Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?

I dont know how long Sokol`s Hoax is going to be cited as the perfidy of theory in the humanities...surely there are other perspectives since the hoax took place....and perhaps we can talk about other hoaxes preceding and following Sokal`s Sahib`s prank? Hard Science has participated part and parcel in some grander hoaxes themselves as Soysauce has pointed out...is hard science removed from the abuses of our political and social systems?


Fuzair,
Yes. Thanks for that small correction. Does this mean you`ve read the book?

I think the problem arose with the lengthy intellectual discourses by KArl Popper on the ``demarcation problem`` which is stated as under:-

`What are the criteria to be considered while appraising a discourse to be ``Scientific``.`

Popper`s attack was mainly on the Marxists of Cold War era whose practitioners considered themselves to be following a ``science`` called ``Scientific Materialism`` (Popper`s `Open Society and its Enemies` is a great discourse on this topic) which was deemed to be the politically correct science.( almost like the claims made by present day ``Islamic`` Scientists)
For him it was not ``testability`` but ``falsifiability`` that was the main criteria for a theory to be considered as being ``scientific``.Most agreed but then the discourse started on the criteria of Poperian criteria-
i.e..
``What counts for falsifiability?``-
the issues evolved around the ``theory ladenness`` of the observation statements which make for the empirical observations such as `` I can see the comet moving towards earth`` which itself pre-supposes the correctness of optical theory with which the telescopic instruments are built along with a host of supporting statements derivable from newtonian physics. Kuhn took a wider perspective and considered progress of sciences as occuring not as the result of acceptance of the theories by the scientific community through a process of falsifiability but as a shift in the entire ``horizon`` called ``Paradigms``. So Kuhn talked about progress of sciences through grand ``Scientific Programs`` which encompassed the cultural aspects of the scientific community engaged in that Paradigm.

So far so good!

But then came the real Philosophers who talked about-
1. Under-determination of theories. (Quine)
2. Antirealism( Van Frassan)

The real fun began when the Quantum Physicists themselves started writing books about complementarity while attacking the notion of an ``objective`` reality independent of an ``observer``- thus providing an opportunity for the social theorists to bring in the concept of an observer who is entrenched in his own historical experiences. The Anti-realists attacked the concept of sciences as a ``Mirror of Nature``- i.e. scientific theories capturing the ``reality`` in an act of ``mirroring``. However, Anti-realism in natural sciences was never against the notion of an independent reality as a ``noumena``(Kant) but against the perverse notion of scientific knowledge as progressing through more accurate ``representation`` of the independent reality.

Coming to the Sokal`s Hoax- it was a good spoof and was much desired. The real problem started when some of the guys from the fashionable intellectual circles (especially Literary theory) started claiming that they were doing some thing ``more important`` than what the scientists were doing (Meta- theorizing) and started reducing the independent reality into a play of scientific text- not realizing the fact that most of the noble prize winners in natural sciences hardly ``followed`` what these philosophers and social theorists had to say about them. It was a grand delusion that was taken to its absurd limits by these zealots. This was the Al-Qaeda of social theory until Sokal`s 9/11 took the wind out of them.

I think the problem arose with the lengthy intellectual discourses by KArl Popper on the ``demarcation problem`` which is stated as under:-

`What are the criteria to be considered while appraising a discourse to be ``Scientific``.`

Popper`s attack was mainly on the Marxists of Cold War era whose practitioners considered themselves to be following a ``science`` called ``Scientific Materialism`` (Popper`s `Open Society and its Enemies` is a great discourse on this topic) which was deemed to be the politically correct science.( almost like the claims made by present day ``Islamic`` Scientists)
For him it was not ``testability`` but ``falsifiability`` that was the main criteria for a theory to be considered as being ``scientific``.Most agreed but then the discourse started on the criteria of Poperian criteria-
i.e..
``What counts for falsifiability?``-
the issues evolved around the ``theory ladenness`` of the observation statements which make for the empirical observations such as `` I can see the comet moving towards earth`` which itself pre-supposes the correctness of optical theory with which the telescopic instruments are built along with a host of supporting statements derivable from newtonian physics. Kuhn took a wider perspective and considered progress of sciences as occuring not as the result of acceptance of the theories by the scientific community through a process of falsifiability but as a shift in the entire ``horizon`` called ``Paradigms``. So Kuhn talked about progress of sciences through grand ``Scientific Programs`` which encompassed the cultural aspects of the scientific community engaged in that Paradigm.

