DOCSLIB.ORG

Controversy in Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Controversy in Science Perspectives Controversy in science M G NARASIMHAN Science and Society Unit, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore 560 012, India (Fax, 91-80-3346634; Email, [email protected]) 1. Introduction controversy unless there is an active involvement of the scientific community. The protracted nature of a contro- Although science abounds in controversies, detailed histo- versy invests it with a historical character and community rical and sociological studies of their structure and role in participation gives it a crucial social dimension. The clash the growth of scientific knowledge are of a recent origin. of epistemic claims makes it a cognitive event. Thus, a Controversies are sufficiently ubiquitous for them to be controversy embodies an entire range of forces that propel considered as indicators of intellectual change. They science forward. characterize developments within and about science. As Helga Nowotny (1975, as cited in Mendelsohn 1987), a 2.1 Scientific controversy: role of different factors sociologist of science, observes, “controversies are an integral part of the collective production of knowledge; As a historical event, a given controversy is influenced by disagreement on concepts, methods, interpretations and a variety of factors. Historians generally divide these into applications are the very lifeblood of science and one of internal and external factors. Arguing that this traditional the most productive factors in scientific development”. distinction is inadequate, McMullin classifies the factors Affirming this observation, Mendelsohn (1987), a histo- constituting a controversy into two broad categories, rian of science, points out that controversies are funda- epistemic and non-epistemic. He further classifies mental to the production of knowledge in the sciences and epistemic factors into standard and non-standard epi- that conflict is a natural outcome of the structure of scien- stemic factors. tific enterprise. Elaborating his distinction between epistemic and non- epistemic factors, McMullin observes that an epistemic factor is one which the concerned scientist would take to 2. Theoretical aspects be a proper part of the arguments she is making. These epistemic factors may be located first in published work Following McMullin (1987), I define ‘controversy’ as a which includes reports of observations and experiments, publicly conducted and persistently maintained dispute hypotheses, assumptions considered in their logical inter- over a matter of belief considered significant by a number relation and temporal sequence. In addition to such of practicing scientists. This definition holds three impor- explicit considerations, there are implicit factors as tant implications. These are: principles of method whose warrant is broader than that of (i) A scientific controversy is an event that endures over a the observational aspect of science. These factors are period of time. This temporal extension implies that a “epistemic because they are of the knowledge structure controversy is a historical event and its analysis is mainly that the protagonists are setting at risk. What counts is a historian’s task. what they proposed, believed, assumed to be relevant to (ii) A scientific controversy signals the participants’ the merits of the case that they are debating” (McMullin desire to demonstrate the well foundedness of their “epi- 1987, emphasis in the original). stemic” claims (i.e. knowledge claims which carry certain These points may be summarized thus: A controversy truth values). recaptures the essential spirit of science in that it is part of (iii) Finally, a scientific controversy is a public event. No the dynamics of science that aims at demonstrating the disagreement, however profound, can acquire the status of surety of the foundations on which knowledge is based. J. Biosci. | Vol. 26 | No. 3 | September 2001 | 299–304 | © Indian Academy of Sciences 299 300 M G Narasimhan And what determines whether a particular factor that goes ground, a beginning, a middle stage of active exchange into the constitution of controversy is ‘epistemic’ or not and an end. It should also be noted that the different ways is the judgment of its relevance by the participants in which controversies come to a close make for fascinating (including the concerned scientific community) in the historical research. McMullin identifies three different controversy. ways in which controversies are terminated, namely, reso- While McMullin identifies epistemic factors (both lution, closure and abandonment. Here we will focus standard and non-standard) with observation, hypothesis attention on the ways in which controversies are resolved. and internal logic of a given controversy, he points out According to McMullin (1987) “the controversy may that non-epistemic factors are found in personality traits, be resolved, i.e. agreement may be reached on the merits institutional pressures, political influences, and ‘chance of the case. The participants themselves and the scientific events’. He argues that these non-epistemic factors also community of their time are the judges of whether resolu- affect the outcome of the controversy; any account of the tions has occurred. The factors involved in satisfactory historical event which did not involve the role of such resolution are necessarily epistemic ones. And they will factors would be incomplete. But these do not