Science and Engineering Ethics (1995) 1, 71-72
Comment
Commentary and Criticism on
Scientific Positivism
Penny J. Gilmer Department of Chemistry, Florida State University, USA
Keywords: constructivist, feminine, paradigms, positivism, scientism, truth, understanding
In scientific research, we are "re-searching" our current understanding of a particular
field of science. Each day we engage in research using what we currently construct
about the system, and we ask questions based on what we have learned and what we
have a hunch we may find that fits our current model. We decide how to address the
questions by designing, executing and interpreting experiments that relate to the
question at hand. These experiments can be done either physically (in the laboratory or
the field) or mentally (in the case of theoretical or modeling work). At the end of the
day, we may have a new interpretation based on our experiments. That interpretation
will most likely change with time as we gather more data and as we learn through
communication with others (through the literature, oral communication, e-mail,
seminars, posters, etc.)
Most scientists would agree with what I have said above, yet many scientists,
including Seymour J. Garte, the author of the accompanying paper, "Guidelines for
Training in the Ethical Conduct of Scientific Research,'2 get caught in the positivism
trap that we, as scientists, can find "truth". By positivism, I mean a system of
philosophy which holds that the source of positive knowledge is facts, as elaborated
and verified using the methods of the empirical sciences. Garte stated, "Truth is an
important goal in many other fields of work, but only in science is the complete,
unmodified and total truth the sole necessary and sufficient yardstick of achievement."
I do not think we ever achieve total truth. Who defines the truth anyway?
Different scientists may well interpret the information determined in different ways
based on what they know of the world. People with different cultures, different
gender, different world views may well understand the data differently, but again it is
just a construction that will change in the light of new information.
A belief that the methods of the natural sciences can be used successfully in the
pursuit of knowledge in all fields, including the humanities, philosophy, and the social
sciences is called scientism. William Coburn (1994) in a comment and criticism paper
that deals with the problem of scientism states that, "through recognizing the tentative
nature of all scientific knowledge, scientism imbues scientific knowledge with
Laplacian certainty denied all other disciplines, thus giving science an a priori status in
the intellectual world." He continues that we construct knowledge and that "of critical
Ed. Note: In keeping with the editors' policy to encourage the presentation of different viewpoints, this
invited comment piece should be read in conjunctionwith the preceding paper by S. J. Garte, pp. 59-70.
Address for correspondence: Dr P. J. Gilmer, Department of Chemistry, Florida State University,
Tallahassee FL 32306-3006, USA
© 1995 Opragen Publications
Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1995
71
P. J. Gilmer
importance here is that constructed knowledge admits to doubt and does not carry
with it the force of truth."
Constructed knowledge is considered in the constructivist epistemology, either in
the radical (yon Glasersfeld, 1989) or the moderate form (Good and Schlagel, 1992). As
Coburn (1994) points out "constructivist epistemology...hinges on three assertions
quite alien to scientism: (1) Knowledge is a construction used to make sense of
experience; (2) the construction is always an interpretation and therefore always
fallible and inherently uncertain; and (3) all interpretations are based on prior
knowledge (i.e., prior constructions)."
Look at the history of science. Did we know the truth 100 years ago? One hundred
years from now, we will have new constructions, but they too will change with time as
we learn more. Thomas Kuhn (1970) developed the idea of scientific paradigms, and
how science proceeds by collecting data, modifying our constructions until there is a
new idea. We reinterpret what we have seen before in light of this new way of thinking
or new paradigm. We design experiments that test this new paradigm and, with time,
there will be other paradigms.
Therefore, I think we fool ourselves if we get caught in the "truth" trap. When we
say and act like we discover truth, we oversell ourselves to each other and to the
public. The public become disenchanted with science as they hear of new results that
change what they thought was "true". Scientism does not help the public understand
the nature or constructions of science.
I think it is dangerous to train our y o u n g scientists to think, as Garte states in his
last paragraph, "the only reward for a career in science is the satisfaction of
contributing to a true understanding of nature." I realize that part of what Garte means
here is that scientists should not contribute fraudulent data but instead contribute data
honestly recorded. Still we must interpret the data, and construct knowledge on the
basis of what we know now. Therefore, scientism creeps in again in Garte's
publication. Our constructions in science are only an attempt at the truth. What we
read now of how we construct understandings in science will change with time.
Therefore, can scientists contribute to a "true understanding of nature"? I refer the
readers to Kuhn's book (1970) again.
I also refer the readers to a refreshing book by Linda Jean Shepherd (1993) entitled
Lifting the Veil: The Feminine Face of Science. Not only does Shepherd discuss constructed
knowledge but she also leads us to a new way of engaging in science which accepts
that science is constructed. She leads us beyond linear thinking to a fuller science that
includes intuitive as well as analytical thinking, facilitated by cooperative group
dynamics.
REFERENCES:
1
2
3
4
5
6
72
Coburn, W.W. (1994) "Comments and Criticism. Point: Belief, Understanding the Teaching
of Evolution." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31, 583-590.
Garte, S. J. (1995) "Guidelines for Training in the Ethical Conduct of Scientific Research."
Science and Engineering Ethics 1, 59-70.
Good, R. & Schlagel, R. (1992, May) "Contextual Realism in Science and Science Teaching."
A paper presented at the Second International Conference on the History and Philosophy of
Science and Science Teaching, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Shepherd, L. J. (1993) Lifting the Veil: The Feminine Face of Science, Shambhala, Boston.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989) "Cognition, Construction of Knowledge and Teaching." Synthese
80, 121-140.
Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1995