So far so good!

But then came the real Philosophers who talked about-
1. Under-determination of theories. (Quine)
2. Antirealism( Van Frassan)

The real fun began when the Quantum Physicists themselves started writing books about complementarity while attacking the notion of an ``objective`` reality independent of an ``observer``- thus providing an opportunity for the social theorists to bring in the concept of an observer who is entrenched in his own historical experiences. The Anti-realists attacked the concept of sciences as a ``Mirror of Nature``- i.e. scientific theories capturing the ``reality`` in an act of ``mirroring``. However, Anti-realism in natural sciences was never against the notion of an independent reality as a ``noumena``(Kant) but against the perverse notion of scientific knowledge as progressing through more accurate ``representation`` of the independent reality.

Coming to the Sokal`s Hoax- it was a good spoof and was much desired. The real problem started when some of the guys from the fashionable intellectual circles (especially Literary theory) started claiming that they were doing some thing ``more important`` than what the scientists were doing (Meta- theorizing) and started reducing the independent reality into a play of scientific text- not realizing the fact that most of the noble prize winners in natural sciences hardly ``followed`` what these philosophers and social theorists had to say about them. It was a grand delusion that was taken to its absurd limits by these zealots. This was the Al-Qaeda of social theory until Sokal`s 9/11 took the wind out of them.

echoboom: Have all the madrassah-inspired or otherwise Islamic websites been pulled off the web this week, or are you jsut really weak-willed?

What is the rational argument for racial equality? There was a time when (some) scientists measured the skull sizes of representatives of various human races and concluded that certain races were intellectually less developed based on that measure. That was a rational approach, even if they started out with predictable biases.
The framing of a hypothesis, the methodology used to test that hypothesis and the interpretation of the results all are subject to personal & societal biases. Criticism of them from a point of view that recognizes those biases is not only desirable but is absolutely essential.
Such criticism also is most intense where the influence of science is the greatest, namely, the first world.

Saminasha #14

Unless I`ve guessed wrong, the book you wanted to refer to is Thomas Kuhn`s `The Structure of Scientific Revolutions``. IOW, Kuhn was referring to the paradign shifts that occur on a continuous basis in all fields of science, not merely to the 16th-17th century Copernican-Galilean-Newtonian revolution in the physical sciences.

As interesting as all of this sounds, I`m swamped with work and reading. But I am reading two books that deal with the issues raised in Gill Sahib`s piece. They are:

The Structure of the Scientific Revolution, and The Social Construction of Society. Perhaps other Chowkies will hie themselves to a bookstore and we`ll resume this in about three months?

Urstruly:
Leave these guys alone. They are the deprived ones, have-nots, proletariates of learning. These pitiable characters are solely trained to think in secular/westernised paradigms.

They are the unfortunate ones who were brought-up in intellectually barren households. They never had any culture until the Goraa-sahib injected some in their forefathers. The chhitars and boots have made them unredeemable slaves of the goraa-saab.

They are incapable of even recognising knowledge, let alone acquiring it--you see, they never attended a madressa even for a day.

Re: MNIPhirsay,

Fair enough. I assumed something I probably shouldn`t have. For that I apologize.

BTW, which side do you fall on? Just curious, not wanting to provoke a fight here, ;-), just curious.

I think you can guess who I side with....

ballukhan and sadna: Excellent thoughts! Thanks for sharing them.

sadna, you`re right, i think, in noting that the blood-feud between the two camps exists only is western civilization (or others that are now increasingly influenced by the West). Perhaps this is a throwback to the old rational materialism vs. spritualism-as-humanism tussle of the Reformation age. There are good enough reasons to believe that that tussle was never really settled. Perhaps the reasons for the continued locking of horns is the `Christian` mindset/civilization itself, which, whatever the New Agers might now uphold, really fostered a rather absolutist approach to the understanding of reality/gaining of knowledge.

Also, remember, unlike any phenomenon seen in the East, when Copernicus and Galileo displaced man from the centre of the universe, Hobbes and later Nietzche and even Marx, liberally indulged in the confusion you mention of coalescing (methodologies for) description of the physical world with ones that examine how human knowledge and structures are constructed, effectively denying Man any notion of free will.

Fuzair:

I do not want to make this a personal fight. But FYI:

1) You do not have the faintest idea of what I studied or didn`t study, besides speculation.