form part of be standard epistemic ones in the eyes of the participants the ‘truth’ argument; that is, they would not be cited by those themselves”. He also points out that “the outcome of influenced by them as relevant to the merits of the case. controversy resolutions is that one or the other of the contested views (or perhaps a modified ‘middle’ view is 2.2 A taxonomy of controversies accepted by both sides)”. In other words, there can be either total resolution with a new theory completely sup- Based on the nature of the issues giving rise to disagree- planting an extant theory as in the case of the oxygen – ments in a given controversy, such events can be classi- phlogiston dispute, or ‘mixed’ resolution with the con- fied into (i) controversies of fact, (ii) controversies of tending theories co-existing with each other. Such mixed theory, (iii) controversies of principle and (iv) mixed resolutions are more common in biology than in other controversies. Whereas the first three belong to the disciplines as exemplified by the debate between prefor- domain of natural sciences, mixed controversies include mationists and epigeneticists in the history of embryology. issues related to technological applications and are con- But not all controversies terminate in such a triumphant or cerned with the moral or political principles on which the equitable resolution. As Max Planck put it while discuss- community is divided. ing Boltzmann’s fight against Ostwald and the adherents Of this taxonomy, the commonest kind of controversy of Energetics, “(a) new scientific truth does not triumph in science originates in differences over theory. Two or by convincing its opponents and making them see the more theories are put forward to account for the same light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and phenomena. When the contending theories are mutually a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” incompatible or irreducible every effort is made to elimi- (Planck 1950). nate all except one. Such attempts at elimination take the Resolution as defined here is based on arguments whose form of sustained debates or controversies. The possibility soundness enables their adherents to reach a convincing of scientific controversies of this kind is itself a statement position, thereby rendering opposite views incorrect. Histo- on the fluidity of the philosophical situation (broadly rically, soundness has been judged according to the rules of construed) involving theory evaluation and theory choice. evidence and inference that are contextually conditioned. Although various logical models are available, the criteria Nevertheless, scientific communities attempt to resolve for theory assessment and choice are not unambiguous or scientific controversies by appealing to rules of evidence algorithmic in their operation. There is no evaluation and inference that are, as far as possible, undistorted by the metric that allows automatic and infallible choice between personal and ideological presumptions of the participants. the theories being debated. Polanyi (1958) even claims Later historians and other critics of science (including phi- that there is no objective framework which can account losophers and sociologists) may, however, disclose distor- for the scientists’ acceptance or rejection of theories. In tions and demonstrate the presence of “non-epistemic” general, only when one of the competing theories accumu- factors in the formation of the community’s judgment. lates a significantly better record over its rivals does reso- lution of the debate become possible. 3. Illustrations 2.3 Scientific controversy: termination Having briefly outlined the nature and structure of scien- tific controversy, we will briefly consider in this part three While examining the temporal dimension of controver- historical case studies, which illuminate different aspects sies, it should be noted that every controversy has a back- of a given controversy. J. Biosci. | Vol. 26 | No. 3 | September 2001 Controversy in science 301 3.1 Darwin and Glen Roy of the Roads
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Participation in a Techno-Scientific Controversy
    PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791 . Deliverable Number 16 Work Package 6 _ GM Food THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY Larry Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski with Maria Kousis and Yannis Volakakis 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791 . Deliverable Number 16 WORK PACKAGE 6 _ GM FOOD THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN A TECHNO-SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY Larry Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski with Maria Kousis and Yannis Volakakis 1 The Paganini Project Focussing on selected key areas of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technology, PAGANINI investigates the ways in which participatory practices contribute to problem solving in a number of highly contentious fields of EU governance. PAGANINI looks at a particular dynamic cluster of policy areas concerned with what we call “the politics of life”: medicine, health, food, energy, and environment. Under “politics of life” we refer to dimensions of life that are only to a limited extent under human control - or where the public has good reasons to suspect that there are serious limitations to socio-political control and steering. At the same time, “politics of life” areas are strongly connected to normative, moral and value-based factors, such as a sense of responsibility towards the non-human nature, future generations and/or one‟s
