Postmodernism versus Religion

Kimball commented, “Education majors are clearly safe havens for the religious. Highly religious people seem to prefer education majors, tend to stay in that major, and tend to become more religious by the time they graduate.” If he is right, it is not good news for those who want to keep religion out of the public schools.

The correlation with an Education major doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Back in the 1960s I had noticed that Education attracted not only the most religious students, but also those who were weakest in science and math.

In fact, many students who started out with majors in science or math, and then found themselves in trouble, switched to an Education major. The reason was that the requirements in their area of science were considerably less than for the majors. Education majors could replace the more rigorous courses in science with “teaching methods” courses.

Furthermore, many departments of education required a student to declare Education as their major and that they take all the methods courses. The effect of this has been that, even when a full science major wanted to pick up a teaching certificate, he/she had to not only take the fully rigorous courses in science, but had to switch to the department of education and go additional semesters to pick up all the teaching requirements.

Many of those more rigorous majors then found themselves among a cohort of students who were whiners, constantly complaining about how much work they had to do and how hard their courses were; in other words, they found themselves among people who were going into teaching but didn’t really appreciate or like the subjects they were preparing to teach.

The result is that the more rigorous students got their teaching certificates but dropped out of teaching and found better work and better colleagues in other fields.

So the effect of departments of education was not only to attract weak students, but also to repel strong students.

More than once I have heard faculty in university science departments refer to the Department of Education at their universities as an extreme embarrassment to their university.

A bit off-topic, but since you mentioned the Times, they're also now running an article on the rise of Old Earth Creationism in Islam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html?ref=science

Studying real science doesn't turn people into atheists after all.

When I first took the GRE, I had recently read Richard Mitchell's The Graves of Academe, an indictment of the anti-intellectualism he saw in the education industry. When I received my GRE scores, the booklet had a list of average scores by intended majors. Prospective grad students in education were the worst in Language, they were the worst in Math, and they were the worst in Analysis. It made an impression on me that's never really worn off. And now this.

the effect of majoring in a given subject is given by

In grad school, I read a blurb about a study on undergrads that asked the question "how important is it to study classes outside your major".

The group with the lowest response was business majors? Number 2: education majors. Scary.

To ass to many of the excellent points above, College guidance counselors (whatever they call themselves these days) track the undecideds with the lowest entry test scores to the education department.

Matt Young said:say that majoring in a given subject correlates with religious belief in such a way as to yield the scores in the table.

In grad school, I read a blurb about a study on undergrads that asked the question “how important is it to study classes outside your major”.

— Reed A. Cartwright

Mike Elzinga said: The correlation with an Education major doesn’t surprise me in the least. Back in the 1960s I had noticed that Education attracted not only the most religious students, but also those who were weakest in science and math. In fact, many students who started out with majors in science or math, and then found themselves in trouble, switched to an Education major. The reason was that the requirements in their area of science were considerably less than for the majors. Education majors could replace the more rigorous courses in science with “teaching methods” courses. Furthermore, many departments of education required a student to declare Education as their major and that they take all the methods courses. The effect of this has been that, even when a full science major wanted to pick up a teaching certificate, he/she had to not only take the fully rigorous courses in science, but had to switch to the department of education and go additional semesters to pick up all the teaching requirements. Many of those more rigorous majors then found themselves among a cohort of students who were whiners, constantly complaining about how much work they had to do and how hard their courses were; in other words, they found themselves among people who were going into teaching but didn’t really appreciate or like the subjects they were preparing to teach. The result is that the more rigorous students got their teaching certificates but dropped out of teaching and found better work and better colleagues in other fields. So the effect of departments of education was not only to attract weak students, but also to repel strong students. More than once I have heard faculty in university science departments refer to the Department of Education at their universities as an extreme embarrassment to their university.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: How many science professors actively encourage their best and brightest students to go into teaching?

meaning? the education doesn’t necessarily effect ones faith? this is assuming a deterministic disposition, which i cant think of how it would be tested.

