
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
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages6 Page
-
File Size-