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts RHETORIC FOR BECOMING OTHERWISE: LIFE, LITERATURE, GENEALOGY, FLIGHT A Dissertation in English by Abram D. Anders © 2009 Abram D. Anders Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2009 ii The dissertation of Abram D. Anders was reviewed and approved* by the following: Richard M. Doyle Professor of English and Science, Technology and Society Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Jeffrey T. Nealon Liberal Arts Research Professor of English Xiaoye You Assistant Professor of English and Asian Studies Robert A. Yarber, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Art Robert R. Edwards Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English and Comparative Literature Department of English Graduate Director *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. iii ABSTRACT Rhetoric for Becoming Otherwise begins with the Isocratean premise that thought, speech, writing are best understood as bridges between the already said of language and the emerging circumstances that are the occasions for their production. This argument is rehearsed across a variety of domains and instances following Isocrates exhortation that the rhetorician or practitioner of philosophia can only model the movement of discourse without expecting to provide any “true knowledge” or “absolute theory” for how to encounter the problematics of an endlessly deferred present. As a matter of rhetoric, becoming otherwise is the continually renewed task of creating something new from the resources of language and for the demands of an ever deferred present—Presocratics versus Classicists (Chapter 1). As a matter of health, becoming otherwise is the necessity of overcoming limitation and suffering in order to achieve new norms of health and pursue the ever changing opportunities of a self‐developing capacity for producing new capacities—Normativity versus Normalization (Chapter 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Nanoscience, Nanoscientists, and Controversy1
    Chapter 12 Nanoscience, Nanoscientists, and Controversy1 Jason Scott Robert 12.1 Introduction Contemporary life sciences and biotechnology research is controversial. Whether the topic is embryos, evolution, genetics, neuroimaging, pharmaceutical discovery, synthetic biology, or xenotransplantation, the research is subject to public, political, legal, regulatory, clinical, and/or scientific controversy. In some cases, the controversy may not be worth engaging, given the credibility (or, rather, lack thereof) of those who would object. Often, though, those who would object must be taken seriously— and even where the objectors lack credibility, any response to them must itself be serious. These are basic elements of civility in a pluralistic society, and yet they are widely ignored when science and scientists are the subjects of controversy. As a scholar of the life sciences in society, I have tended to pay less attention to the question of generally whether research in chemistry, math, physics, or engineering is as widely deemed to be controversial as is research in biology and biotechnology— except, of course, where that research is oriented toward or undertaken in concert with the life sciences (as with engineering in relation to stem cell biology, or chemistry in relation to directed molecular evolution). But with advances in nanos- cale science and engineering (NSE) research, it is hard to miss the fact that NSE is an exemplar of research in the natural and physical sciences that is controversial both in relation to the life sciences (as expected) but also in its own right. Whether because of the spatial or financial scale of the research, or because of the prospects for immense changes—good and bad—in science, industry, medicine, and society, or for a combination of these or other reasons, NSE research is paradigmatically controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Decision-Making Under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle Olivier Godard
    Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle Olivier Godard To cite this version: Olivier Godard. Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precaution- ary Principle. C. Joerges, K.-H. Ladeur and E. Vos. Integrating scientific expertise into regulatory decisionmaking - National experiences and European innovations., Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft„ pp.39- 73, 1997. halshs-00624027 HAL Id: halshs-00624027 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00624027 Submitted on 15 Sep 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Published in C. Joerges, K.-H. Ladeur and E. Vos (eds.), Integrating scientific expertise into regulatory decision- making - National experiences and European innovations. Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1997, pp. 39-73. Social Decision-Making under Scientific Controversy, Expertise, and the Precautionary Principle Olivier GODARD * Abstract Integrating scientific inputs into the regulatory process is generally attributed to experts. But, environmental issues are often characterised by an all-pervasive uncertainty and scientific and social controversies which make the experts' task difficult. This paper presents the concept of social decision-making under scientific controversy and comes to an examination of the implicit but decisive roles expected from expertise in those contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived [Post-Print]