I see simple natural selection in action here. College profs don't need to major in education, so the only ones majoring in education are the ones hoping to become school teachers.

What are the pros and cons of being a school teacher? + points are job security, good health coverage, predictable working hours, less performance anxiety, lots of holidays and summer vacation and general respect in the community. The - points are lower pay in general, stress related to handling disobedient students and parental and bureaucratic interference.

What kind of people will find this package attractive? Not class toppers, not risk takers, not sports jocks, not ambitious people. Take these out, and what are you left with? This explains why below average students end up as education majors.

But why does below average academic performance correlate with more traditional religious views?

jswise said: Studying real science doesn't turn people into atheists after all.

Ravilyn Sanders said: What are the pros and cons of being a school teacher? + points are job security, good health coverage, predictable working hours, less performance anxiety, lots of holidays and summer vacation and general respect in the community. The - points are lower pay in general, stress related to handling disobedient students and parental and bureaucratic interference. What kind of people will find this package attractive? Not class toppers, not risk takers, not sports jocks, not ambitious people. Take these out, and what are you left with? This explains why below average students end up as education majors. But why does below average academic performance correlate with more traditional religious views?

Interesting! Though saying it's because of "postmodernism" is a bit of a jump.

As a social science major, one of the most enlightening things about the program was how it exposed me to perspectives different from my own. More importantly, it exposed how our "truths" change over time. History, Psychology, Sociology, all of those courses focus on changes through time and across cultures.

Psychology also exposes the unreliable nature of our own memory and perception.

It might be hard to remain religious -- and therefore believe in an unchanging truth -- when you see how all human cultures rewrite the "truth" every day, everywhere, and how we ourselves distort and misinterpret the worlds around us.

Postmodernism has the same underpinnings, but even if it were removed from (say) the English Lit and Film curriculums, the social sciences would still -- I think -- have exactly the same effect on students. It certainly did on me!

As a former college advisor, I can't tell you the number of students who wanted education because (to quote the students) "I'm not smart enough for nursing or business."

I was a science major who went into teaching. I lasted 5 years. I loved teaching science. I hated the mandatory attendance at football games and the morning bus duty in January and the 3 staff meetings a week and a principle who didn't understand science, didn't like science, and thought the $200 budget I had for science equipment and supplies was wasted money.

BTW: Whoever said that teachers are 'a respected member of the community' must not be a teacher. Teachers (at least the various places I taught) are somewhere between janitors and babysitters as far as parents are concerned. It's obvious (at least in Texas) that the state board of education thinks so too. It may be different where you are... it's probably not that different.

To get more scientists into public schools, will require a huge shift in the current education paradigm. Better pay, respect of staff and parents, more authority in (and out) of the classroom, etc.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: It's an issue that bothers me to the extent that on my one-and-only chance to ask a question of a Nobel laureate, I asked "how do we get college and university science departments to encourage their top students to go into teaching instead of steering them away from it?" ... Please excuse me while I get ready to teach three different levels of classes today for pay that would make most of you laugh. [/rant]

dogmeatib said:

Ravilyn Sanders said: What are the pros and cons of being a school teacher? + points are job security, good health coverage, predictable working hours, less performance anxiety, lots of holidays and summer vacation and general respect in the community. The - points are lower pay in general, stress related to handling disobedient students and parental and bureaucratic interference.

Ummm Ravilyn, your analysis is a bit off. ... Second, I'm not certain what you mean by "performance anxiety" or predictable hours when comparing a "teacher" to a "professor" (or vacations for that matter). When I worked at the university I had summers off, a month off in December-January, and a spring break. Now? Basically the same schedule but with only two weeks off in December-January. I can also tell you, quite honestly, that high school kids will know instantly if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, so there was just as much performance anxiety on my first day teaching in a high school as their was on my first day teaching at the university.

Mike Elzinga and Cheryl Shepherd-Adams -

I actually agree with both of you, odd as that may seem.

