Those who remember the Clinton sex scandal will probably recall the classic line "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," Bill Clinton floundering about in order to obfuscate inquiries into his improper conduct. While this is example is a somewhat comedic attempt at playing with the definitions of words, it is often important to consider what certain words mean in their past & present historical contexts, and in the book Science Talk Daniel Patrick Thurs takes on the evolution of what we mean by "science" and how that influences the gap between what (and who) is included when we invoke that term.
Science, as currently understood, often refers to a system of acquiring knowledge by practicing the scientific method, although the word also represents something of an academic meat grinder and body of professionals that engage in the operational definition just stated. This was not always the case, however, and at one time "science" essentially stood for any systematic of knowledge from actual scientific inquiries into the natural world to art, music, philosophy, religion, etc. Indeed, for some time what we now call "science" was carried out by a motley assemblage of people with wide interests outside of any major formal scientific bodies, earlier researchers often being well-off enough to be able to devote time to their inquiries. By the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection in 1859, however, there were respected authorities, journals, and learned societies devoted to certain aspects of research, although self-cultivated amateurs could still gain respect by proving themselves in a particular area of research (broad, superficial knowledge was frowned upon).
By the 1920's and 1930's science was much more closed off and began to more closely resemble the form that it now takes, the public notion of science moving it more towards technology than the study of natural phenomena. Thus began the somewhat paradoxical conception of science where science is valued for technologies and improvements, but if scientists posit ideas that run counter to some ideals held by the public (as in intelligent design and UFO/alien abduction conspiracy theorists) true science can often be ignored for a more amorphous concept that includes certain pseudoscience. Such is the overall trend as reflected through discussions of phrenology, evolution, relativity, UFOs, and intelligent design in Thurs' book, following the changing ideas of what science means and what it may (or may not) extend to.
In order to chart these changes Thurs primarily looked to various magazines during the relevant time periods, looking at the comments of scientists and the public about science as well as how science was portrayed. This sort of viewpoint is a bit narrow, quotes from various periodicals being little more than snippets and in-depth discussion of particular figures largely avoided (save for Einstein), but the overall picture of change is clear. Indeed, as Thurs notes in the book, the present state of science seems to be a sort of paradox in the mind of the public, producing technological and medical innovations that are important but preventing popular ideas about the supernatural in, hence the time often spent debating whether intelligent design (or other controversial ideas) really can be called science or not. While this overall message is clear, I think Thurs could have gone a little more in depth about particular important figures and times in history as the book runs less than 200 pages, leaving plenty of room for detail. Just as well, the half-hearted objectivity of some of the chapters can be a bit irksome (I'm all for calling a spade a spade), especially in the chapter dealing with intelligent design, but in general Thurs provides a decent review of statements involving major scientific controversies and how those controversies have shaped the way we talk about science. (The only other minor complaint I have is the price of the book, $45 being a bit high for such a slim volume.) Nonetheless, the book raises some important points about how science is viewed by the public and how we've come to spend so much time arguing over what is or is not science when some new pseudoscientific woo shows up. Science Talk is a quick introduction to a much broader topic of how science is carried out, understood, and talked about viewing the issues from an angle that is often forgotten in modern discussions.
[Thank you to Rutgers University Press for providing a copy of this book for review.]
- Log in to post comments
It's important to remember that many of the people who contributed hugely to scientific understanding were not scientists themselves, but "natural philosophers".
Just in case you were curious, this was the 666th comment on this blog.
I'm actually not sure understanding what someone like Einstein or Darwin thought about science would be at all relevant. Either they believed what a lot of other people believed or they didn't, in which case their ideas obviosuly weren't influential. Besides, lots of athletes do great things without knowing the first thing about the physics of motion. You can do something substantial without knowing how. It might actually be better if you aren't too self-reflective.
On that line, I kinda think of this book as an intellectual history of everyone--or of the popular mind instead of some single Great Man. If that's true, then the "snipets" from magazines are like bits and pieces from Darwin's notebooks or Einstein's papers that we can put together to get beyond any single person.