2) You have no clue where my opinion falls on this issue.

PS:
The sciences are methodologies and disciplines aimed at advancing knowledge about the physical world whereas it appears the various humanity methodologies and disciplines are concerned with examining how social knowledge/reality is constructed. These are clearly two different spheres of action/study.

The quarrel seems to be that some humanities folk are trying to invalidate the science methodologies as applied to science.

Firstly it is not clear why they are trying to do so, given that they disown any intent to be scientists, ie, to advance knowledge in the scientific fields.

Secondly it is not clear what prevents the humanities folks from understanding that the scientific methodology of construction of knowledge/reality is a methodology where social/human conditions are absolutely irrelevant (unless it is the social/human condition itself which is the reality being examined scientifically). The reported disdain of humanities and sciences communities for each other is also totally irrelevant. The blood feud aspect of this disdain incidentally, appears to be an American-European thing only.

Thirdly, IMO humanities folks are unable to distinguish between methodologies for advances in pure science on one hand and studying the effects of technology on society on the other hand, two issues which are not linked at all. The latter is one area in which both humanities and science people need to work together, not the former.

I did not understand even a least bit of this article. I guess writer is trying to illustrate on the tussle between two group of scientists who fight with each other like hindus and pakistanis as they fight on whether TNT worked out or not as an ideology.

But I am glad that at least someone is writing about science though it seems that my beak doesn`t belong here.

Re: MNIphirsay

Coming from you, thats a bit too much! Do I have to remind you of your comments to me on Edward Said? You were pretty insulting there, fella!

I made some comments on pomo and ``social theory`` on another topic which I am reproducing with some modifications:



Why reading Social theory (and literature) is important

Undergraduates ``must`` be taught ``eclecticism``- the ability towards ``fusion of horizons`` without any inhibitions -and to develop their appreciation towards alternative interpretations of the ``reality`` as ``seen`` from different view points, world views and theories. That is why ``under-theorizing`` is not a virtue when you are learning because it comes in the the way of ``eclecticism``. I used to have low opinion about the earlier Greeks until I read Stoics, Sophists and Epicurian theorists. Reading ``theory`` is a very important (and an exhilirating) experience in your formative years as an undergraduate.

How original is ORIGINALITY?

This underscores a very important truth that ``knowledge`` involves a movement towards ``fusion of horizons`` (Gadamer) - utilizing ``off-the-shelf theories`` is part of such a movement and ``novelty`` lies in fusing the ideas of such theories with one`s own perspective in order to arrive at a ``different`` interpretion of the world and its events - this is what originality is about - the process of movement towards new and fresh interpretations of the world is what needs to be taught at that young age!!!

``Originality`` has the seeds of the the previous thought in it- yet it is a movement away from the established horizons.

Social theory as hermeneutics of ``social reality``

Marx, Freud, Lukacs, Gramsci, Habermas, Jameson, Adorno, Barthes, Bakhtin, Jakobson, Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Kristeva, Althusser, among others all of them opens to us disparate and bold ways of ``seeing`` the social reality- Eclecticism ensures that we respect these views as ``credible`` and respect the fact that ``truth`` cannot be monopolized by any one of these theory (like a religious book).

Demarcation Principle between ``social`` and ``natural`` theories.

Rajiv`s article revolves around the essential confusion between the aims and goals of the ``theories`` of ``natural`` science and ``social``sciences since it takes a typical ``instrumentalist view`` of the social theories.(the demarcation principle) None of the horizons presented by the above mentioned social theorists are ``scientific theories`` with any ``objective criteria`` or any ``predictive-powers``.
These are ``theories`` with LIBERATIVE intent. Their power resides in PRAXIS, their ability to guide our actions and liberate ourselves and the social surroundings from the in-equalities perpetuated by the ``web of power`` through subjugation of the human bodies.
Whereas the scientistic views of social discourse confuse the strengths of these theorists, the religious people who think ``liberation`` is a monopoly of their religious doctrines equally fail to appreciate the horizons represented by these ``theorists``.

I am waiting for Samina Shah and MniPhirSay to jump in here and rip Sokal and M. Gill to shreds for daring to suggest that their life`s study is pointless!


It is great that you found out what my life`s study was. I`d have loved to take part in this discussion if I had time. And I refuse to make time to talk with people whose primary motive is not to discuss, but to insult and deride.