I think a lot of Mike's frustrations have validity, but I also think that teachers as a group, with plenty of exceptions, are intelligent and competent.

It's okay if most high school teachers are not chosen from the most motivated and gifted university science students. In fact, extensive expertise in a field at the upper undergraduate or graduate school level is, to some degree, ideal, but hardly necessary, in a high school or elementary school teacher.

A potential teacher needs to be motivated and gifted enough to fully master the high school curriculum, at least up to the level that they are expected to teach, AND be highly conversant with the next level down the line.

If you're going to teach pre-calculus, you should be an expert on all the algebra and trig problems in that course, and be pretty conversant with initial calculus, because that's what you're preparing students for.

The blunt truth is, there are many more teachers needed, and many more people who can be teachers, than there are potential creative contributors to science at the professional, grant-funded level.

There's no reason to steer a highly motivate potential PhD or MD into high school teaching. If they want it, they probably shouldn't be discouraged, unless there's strong evidence that they would make serious original contributions to a field of knowledge as researchers, but such people are few, and many people can teach.

What worries me is not that education majors have less math expertise than electrical engineering grad students, but the thought of religious authoritarians (who may not perceive themselves as such), however gifted they may be, seeking out education degrees in disproportionate numbers.

A teacher who is consciously or unconsciously motivated to use their position in a public school, or diverse private school, to promote their own religious views as the "official" or "scientific" view sanctioned by the teacher figure, is potentially a disaster.

Such personalities seem to have an obsessive need to engage in an intimidating and brow-beating style of prosletyzing, to insult the beliefs of others, and to violate the commandment against false witness with "stealth" efforts to do these things even when instructed not to.

In high school and university, and even a stint in trade school, I would often run into instructors who were very well educated and current in their fields, so much so that many of them radiated an aura of impatience and disdain for people who were still learning what they learned 20 years or more earlier.

Even people who were farther ahead in their majors than me defended these profs with an arrogant "well I guess you could think that about him if you're a first year but he's really very good".

Or tenured cadavers who didn't remember the dim, dark past when they were undergrads, just skimmed over the introductory course material, and then expected detailed insights from their students.

So in some ways I'd rather have a prof fresh out of his dissertation who still gets a buzz out of explaining things they've just learned in the past few years, or even an education grad who's still learning the course material, than a seasoned veteran.

Nonetheless, I still think there never will be enough money to pay the good K-12 teachers what they're worth. Kinda like cops and nurses.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: By labeling all who go into education as "whiners," etc., you're doing a great disservice to those of us who did put in the extra coursework so we could use our science degrees to teach.

It’s an issue that bothers me to the extent that on my one-and-only chance to ask a question of a Nobel laureate, I asked “how do we get college and university science departments to encourage their top students to go into teaching instead of steering them away from it?” His response? “A 2x4 with a nail in the end of it.”

Please excuse me while I get ready to teach three different levels of classes today for pay that would make most of you laugh.

Mike Elzinga said: But I also observed the incredible inanity of the so-called “professional development” activities imposed on the teachers by their administrators in nearly every school district with which I interacted. These activities were so inane and boring that they would make a grown person cry with frustration, yet they were required regularly throughout the year and teachers could not escape them.

I don't see that you can really conclude much from this study-much less blaming or crediting post-modernism.

As some posters have pointed out, to start with you may have self selection bias. People who are prone to certain kinds of ways of thinking self select for specific subjects. Social Sciences, Natural Sciences and Humanities require a lot more questioning of one's foundations. Some do so more than others.

Another point is that post-modernism could just as easily lead to increased religiosity.

Also, while "post-modernism" (which btw is a very vague, amorphous term) has made some inroads into social sciences, most social scientists are not full bore post-modernists (whatever it means to be that).

Ginger Yellow said: business majors with introspection and self-doubt?