    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Faculty Scholarship 2017 Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived [post-print] Mark P. Silverman Trinity College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/facpub Part of the Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons Science & Education 26 (3) (2017) 397-405 DOI 10.1007/s11191-017-9886-2 The published article is available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-017-9886-2 Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived M P Silverman, G A Jarvis Professor of Physics Trinity College, Hartford CT 06106 USA Email: [email protected] Web: mpsilverman.com Review of David Harker (2015) Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. ISBN: 9781107706903, 266 pages, price (PB): $28.99 (paperback) 1 Characteristics of Real Science and Real Scientific Controversy Science is more of a journey than a destination. And, as to be expected of any journey taken by diverse travellers to an unexplored place, there may arise disagreements over how to get there, what is seen, and what it all means. If the place is relatively unimportant and the number of travellers few, the discord rarely spreads far. But if the destination is important, the travellers are many, and the outcome of getting there (or not) is consequential, disagreements can escalate into a broadly sweeping controversy with a lot at stake. Some 25 years ago, I had the pleasure of contributing an invited paper (M P Silverman, 1992, “Raising Questions: Philosophical Significance of Controversy in Science”, Science & Education 1: 163-179) to the inaugural volume of this journal on the provocative topic of the significance of controversy in science.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Pandemic and the Fool's Errand of Pseudoscience-Based Decision-Making COVID-19 Pandemic and the Fool's Errand of Ps
    TIO CA N A DU N COVID-19 Pandemic and the Fool’s Errand of E D 9 A 1 C - Pseudoscience-Based Decision-Making T D I I O V N O C Science is a very successful and reliable enterprise for denial or inappropriate skepticism — rejecting or creating understanding the natural world. Without science and the doubt about science in order to fabricate an illusion that a technology that stems from science, human population scientific controversy exists. Both forms result in and life-expectancy would be a fraction of what it is now. uncertainty about and resistance to reliable scientific Tombstones in cemeteries provide testimony of how knowledge and consensus. This leads to doubting the prevalent childhood and early adult deaths were prior to community of authentic experts and a hesitancy to act advancements in science. Ironically, the success of appropriately to very real problems. Most disconcerting is science and technology blinds many people to the realities the purposeful promotion of pseudoscience for personal, of life and death in the not-to-distant past. Those who economic, and/or ideological reasons. The COVID-19 faced the ravages of disease, common ailments, pandemic illustrates how pseudoscience promotes poor inhospitable weather, and other devastating realities of life decision-making that places all of society at risk, and how would be shocked at the advances that we now take for the navigation of information and identification of granted. They would likely be equally perplexed at the trustworthy expertise are crucial for better decision- significant and growing distrust of advances in science making.
    [Show full text]
  • STS and Researcher Intervention Strategies
    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2 (2016), 55-66 DOI:10.17351/ests2016.15 STS and Researcher Intervention Strategies BRIAN MARTIN1 University of Wollongong Abstract When I learned about a concerted campaign against Australian vaccination critics, I decided to intervene in the debate. As a result, some proponents of vaccination turned on me, making abusive comments and complaining to university officials. At several points in this experience, I had to make choices about how to intervene or respond. STS perspectives offered valuable insights for understanding the dynamics of the controversy but provided little guidance for making decisions. Some reasons are offered for why STS lacks tools for guiding practical action in such situations. Keywords STS methodology; controversy; vaccination; engagement; dissent Introduction I’ve been thinking and writing from an STS perspective for decades. One of my special interests is public scientific controversies such as over nuclear power, fluoridation, and pesticides (Martin 2014a: 443–448). STS concepts, such as “boundary work” (Gieryn 1999), the role of interests in shaping scientific knowledge (Barnes 1977), and “undone science” (Hess 2006), are valuable in understanding the dynamics of controversies, and there are many insightful case studies (Kleinman et al. 2005, 2008, 2010). In 2010, when I first became involved in the Australian vaccination debate, I found STS concepts quite useful for understanding the controversy. But I encountered an aspect of the debate for which STS guidance was limited: how to respond to attacks and, more generally, how to proceed when intervening in the debate itself. For example, I needed to decide whether and how to respond to comments like this: Yep, that’s why I told Martin to fuck off; I don’t deal with liars.
