What it does - and the only thing it does - is give one a yes/no result to a question proposed under the strictest conditions. Any
application or interpretation of the results is - as far as anyone has ever been able to determine - independent of the SM itself. Or to put it another way: Examples of flawed
use of the SM do not themselves act as criticism of the SM.
The above statement actually to me encapsulates the crux of the different views here in the use of the scientific method as an agent, i.e., "it" gives a response to the question proposed under "strictest conditions." The use of agentless prose in traditional scientific lab writing contributes to the fiction that human beings aren't the ones doing the questioning, the creating of the "strict" environment, and working from the philosophical standpoint that the kind of miniaturization that lab work entails will result in useful knowledge. The "method" is created by culturally embedded humans. I like the upthread statement about good scientists being aware that their enterprise is based on an assumption of a specific philosophical stance. However, I still don't believe objectivity "exists" other than as a "useful" illusion, but not one which I believe is, in the long term and especially as the object of study comes in closer and closer to human endeavor, is particularly worth striving for. I believe taking
in, using, evaluating, multiple perspectives, however, is a much more useful perception from which to operate. But I'd argue that that's different from seeking "objectivity" which is a fantasy embedded in old Deisms--the replacement of God with Humans capable of attaining a God's eye view. I think most social-constructionist theories would, however, say that there's no there there, and feminists would particularly point out the patriarchal religious traditions that helped create that position. There's no God's eye view, because the God's eyeview--up in the sky, looking down on the worldor the experiment, take your pick, from an "objective" distance--is itself flawed and limiting.
Finally, I'm not arguing that the scientific method is "BAD," just that it is not "natural," does not exist outside culture, and is limited and it is potentially dangerous for persons to believe that it gives a kind of truth that is more Truth than any other.
And "Creation Scientists" actually, I'd argue, worship the power of scientific discourse in today's culture / the perceived ultimate rationality of science and the SM. Even though they start with the a priori assumption that their view of the Bible's message (e.g., that the world was created in 7 days about 3,000 years ago) will pass any scientific test they put it to, they pretend to be placing spiritual truth beneath scientific Truth (although most of the time they just drone on and on about how Darwin was wrong, Wrong, WRONGG!!). All of which suggests just how messed up an idea it is, to me. Hence, although I'm intrigued by how their thinking fits with the notion of the social construction of "reality," I do think it's all more complex than the earlier post suggests. In this context, in fact, the rhetorical placement of people who are arguing for a culturally-constructed reality in the same boat as Creation Scientists is a bit like comparing your opponent's position in ethical arguments to Hitler. It's too easy, generally unfair and primarily serves as a distracting ad hominem attack. |
