Date: Tue, 01 Nov 1994 16:50:16 +0000 (GMT) From: M Kusch <mkusch@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk> To: h-verkko@sara.cc.utu.fi Subject: Re: Paremmuus tieteessa
Esa Itkonen writes:
> 1) Kuten jo aiemmin sanoin, tieteeseen itseensa on sisaan
> rakennuttu parempana-olemisen-halu. Tasta vakuuttuakseen
> tarvitsee vain tutstua H-verkon keskusteluun, jossa oikeassa
> oleminen on arvo ylitse muiden.
>From this one cannot infer that the history of science should be
evaluative, too. Otherwise one might as well say that since
(much of) poetry is written in verse therefore the history of
poetry should be written in verse as well.
> 2) Tieteen historioihin (toisin kuin yleiseen
> historiankirjoitukseen) on sisaan rakennettu paremmuden
> kasite. Jokaisessa historiassa eraita kohdellaan toisia
> parempina (vaikka tama HUOM. esim. metodologisissa
> jaksoissa saatetaan kiistaa). En ymmarra miksi tama seikka
> pitaisi kiistaa. Muodinmukainen relativismi ei ole riittava syy.
The question is not whether the concept of being-better is factually part of much writing in the history of science but whether this state of affairs is to be preferred over another in which history of science is written differently. -
There is also a type of writing the history of science which does not have the concept of being better built into it. - Such histories seek to understand how standards of evaluation became established and how they are maintained.
Cf. e.g. Shapin, A_Social_History_of_Truth_, Chicago University Press, 1994.
> 3) Ei ole totta, etta - kuten eras kirjoittaja otaksui - menneet
> oppineet pannaan arvojarjestykseen (vain) sen mukaan,
> miten lahelle he ovat paasseet nykyhetkea. Eras - toteutuva
> - lisamahdollisuus on se, etta jo heidan OMA
> kulttuurinsa/perinteensa piti ja pitaa heita parhaina.
Fair enough, that does occur. The social (relativistic) historian will then want to know which factors brought it about that similar standards of evaluations were used in two different cultures. She will not jump to the conclusion that because similar standards happen to appear in more than one culture THEREFORE universalism is true.
> Muodinmukaisemmin ajatteleva historiotsija pyyhkaisee
> tallaiset mietteet sivuun huomauttamalla, etta mikali me
> olisimme marsilaisia, nakemyksemme tieteesta saattaisi olla
> toinen. (Tatahan mina en oikeastaan olekaan kiistanyt.)
This comment betrays a lack of historical knowledge. We don't have to go as far as Mars to find beings who have a different conception of what science is about and for. There are good studies, e.g. on the emergence of styles of reasoning within science, that tell fine-grained stories of alternative conceptions of science. My own favourite is again a study by Shapin (&Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump) but I'm sure other readers of this list will have other texts in mind.
P.S. Apologies for using English rather than Finnish.
Martin Kusch Science Studies Unit University of Edinburgh