|
T
|
|
Chapter 11
The Postmodern Method:
Science
Discussion Guide
- When discussing Kuhn's and Feyerabend's work, Dr. Campbell refers
to "paradigms." Have you heard people using this word more
lately? When postmodernists use the term, a paradigm is a model within
which one set of truths hold. Other paradigms have their own sets of
truths. In other words, a paradigm is similar to the idea of a cultural
"reality" or, to use terminology from literary theory, a paradigm
is similar to a social "text" or "story." However,
postmodernists aren't the only ones who use the term paradigm. How might
people use the term paradigm without loading it with postmodern ideology?
- Dr. Campbell names several features used in scientific research intended
to reduce bias and enhance objectivity. He included replication, blind
testing, peer review and falsifiability. Do you think these aspects
of research promise that scientific research will be relatively objective?
How might each fail to do what it was intended to do?
- Dr. Campbell says, "This is a contradiction within modernism:
Their conclusions are supposed to be based on reason and observation,
not on faith. Yet, confidence in things like observation require faith.
They end up using faith, even as they argue against faith." Could
you articulate this point to a sharp, learned modernist? Write a list
of questions that would lead a modernist thinker to see this contradiction.
- Dr. Campbell quotes Renee Weber when she says, "Science as it
is used in this book stands for the attitude of Einstein rather than
of Bacon: an attitude of kinship with nature rather than of exploitive
power over her." Can you think of any movies or books that have
portrayed science as primarily an exploiter and destroyer of nature?
- In this chapter, Dr. Feyerabend suggests that science has no more
legitimacy or authority than other approached to reality, like magic.
How would you respond to such a claim?
Facilitator's Guide for Science
- When discussing Kuhn's and Feyerabend's work, Dr. Campbell refers
to "paradigms." Have you heard people using this word more
lately? When postmodernists use the term, a paradigm is a model within
which one set of truths hold. Other paradigms have their own sets of
truths. In other words, a paradigm is similar to the idea of a cultural
"reality" or, to use terminology from literary theory, a paradigm
is similar to a social "text" or "story." However,
postmodernists aren't the only ones who use the term paradigm. How might
people use the term paradigm without loading it with postmodern ideology?
- Before postmodernism, a paradigm was a model, or a way of approaching
an area of thought. For instance, people who believed the world was
flat, had a collection of reasons for that belief, and found it difficult
to accept evidence that the world was round. After all, the horizon
on the ocean was flat, water didn't run off the surface of the world,
etc. After the world was shown to be round, these people experienced
a paradigm shift--they had to change not only the way they viewed the
world from flat to round, but also all the associated factors they earlier
thought demonstrated the flatness of the world. Note that this does
not suggest that the world really was flat for them--in fact the real
world was always round. But to postmodernists, paradigms are reality.
We cannot speak of a "real" world out there.
- Dr. Campbell names several features used in scientific research intended
to reduce bias and enhance objectivity. He included replication, blind
testing, peer review and falsifiability. Do you think these aspects
of research promise that scientific research will be relatively objective?
How might each fail to do what it was intended to do?
- Replication could fail because the other research team produce the
same results, but accept the interpretation on those results suggested
by the first researcher. Later, it may be proven that while the results
were valid the interpretation was wrong.
- Blind testing could demonstrate a true correlation between one thing
and another, but still fail to reveal the true cause and effect relationship
between them. Just because we show that two things are statistically
correlated, does not mean we have demonstrated what is the cause and
what is the effect. Blind testing eliminates researcher bias, but cannot
fix an improperly structured experiment.
- Peer review can fail because other scientists may be locked into
a paradigm that causes them to exclude contradictory information. For
instance, stomach ulcers have only recently been shown to be the result
of bacterial infection. For decades scientists have missed this fact
in unison.
- Some correct findings cannot be falsified, and some false conclusions
cannot be demonstrated as false either. Particularly in more theoretical
fields of study, conclusions are arrived at inductively, and are only
accepted as the most probable conclusion.
- Dr. Campbell says, "This is a contradiction within modernism:
Their conclusions are supposed to be based on reason and observation,
not on faith. Yet, confidence in things like observation require faith.
They end up using faith, even as they argue against faith." Could
you articulate this point to a sharp, learned modernist? Write a list
of questions that would lead a modernist thinker to see this contradiction.
To the modernist:
1. How do you know the data of your senses corresponds to the "real"
world?
2. How do you know cause and effect and natural laws operate the same
way in all parts of the universe?
3. If cause and effect in a closed system accounts for everything,
what caused the big bang? If you don't know, isn't your belief that
cause and effect accounts for everything based on blind faith?
Think of some more if you can.
- Dr. Campbell quotes Renee Weber when she says, "Science as it
is used in this book stands for the attitude of Einstein rather than
of Bacon: an attitude of kinship with nature rather than of exploitive
power over her." Can you think of any movies or books that have
portrayed science as primarily an exploiter and destroyer of nature?
- Go to a video or book store and browse the most popular rentals or
books for examples here.
- In this chapter, Dr. Feyerabend suggests that science has no more
legitimacy or authority than other approached to reality, like magic.
How would you respond to such a claim?
- Magic explains disease as a symptom of spirit possession or cursing.
Medical science can heal many of the same diseases magic is helpless
to heal. Life expectancy has more than doubled in areas where magic
healing has been replaced by medical science.
- The same people who claim science has never done anything better
than magic fly planes, drive cars, and write their anti-scientific books
on computers while listening to their radios!
Think of more examples if you can.
Read onto the next section of the study guide
Send
a comment to Dennis
Return to the Table of Contents page
Return to the Download Options page
Return to the Death of Truth page
Return to the Crossroads Project
Return to the Xenos home page
|