I wonder what the grapgh would look like - plot IQ or ACT/SAT scores vs. "religious observance"

Science Avenger said: Could you be so kind as to give us some specifics on said boring inanity?

also - the quality of teachers will not improve until, as a society, we are willing to compensate teachers WELL.

one of my 'hot buttons' is one someone complains about how teachers are 'overpaid' for such an 'easy' job and how they only work 9 months out of the year. (this usually comes up when a talks of a strike are in the news)

I recieved my BS in Biology from a big 10 university before going back for my teaching certificate as a grad student - I quit teaching because I was dis-satisfied with the pay and sick of the politics

I will not speak to primary school teachers (k-8) but I can say from experience that secondary school teachers have a high stress job, long hours, low pay, little reward. Do you want your summers off? Unless you have some seniority - you will be teaching summer classes / coaching/ going to school full time during those months. Do you want a 'work day' that's only 9-3? I don't know when you'll be grading papers, preparing lesson plans, attending meetings, mentoring extra- curriculars, meeting with parents etc - the BEST teachers WORKED 12-13 hours days - often for less pay that the school janitor got.

My biology department requires a higher GPA in science and math courses of our secondary education majors than we do of our pre meds.

I have seen several university-wide semester grade reports. All of the students in all of the education department courses made A's. Is this not evidence that education professors know how to teach? Would that they would share their expertise with the rest of us.

I've supervised a number of our student teachers in local high schools. I've been well impressed by what I saw going on there. However, students come to the university out of those same high schools and seem to have learned absolutely nothing. I am at a loss to understand this.

Wow Mike, thanks, that's worse than I imagined, and I'll bet I'm not alone.

Jim Thomerson said: I've supervised a number of our student teachers in local high schools. I've been well impressed by what I saw going on there. However, students come to the university out of those same high schools and seem to have learned absolutely nothing. I am at a loss to understand this.

Also, while “post-modernism” (which btw is a very vague, amorphous term)...

— Chip Poirot

Frank J said:

Also, while “post-modernism” (which btw is a very vague, amorphous term)...

— Chip Poirot

Unfortunately that's what I have found. But there's a definition that "cries for a word" and I think "postmodern" fits nicely. Specifically, I have heard ID described as a postmodern form of creationism. Which makes sense considering how ID allows any conclusion you want on the age of earth, life, universe, or or regarding common descent. In contrast, the older form of creationism would then be "premodern" in the sense of requiring that scripture overrule evidence.

eric said: If you think this an issue of getting professors to change their recommendations, you're (to use an overused phrase) treating a symptom, not the disease. What you need to change is the general social attitude.

Ravilyn Sanders said: What are the pros and cons of being a school teacher? + points are job security, good health coverage, predictable working hours, less performance anxiety, lots of holidays and summer vacation and general respect in the community.

Ravilyn Sanders said: What kind of people will find this package attractive? Not class toppers, not risk takers, not sports jocks, not ambitious people. Take these out, and what are you left with? This explains why below average students end up as education majors.

Ravilyn Sanders said: But why does below average academic performance correlate with more traditional religious views?

Mike Elzinga said: One of the apparent foundations of post-modernism is the notion that everything we know or think we understand is highly dependent on our prevailing culture. Thus, some of the so-called “sociologists of science” seem to have the notion that they can analyze scientific activity in terms of “broader cultural norms.”

The unfortunate irony of that notion is that it apparently doesn’t apply to the “sociologists of science”; they seem to assume they can “objectively” observe scientists in action and correctly “interpret their behaviors” in terms of those “cultural norms.”

Of course, what comes of it looks like a child’s interpretation of adult behavior from a child’s perspective.

Now it might be possible to claim that bats, whales, dolphins, insects, and other creatures have completely different “cultural perspectives” on the common universe in which we all live.

On the other hand, we have extended our five senses enormously through science and technology. What we have learned applies to all creatures on this planet, independent of those “cultural norms” (whatever that would mean for other creatures).

The currently repeated shtick of the ID/creationists, namely, “same data; different interpretations from different perspectives” appears to be a direct spin-off of that kind of post-modernist thinking.

