Sokal had done a great service in exposing and satirizing the failings of those postmodernists and cultural relativists whom he had quoted.” In his article, he wrote, “Where (Sokal’s) article degenerates into babble, it is not in what Sokal himself has written, but in the writings of the genuine postmodern cultural critics he quotes. Here, for instance, is a quote that he takes from the oracle of deconstruction, Jacques Derrida:

“The Einsteinian constant is not a constant. It is the very concept of variability: it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something – of a center starting from which an observer could master the field – but the very concept of the game.”

Weinberg expressed his helplessness in comprehending the meaning of the above quote by saying, “I have no idea what this is intended to mean’”

The responders accused Weinberg of quoting the above text out of context. It was pointed out that the above text was not part of the presentation, which Derrida had given some thirty years back; it was an answer to one of the questions asked by Jean Hyppolite. The constant in question was actually the speed of light to which Hyppolite had alluded.

In his rejoinder, Weinberg explained, “..in the discussion following Derrida’s lecture, the first question was by Jean Hyppolite, professor at the College De France, who, after having sat through Derrida’s talk, had to ask Derrida to explain what he meant by a center. The paragraph quoted by Sokal was Derrida’s answer…It seems to me that Derrida in context is even worse than Derrida out of context.”

Conclusion

The ongoing debate between postmodernists and the physical scientists needs to be properly ordered and systematized. At present, there are no common ground rules existing between the concerned parties. If postmodernism does not recognize any form of rationalism, there cannot be any meaningful discussion because science is based on logical and rational arguments. In the absence of some mutually agreed ground rules, the validity and usefulness of either discipline cannot be evaluated.

The Sokal hoax, which generated a maelstrom in the ongoing debate, was indeed not very much different in content from the other body of literature which has been regularly published by the postmodernists. So why should it become a big deal if it failed to measure on rational standards? Or, even if it was deliberately faked, as claimed by Sokal, so what? Postmodernists do not seem to accept the rational standards anyhow. If the scientists proclaim that the hoax paper was manifestly wrong, this is their view.

This point is aptly described by Edward Rothstein (4) who wrote, “Mr. Sokal meant to undermine the extreme relativism latent in the field of ‘science studies’, but the editors (of Social Text) defended themselves and allies stood up for the mocked positions. There was no recantations even after the hoax was revealed….May be the whole mess suggested that there is no common ground on which proofs can be made, arguments won, convictions overturned. Science is culture-based, and so is argument about it…You go your way and I’ll go mine. If we meet, it’s beautiful. And if we don’t, well, that’s only to be expected.”

Acknowledgment

The portions of this paper on Sokal’s Hoax and Conclusion are nearly verbatim abstraction from the author’s earlier paper “Trivialization of Science”, which was published at www.Pakesf.org.

References

1.Russell, B., “My Philosophical Development,” 1995, p.13, quoted by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in “Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science”.
2.“A House Built on Sand,” edited by Noretta Koertge, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp. 3-6.
3.Dawkins, R. “Postmodernism disrobed,” Nature, Vol. 394, 9 July, 1998.
4.Rothstein, E., It’s a Battlefield Out There, Culturally Speaking,” the New York Times (Arts), Tuesday, December 8, 1998.
5.Weinberg, S., “Facing Up: Scienceand Its Cultural Adversaries,” Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2001.