    [Show full text]
  • Manipulating Underdetermination in Scientific Controversy: the Case Of
    Manipulating Underdetermination in Scientiªc Controversy: The Case of the Molecular Clock Michael R. Dietrich Dartmouth College Robert A. Skipper, Jr. University of Cincinnati Where there are cases of underdetermination in scientiªc controversies, such as the case of the molecular clock, scientists may direct the course and terms of dispute by playing off the multidimensional framework of theory evaluation. This is because assessment strategies themselves are underdetermined. Within the framework of assessment, there are a variety of trade-offs between differ- ent strategies as well as shifting emphases as speciªc strategies are given more or less weight in assessment situations. When a strategy is underdetermined, scientists can change the dynamics of a controversy by making assessments using different combinations of evaluation strategies and/or weighting what- ever strategies are in play in different ways. Following an underdetermina- tion strategy does not end or resolve a scientiªc dispute. Consequently, manip- ulating underdetermination is a feature of controversy dynamics and not controversy closure. 1. Introduction Underdetermination is common in scientiªc practice. It is widely recog- nized by scientists even if they do not discuss it in terms frequently used by philosophers. We argue that in the course of scientiªc controversies un- derdetermination can be and often is manipulated by scientists to direct the terms and course of dispute. During a dispute, scientists use a wide ar- ray of different strategies in different combinations in their comparative Thanks to Dick Burian, Roberta Millstein, and two anonymous reviewers for Perspectives on Science for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. RASjr also acknowledges the support of the Charles P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Drama of Bioterror: Paranoia and the Rhetoric of Defense
    THE DRAMA OF BIOTERROR: PARANOIA AND THE RHETORIC OF DEFENSE By George Huston Gittinger BA, Tulane University, 2002 MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2011 MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2013 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Communication University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by George Huston Gittinger It was defended on November 15, 2014 Dr. Heather Douglas, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy Dr. Olga Kuchinskaya, Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Dr. Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Dr. John Poulakos, Associate Professor, Department of Communication Dissertation Director: Dr. John Lyne, Professor, Department of Communication ii Copyright © by George Huston Gittinger 2014 iii THE DRAMA OF BIOTERROR: PARANOIA AND THE RHETORIC OF DEFENSE George Huston Gittinger, Ph. D. University of Pittsburgh, 2014 This study provides an account of how a rhetoric of bioterrorism developed and investigates its consequences. Currently, two competing ways of talking about bioterror, the skeptical and the paranoid, have been obscured because biosecurity researchers infrequently consider how particular historical and imagined events come to be defined as examples of bioterrorism. These rhetorical styles and their associated attitudes responded to a recurring problem in the history of biothreats – that there is rarely enough evidence to give clear accounts of the presence and origin of particular threats. As a result, conjectures become part of a unified history of bioterror, washing out the actual complexity of describing these rare events.
