CHAPTER 1 1. Such Critics Are Normally Inspired by The

Notes CHAPTER 1 1. Such critics are normally inspired by the postmodern philosophies of science associated with Kuhn (1970) and Feyerabend (1975). Sandra Harding (1998) uses these epistemological reorientations to argue for a more multicultural approach to the history and philosophy of science. See also Ross (1996) for a collection of articles concerned with defending feminist, multicultural, and environmental perspectives on current science. 2. The call for greater acknowledgment of multicultural traditions is often inspired by environmental, health, and sometimes feminist concerns. Nandy (1988) brings together a number of writers who wish to construct an alternative science and technology that would promote wider recognition for traditional systems of knowledge that they view as struggling against the hegemony of modern science. Caroline Merchant (1980) calls for a return to more holistic premodern traditions of knowledge to deal with environmental concerns. Morris Berman (1984) also thinks that such a return can resolve the psychological wounds suffered by humans as a result of their alienation from nature that modernity imposes. Shiva (1988) combines multicultural, feminist, and environmental critiques of science together in an attempt to expose the limits of modern science. 3. The literature of this genre has also burgeoned. See, for example, the scathingly critical views of postmodern and multicultural thought in Gross and Levitt (1994) and Gross, Levitt, and Lewis (1996). Weinberg (2001) and Wolpert (1993) are two leading scientists who have also addressed such concerns in some depth. A broader critical assessment of postmodern critiques of science can be found in Koertge (2000), Holton (1993), Kurtz and Madigan (1994), and Nanda (2003). Nanda also views with consternation the alliance of postmodern and premodern movements as a result of their shared opposition to modernist views associated with science. 4. More recently there have been attempts to open science epistemologically to a dialogue with other traditions and to go beyond the conflicts inherent in the science wars. For such approaches see Brown (2001), Ashman and Baringer (2001), and Carrier et al. (2004). 5. The dialogical perspective on the history of science can be said to have begun systematically with Needham’s series on Science and Civilization in China (Needham 1954, 1956), which showed the numerous historical contributions 186 NOTES of Chinese science to modern science. Similar attempts to document the Arabic and Indian contributions were made by Nasr (1968) and Bose, Sen, and Subbarayappa (1971), though not on the same scale. Diop (1991) worked in isolation over many decades to make the case for an Egyptian–African impact on Greek science and, indirectly, on modern science. Joseph (2000) is probably the first attempt to systematically document the dialogue of multi- ple traditions of science, in this case mathematics, as they historically inter- acted with one another and also paved the way for modern science. 6. The term Arabic is used to describe the civilization that developed under the impact of Islam but that also included many non-Arab ethnic communities (Persians, Turks, Europeans, and Indians among others), and many non-Muslim religious communities (including Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians). It stresses the fact that much of the scientific work of the civilization created as a result of the spread of Islam was written in Arabic, and even those who wrote in other languages had their studies translated into Arabic for wider dissemination. To appreciate some of the problems associated with labeling civilizations in general, and Arabic/Islamic civilization in particular, see Joseph (2000), pp. 349–352. 7. See Wolf (1982), Abu-Lughod (1989), Amin (1989), Blaut (1993), Goody (1996), Frank (1998), Pomeranz (2000), and Hobson (2004) for studies of the global sociocultural context of the rise of modern technology and society. These studies go beyond the narrow Eurocentric orientation of most socio- logical studies of the growth of modern knowledge and institutions by look- ing at the global influences that shaped European thought in the modern era. 8. In this context it is interesting to note that although postmodern thought promotes greater receptivity to the historical idea that non-Western cultures made significant contributions to modern science, it also promotes resistance to the notion that different cultures confront the same world. Most postmodern views treat multicultural perspectives as incommensurable with one another and, therefore, render them unable to develop critiques of alternative frameworks or symbiotically integrate such frameworks with each other. What they do offer is a critique of hegemonic claims made by any framework—including that of modernity. This makes it difficult to develop any critique of modernity from a postmodern perspective that would subvert its specific beliefs—except to make modernity one possible belief system among others. If this is the case, then postmodernists implicitly provide, as Vattimo argues, a defense of “weak modernity”—i.e., modernist views without hegemonic claims. See Vattimo (1988). 9. For a more detailed study of how Western technology drew on the resources of non-European cultures even in the modern era, see Dharampal (1971), Alvares (1979), Pacy (1990), and Hobson (2004). 10. Nevertheless, the alliance of postmodernists and traditionalists is often fraught with tension. Although both sides are united in their opposition to the hegemonic claims of modern science, the pluralist relativism of postmodern theory does not sit easy with traditionalist foundational beliefs. Traditionalist sympa- thies can be found in Alvares (1979) and Sardar (1988)—the former arguing for paying more regard to traditional tribal perspectives, and the latter to religious perspectives. Nanda (2003) highlights the tension between postmodern NOTES 187 relativism and traditionalist absolutism despite their shared opposition to the hegemonic claims of modernity. 11. The significance of a dialogical perspective is now being increasingly recog- nized as important for advancing science, peace, and sustainable growth. The first year of the twenty-first century was declared by the United Nations to be the International Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations. Moreover, the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and the International Union for the History and Philosophy of Science (IUHPS) have both developed position papers that support dialogue with traditional cultures to advance scientific knowledge. It is particularly in the areas of environmental knowledge, medicine, agriculture, and peace that dialogue is seen as most important. Thus historical studies that show how scientific knowledge grew in the past through a dialogue of civilizations provide support for those who wish to encourage such dialogue in the future. For more on UN efforts to develop dialogical perspectives, see UNESCO’s Dialogue Among Civilizations site: http://www.unesco.org/dialogue2001/. 12. Surprisingly, despite his involvement with issues in biotechnology, Fukuyama does not address the issue of traditional knowledge directly—nor does he examine recent literature concerned with tapping traditional environmental knowledge to advance science. His blindness in this regard is linked to his modernist belief that current science, and the method it has found, will drive the directionality of future history, and that other traditions of local knowledge are destined to fade away as influential factors in history. 13. Huntington does not think that the adoption and application of science requires Western values, and he does not see the possibility of a dialogical negotiation of shared values for all civilizations. Hence his moral perspective may be seen as indirectly consonant with a postmodern perspective, since it assumes incommensurable moral systems across civilizational divides. He splits the world into eight civilizations—Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Islamic, Western, Orthodox Russian, Latin American, and African—but sees the history of the West as essen- tially disconnected from the Rest though, paradoxically, its science is seen as acceptable to the Rest. Hence it is their religious-normative differences that lead him to see the future in terms of an emerging clash of civilizations. 14. Lynne-White first used the expression “Needham’s Grand Question,” albeit in passing. However, Needham picked up on it and considered it “one of the greatest problems in the history of civilization” (Needham 1969, p. 148). More recently, the historian of science Floris Cohen has identified it as crucial for understanding the birth and growth of modern science (Cohen 1994, p. 381, n. 5). 15. The importance, for civilizational relations, of the answer to Needham’s Grand Question is evident once we see that it has an intimate connection with Weber’s Grand Question, “Why did capitalism/modernity develop in the West and not elsewhere?” A dialogical answer to Needham’s question would suggest that civilizations can mutually enrich one another and that intercivilizational relations need not be exclusivist or adversarial. See Nelson (1974) for a more detailed study of the connection between Needham’s and Weber’s central 188 NOTES questions concerning civilizations. It is interesting that Weber’s modernist standpoint leads him to answer his question in terms of what keeps civilizations apart; Needham’s dialogical standpoint shows how civilizations

Load more