Uncle Sam Wants You 英语短文.docx

Uncle Sam Wants You 英语短文.docx

《Uncle Sam Wants You 英语短文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Uncle Sam Wants You 英语短文.docx（7页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

UncleSamWantsYou英语短文

Science14May1999:

Vol.284no.5417pp.1131-1133

DOI:

10.1126/science.284.5417.1131

Books

HISTORYANDPHILOSOPHYOFSCIENCE

UncleSamWantsYou

AreviewbyDavidL.Hull*

1.DavidL.Hull*

+AuthorAffiliations

1.TheauthorisintheDepartmentofPhilosophy,NorthwesternUniversity,BrentanoHall,1818HinmanAvenue,Evanston,IL60208,USA.E-mail:

d-hull@nwu.edu

MysteryofMysteriesIsEvolutionaSocialConstruction?

MichaelRuseHarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA,1999.320pp.$27.50,£16.95.ISBN0-674-46706-X.

Manyscientists,possiblymostscientists,justdosciencewithoutthinkingtoomuchaboutit.Theyrunexperiments,makeobservations,showhowcertaindataconflictwithmoregeneralviews,setouttheories,andsoon.Periodically,however,someofus—scientistsincluded—stepbackandlookatwhatisgoingoninscience.Indoingso,studentsofscienceusesomeofthesametechniquesthatscientistsuse.Forexample,weattempttoshowthatscienceisprogressivebydetailingthehistoryofscienceoverthepastcouplehundredyears.Orwearguethatscientistshavebeenstronglyinfluencedbytheirculturesbylookingatparticularinstancesofsuchculturalinfluence.Inthisrespect,thestudyofscienceisreflexive.Wegatherdataaboutsciencetoshowexactlyhowinfluentialdataare（orarenot）inscience.Theresulthasbeenthesciencewars.

Thetwoextremepositionsinthisdisputeoverthenatureofsciencearesocialconstructivismandpositivism.Themostextremeconstructivistsseemtoholdthatallofus,scientistsincluded,arehelplessvictimsinthemawsofoursocieties.Weallbelievewhatoursocietiesforceustobelieve.Onthisextremeview,theappealsthatscientistsmaketoreason,argument,andevidencearemerelysomuchshowtocoverthesocialoriginsofourbeliefs.Thetroubleisthatconstructivistsliveinpreciselythesamesocietiesastherestofus.Somehowtheyareabletofreethemselvesfromtheineluctableholdthatsocietyhasonthem,butstrangelytherestofuscannot.Conversely,positivistsareportrayedasevil,insistingthatscientificworldviewsaretotallydevoidofanysuchconsiderations—inparticularofanyappealstovalues.Scientistssimplytellitlikeitis.Reason,argument,andevidenceareallthatmatter.Mostoftheissuesthatothersfindsofascinating,includingmetaphysics,arejustnonsense.Thatpositivistsspentsomuchtimewritingonissuesthatsurelycountasmetaphysical,includingtheclaimthatmetaphysicsisnonsense,hardlywarrantsmentioning.

Asiscommonlythecase,bothsidesengagedinthesciencewarsareconstantlyonthemove:

advancing,retreating,andcoveringtheirtracks,asbestastheycan,withverbalsmokescreens.Combatantsonbothsidesinsistthattheyneverheldanyoftheviewsforwhichtheyarefamous.Instead,theywaffleextensively.Constructivistsclaimtheyalwaysacknowledgedthatreason,argument,andevidenceplaycrucialrolesinscience.Allthattheyareattemptingtopointoutisthatsocialfactorsalsoplayimportantrolesinscience,attimesoverwhelmingmorenarrowlyscientificfactors.Moretraditionalphilosophersobjecttobeingtarredwiththesamebrushastheextremepositivists.Professionalandsocialfactorsplaypartsinscience,ofcourse,butsodoreason,argument,andevidence;andinthelongrun,morenarrowlyscientificfactorstriumph.Hence,theonlydifferencebetweenthetwosidesisestimationofrelativeimportance.

Asreasonableasthesemoremoderatepositionsmayseem,theiradvocatesstillmustconfronttheproblemofreflexivity.Howdowedecidetherelativeimportanceofscientificandculturalfactorsinthedecisionsthatscientistsmake?

Ifwestudysciencescientifically,thenwerunthedangerofcircularity.Ifwearetostudyscienceinsomeotherways,whataretheoutlinesofthesealternatives?

Noonehassuggestedanyyet.ItisherethatMichaelRuse,inhisMysteryofMysteries,stepsintothebreach.WhenJohnHerschelreferredtothemysteryofmysteriesin1836,hehadinmindthereplacementofspeciesthroughtime,whatwehavecometocallbiologicalevolution.Rusehastheevolutionofscienceinmind,andtheevolutionofscienceisasmysterioustodayastheevolutionofspecieswasacenturyandahalfago.