    [Show full text]
  • Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Need to Resurrect the Philosophical Insight of Frye V
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 10, Number 2 Winter 1997 A "DOGMA OF EMPIRICISM" REVISITED: DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND THE NEED TO RESURRECT THE PHILOSOPHICAL INSIGHT OF FRYE V. UNITED STATES Adina Schwartz" TABLEOF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 151 II. DAUBERT'SALTERNATIVE TO FRYE ..................... 156 III. A PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE OF FALSIHABILH'Y ........... 165 A Popper's Project ................................ 165 B. Testability Is an Inadequate Logical Criterion ........ 168 I. Hempel's Critique ........................... 168 2. Facts Are TheorY-Laden ...................... 171 C. Testability Is an Inadequate Methodological Criterion.. 176 I. Basic Statements ............................. i77 2. The Prohibition ofAd Hocness ................. 179 3. The Distinction Between Scientific DiscoverY and Criticism .................................. 183 D. Practicing Scientists Are Not-- and Should Not Be w Falsificationists .................. 186 E. No Archimedean Standpoint Exists ................. 189 IV. IMPLICATIONS OF THE CRITIQUE OF DAUBER~ THE NEED TO RESURRECT AND REVAMP FRYE ............ 193 A. FrYe 's'Underlying Philosophical Insight. ,..... ...... 193 B. The Need for a Special Standard for the Admission of Scientific Evidence .............................. 196 C. The Need for a RevampedFrye Standard ............ 198 * AssociateProfessor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York. Ph.D., The Rockefeller University, 1976; J.D.~ Yale Law School, 1985. A version of this paper was presented in The Provost's Lecture Series in Philosophy and Criminal Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, December 5, 1995. I would like to thank those present for their comments and Tom Litwack for his written comments. 150 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology [Vol: 10 V. NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR A REASONABLE JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONTHAT A THEORY OR TECHNIQUE Is SCIENTIFIC .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Controversy: Is a Controversy Mis- Represented Or Blown out Of
    10 What controversy: Is a controversy mis- represented or blown out of proportion? Here’s a headline unlikely to run in any paper: Senate get- ting along: No fights or argu- ments for days! That’s because good news is generally no news. Clashes, on the other hand, are exciting and often important. So it’s not surprising then that media reports on science often focus on controversy. However, when a scientific idea is por- trayed as controversial in the popular media or in a policy, that conflict might be one of a few different types, which stem from different sources: • Fundamental scientific controversy—sci- entists disagreeing about a central hypothesis or theory. If you imagine scientific knowledge as a web of interconnected ideas, theories and hypotheses are at the center of the web and are connected to many, many other ideas—so a controversy over one of these principal ideas has the potential to shake up the state of scientific knowledge. For exam- ple, physicists are currently in disagreement over the basic validity of string theory, the set of key ideas that have been billed as the next big leap forward in theoretical phys- ics. This is a fundamental scientific controversy. • Secondary scientific controversy—scien- tists disagreeing about a less central aspect of a scientific idea. For example, evolution- ary biologists have different views on the importance of punctuated equilibrium (a pat- tern of evolutionary change, characterized by rapid evolution interrupted by many years of constancy). This controversy focuses on an important aspect of the mode and rate of evo- lutionary change, but a change in scientists’ acceptance of punctuated equilibrium would not shake evolutionary biology to its core.
    [Show full text]
  • Blancke 2019 Pseudoscience and the End of Dialogue
    Tilburg University Pseudoscience and the end of dialogue Blancke, Stefaan Published in: Spokes Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Blancke, S. (2019). Pseudoscience and the end of dialogue. Spokes. https://www.ecsite.eu/activities-and- services/news-and-publications/digital-spokes/issue-54#section=section- indepth&href=/feature/depth/pseudoscience-and-end-dialogue General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. sep. 2021 August 2019, SPOKES #54 STEFAAN BLANCKE Assistant professor of Philosophy of Science Tilburg University The Netherlands Publications | Twitter | Email BOOK OR ARTICLE Pseudoscience and the end of dialogue How and why are science and pseudoscience so different and what does it mean for science engagement? | Estimated reading time: 22 minutes. We live in an age of science and technology, and yet, many people still adhere to all sorts of weird beliefs such as homeopathy, creationism, and conspiracy theories.
    [Show full text]