1. evolvingthoughts
  2. Sarkar on Fuller

Sarkar on Fuller

By evolvingthoughts on August 11, 2008.

Steven ("Steve") Fuller is a well known sociologist of science (he began as a philosopher of science but is presently employed by the University of Warwick as a sociologist). He is widely credited for the subject and journal of Social Epistemology. He is also the guy who wrote several hundred pages of "expert" opinion for the creationists in the Dover Trial for money. Never one to waste work, he has revised it as a book. Save yourself the $20 and read Sahotra Sarkar's review in the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. I particularly like the final sentences:

These excursions into fancy allow me to end on a positive note: the lack of depth or insight in this book is more than compensated by the entertainment it provides, at least to a philosopher or historian of science. No one should begrudge us our simple pleasures. I'm happy to have read this book, and even more so not to have paid for it.

Tags
creationism
design
History
Philosophy of Science
Categories
Education

More like this

Much as I hate balance, you might like to consider this more measured appraisal of Fuller, from the same Notre Dame Philosoophical Reviews, this time by Val Dusek (commenting on Fuller's book "The Knowledge Book", 2007):

Fuller's breadth of reading in the humanities and social sciences is astounding. He is knowledgeable about sociology, social history, anthropology, psychology, and a bit of economics, particularly development economics. He also has extensive familiarity with the literature of law, theology, rhetoric, history, philosophy, history of science, literary criticism, library science, political science, organizational behavior, and many other fields. He deploys his learning with wit and panache in an endlessly ironical dialectic. The one field in which he is weak is actual natural science. This weakness is compensated by his breadth of knowledge of sociology, and social, economic, and general intellectual history which he deploys while doing philosophy of science far more extensive than that of any philosopher with whom I am acquainted. Nevertheless, his lack of contact with science in the raw (as opposed to high quality popular science and philosophically or historically digested and processed science) leads to some weaknesses in his accounts.

Read that as you will! Or see http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=13666 for the full context.

Ouch!

By Brian English (not verified) on 11 Aug 2008 #permalink

The one field in which he is weak is actual natural science.

Rather a drawback when the book you are writing is all about natural science, no? Fuller can write about epistemes and popular ideas all he likes. I have no quibble with this. But when a maverick puts his foot into the water of another discipline, he had damned well better know the material on which he is writing if he's to garner any kind of respect from the professionals. We criticise theologians for this all the time - they attack a science of their own construction and assign it all the cardinal sins. Fuller is merely a secular version of that.

And finally I am minded of this dialogue, rather evilly:

Otto: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right, to call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. I've known sheep that could outwit you, but you think you're an intellectual don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.

Philosophers can also read science without understanding it.

#3 A scene worth watching in full, with Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline.

Val Dusek's review referred to in comment 1 is actually very critical of Fuller's understanding of modern evolutionary theory. Fuller can defend ID, in part, because he knows so little about modern biology. This also seems to be the case for Alvin Plantinga's defense of ID and criticism of evolutionary theory.

By michael fugate (not verified) on 12 Aug 2008 #permalink