Ruseproposestoinvestigatethehistoryofevolutionarybiologyfromthelate18thcenturytothepresenttodeterminetheinfluenceofvariousfactorsindecidingthecourseofthisscientificdiscipline.Heselectsadozenorsoevolutionarybiologiststostudy.HebeginswithErasmusDarwinasarepresentativeofapre-Darwinianevolutionist.Forthe19thcentury,hequitenaturallyturnstoErasmusDarwin'sgrandson,Charles,andT.H.Huxley.Then,fromthiscentury,RusediscussesJulianHuxley,TheodosiusDobzhansky,RichardDawkins,StephenJayGould,RichardLewontin,E.O.Wilson,GeoffreyParker,andJackSepkoski.Becauseevolutionarytheoryhasbeenoneofthechiefbattlefieldsinthewarbetweenconstructivistsandpositivists,Rusecouldnothavepickedamoreappropriatetopicofstudy.Wehaveallheard,timeandagain,thatthereasonDarwin'stheorywassoindividualistic,competitive,elitist,sexist,andracististhatDarwin'ssocietyexhibitedthesesamecharacteristics.Darwinwassocallowthathesimplyreadthecharacteristicsofhissocietyintonature.

Ruseisuniquelypreparedtowritethisbook.HehaspublishedonthehistoryofevolutionarytheoryfrombeforeDarwintothepresent.Heisaprofessionalphilosopherofsciencewhodealswithawidespectrumoftopics,fromtheroleofreligioninsciencetothevirtuesofformalisticphilosophyofscience.Healsohasthecourageofhisconvictions—atthe1982Arkansascreationismtrialhetestifiedthatsciencecanbesharplydistinguishedfromnon-science,andthatevolutionarybiologyisclearlyonthescientificsideofthedividewhilecreationismisjustasclearlyontheunscientificside.

Asstrangeasitmaysound,courageisrequiredforwritingabooksuchasMysteryofMysteries.Historiansofscienceusuallydealwithdeadscientists.Deadscientistscannottalkback,norcantheyretaliate.Livingscientistscan.AshivergoesdownmyspinewhenIthinkofhowthelivingscientistsRusediscussesarelikelytorespondtohisbook.ButRusehasalwaysbeenwillingtocall'emashesees'em.Forthepastdozenyears,hehasconcludedeachissueofhisjournalBiology&Philosophywithasetofeditorialbooknotes.Aseachissuearrivesinthemail,Iturnfirsttohis“Booknotes”withequalpartsofanticipationandapprehension.Whatwillhesaynext,andwillitbeaboutme?

ForeachoftheevolutionarybiologiststhatRusestudies,heaskshowdosuchtraditionalepistemicvaluesaspredictiveability,consistency,andcoherencecontributetothebiologist'swork?

Healsoinvestigatestheinfluenceofwhatheterms“metavalues,”thosebeliefsthatscientistshaveaboutscienceitself.Totakeoneexample:

intheearlydaysofscience,referencestoGodinsciencewereperfectlyacceptable,butlatersuchreferenceswereexcluded.Finally,Ruseexamineswhethersuchculturalfactorsasbeliefsinprogress,maledominance,andindividualismhadsignificanteffectsonthepaththatevolutionarybiologyhastaken.

AsRuseworkshiswayfromthe18thcenturytothepresent,heevaluateseachofhissubjects,firstfromapresent-dayperspectiveandthenaccordingtothestandardsofthesubject'sowntime.Forexample,fromapresent-dayperspective,ErasmusDarwin'sZoonomia（1794）hardlyseemsthestuffofscience—afterall,itisapoem.Butinhisday,hismoreseriouscontemporariesalsohadconsiderabledoubtastowhetherhiswritingscountedasgenuinescience.Ruseagrees.TheinfluenceofepistemicvaluesintheevolutionarywritingsofErasmusDarwinwasminimal.Theeffectsofotherfactorsweremaximal.

WhenRuseturnstoCharlesDarwin,thebalanceshiftsdramatically.Darwintriedtomakehistheoryofevolutionlookasscientificaspossible,withvaryingdegreesofsuccess.Onechiefdifferencebetweenthe18thand19thcenturiesisthatsciencewaswellonitswaytobecomingprofessionalizedinDarwin'sday,andoneofthechiefmetavaluesofprofessionalsciencewasthatithadtobeasfreeofnonepistemicvaluesaspossible.Regardlessofhowimportantabeliefinprogressmayhaveactuallybeenatthetime,scientistshadtoactasifitdidnotinfluencetheiractivitiesbecausesuchbeliefswerenotgenuinelyscientific.Darwinjoinedinthisprocessofconstructingscience,andheretheconstructivistnotionof“construction”hassomebite.Nineteenth-centuryintellectualsdidnotsimplydiscoverscience.Toalargeextent,theyliterallyconstructedit.Darwin,however,wasnotentirelysuccessfulinpresentinghistheoryofevolutionasexemplifyingthebestepistemicandmetalevelvaluesofhisday.OneofthecommonestandmosteffectiveobjectionstoDarwin'stheorywasthatitwasnotgenuinescience.Ruseconcludesthatevolutionarythoughtinthelate19thcenturyis“moreepistemicallyrigorousthaniteverwas;yetatalllevelsitisthoroughlyimpregnatedwithculture”（p.80）.

AsRuseturnstoevolutionarybiologyintheearly20thcentury,thedifferencebetweenthescienceofthenandtodaydiminishesrapidlybecausethescienceofthedaywasrapidlybecomingthescienceoftoday.Thefoundersofthesynthetic,orneo-Darwinian,theoryofevolutionwereconcernedtomakeevolutionarytheoryevenmorescientificthanithadbeen,inparticularmoremathematical.Evenso,nonepistemicfactorswerealsooperative.Severalevolutionists,suchasJulianHuxley,wantedtoreplaceChristianitywithasecularre