Thanks for this article, it clarifies a number of things.

fuzair

~~Sokal`s response to the most extreme PoMo gibberish (that physical reality is a social construct) was to invite them to step out of his 12th story office window if they truly believed that the Law of Gravity was a ``social construct.`` ~~

hahaha

brilliant!!

:)

The following extended quotation from ``A Mathematician Reads Social Text``
by Michael C. Sullivan (http://galileo.math.siu.edu/~msulliva/Preprints/socialtext.html) I think lays out what is going on here. Andrew Ross is of course the editor who published the hoax paper and accuses Sokal of intellectual dishonesty in submitting it!

++++++++++++++
Andrew Ross edited the issue of Social Text in question and wrote an introduction for it. Ross makes clear that his sympathies lie with those who seek to ``uncover the gender-laden and racist assumptions built into the Euro-American scientific method,`` and ``to create new scientific methods rooted in the social needs of communities and accountable to social interests other than those of managerial elites in business, government, and the military.`` If he substituted ``scientific establishment`` for ``scientific method`` he would be articulating a legitimate political program with which I myself would have at least some sympathy.

Perhaps he has merely gotten his terms confused. Is he really criticizing the scientific method itself? How would he change it? We read on.

``The unjustified conferral of expertise on the scientist`s knowledge of, say, chemical materials, and not on the worker`s or the farmer`s experience with such materials, is an abuse of power that will not be opposed or altered simply by demonstrating the socially constructed nature of the scientist`s knowledge. That may help to demystify, but it must be joined by insistence on methodological reform -- to involve the local experience of users in the research process from the outset and to ensure that the process is shaped less by a manufacturer`s interests than by the needs of communities affected by the product.``

One does not have to look far to find potential for serious negative outcomes for working people arising from Ross` position. The New York Times (6/14/1996,p. A4) reports that pottery makers, including children, in Mexico are being exposed to high levels of lead from the glazes they use. People who use the pots are also at risk. The workers however don`t believe this. But the lead doesn`t care who believes what. Lead is real and so are its effects. The Mexican government has only recently developed lead free glazes. The potters will likely switch, but only because U.S. import restricts are hurting their business. ``The potters remain convinced that the lead scare is simply a foreign conspiracy,`` the Times reports. Here we have a difficult problem were science, economics and cultural pride all meet. This is the type of problem natural and social scientists should be working on together. But Ross` approach confuses the issue, and hence weakens progress towards a goal that I share.

Still skeptical? Don`t think someone as educated as Ross could fall into such a trap? Think again: ``... we begin to talk about different ways of doing science, ways that downgrade methodology, experiment, and manufacturing in favor of local environments, cultural values, and principles of social justice.`` Ross is unwilling, on principle, to separate his political views from his analysis. There is nothing wrong with having a political agenda, or using it as a basis from which to formulate questions for study. But you can`t answer questions about science, or even politics, with your politics. Ross asserts that that which he doesn`t like should downgraded, while politically good things should be elevated to the status of science. It doesn`t matter that ``manufacturing`` has nothing to do with ``doing science``; capitalists like manufacturing and science was created under capitalism. It reminds one of an ideologue who evaluates art based on the politics of the artist.
++++++++++++++++++++

If you haven`t spent much time hanging around the social science and humantities departments of researcy universities, you might be amazed that there are people this stupid out there. Rest assured, there are. For some reason, English and Modern Languages Departments seem to be particulary full of these kinds of brain-dead morons but Sociology and Anthropology departments have more than their fair share. From my personal experience, Economics probably is the least infested. However, we do tend to have quite a few New Clasical economists....

Sokal`s response to the most extreme PoMo gibberish (that physical reality is a social construct) was to invite them to step out of his 12th story office window if they truly believed that the Law of Gravity was a ``social construct.``

BTW, unlike most of the critics of Post Modernism, Sokal is a hard-core old-time leftie who despises Post Modernism for its self-obsessed navel-gazing and the intense pleasure it derives from listening to its own gibberish. That is, Sokal actually wants to do something (raise minimum wage, bring about socialised medicine, or whatever) and the Post Modernists just prefer to sit in their lofty ivory towers and debate the modern version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As far as Soakl is concerned, this is nothing but intellectual masturbation that serves no useful purpose whatsoever other than to make them feel important.

I am waiting for Samina Shah and MniPhirSay to jump in here and rip Sokal and M. Gill to shreds for daring to suggest that their life`s study is pointless!