Chip Poirot said: But mostly, I think its just a strategy of picking up anything that's lying around in a street fight.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: No, the *real* positives are getting to work with adolescents, curious and hungry to learn even though they hide it well at times. It's getting to share the wonders of science, the process of science, with kids who are going to try to make a difference in the world. It means bouncing ideas off colleagues, it's learning to skate through the unimportant dreck, it's staying up late to find AP "C" level material for that kid who really wants and can handle the challenge, it's finally figuring out how to connect with that kid who claims to hate science, it's having former students come back to say thanks for getting them ready for life beyond high school. It's advocating for seatbelt use and having their parents come back to say thanks, that it saved their kid's life. *Those* are the real benefits, with an icing of the fact that those benefits aren't taxable.

It makes me think of a bunch of chickens in a chicken coop that has been hit by a hurricane.

"Social sciences" is not synonymous with "postmodernism", and it's a good thing. If you work in sociology, and if you have any trust in the fact that what you do may be useful and help people, then you'd better believe that you're not just telling a story that is just as good as any other story. Social sciences are supposed to study an aspect of reality and provide a reliable analysis of it. If it doesn't, in my opinion, it's worthless.

One of the apparent foundations of post-modernism is the notion that everything we know or think we understand is highly dependent on our prevailing culture.

— Mike Elzinga

Actually, postmodernism supports religiosity, in that it states that any viewpoint is valid. This can be reflected in creationist/religious apologetics arguments that postulate necessary assumptions of a worldview, therefore the evolutionist or atheist relies on faith just as much as the creationist / religious person.

Postmodernism attacks anything and everything without the intellectual integrity inherent in a postpositive, skeptical, scientific approach. This makes postmodernism both useless as a method of gathering knowledge, and the faith-based person's best defense to believe whatever they wish to believe.

Lightbearer said: Actually, postmodernism supports religiosity, in that it states that any viewpoint is valid. This can be reflected in creationist/religious apologetics arguments that postulate necessary assumptions of a worldview, therefore the evolutionist or atheist relies on faith just as much as the creationist / religious person.

Lightbearer said: Actually, postmodernism supports religiosity...

But not creationism, which posits one single, correct viewpoint.

— eric

As long as you bad-mouth “Darwinism” you’re in the club.

Science Avenger said: Wow Mike, thanks, that's worse than I imagined, and I'll bet I'm not alone.

Frank J said:

But not creationism, which posits one single, correct viewpoint.

— eric

But there is no one "one single, correct viewpoint" required by creationism. Not even by the stricter pre-ID versions. Evolution, and science in general, requires that we be honest with the evidence, and not "cherry pick" to either support a predetermined conclusion or (as creationism increasingly prefers) pretend that some other conclusion is wrong. As the evidence for evolution converges, the "space" of the "correct viewpoint" gets narrower. If you think the Earth is 4.4 or 4.7 billion years old, you are already "incorrect". In dramatic contrast, the acceptable ages of the earth within creationism are at least "6000 to 4.6 billion." Same for the age of life, which you are even allowed to confuse with the age of the Earth or that of the Universe. Plus you can define "kind" almost anyway you like. In recent decades you can even claim that (gasp!) humans share common ancestors with other species. All are "correct viewpoints" in some common version of creationism, and increasingly tolerable viewpoints in nearly all of them. As long as you bad-mouth "Darwinism" you're in the club.

eric said:

Lightbearer said: Actually, postmodernism supports religiosity...

But not creationism, which posits one single, correct viewpoint. Chip's right in his street-fight metaphor. The creationists latched onto postmodernism as a weapon of convenience, not because they believe it to be valid. Postmodernists who think the creationist/ID movement represents an ally should remember the old "first, they came for my neighbor..." story. This movement does not desire to teach people that there are multiple legitimate viewpoints, they are merely adopting postmodernism as a means to an end. In the creationist education system of the future, postmodernist teaching occupies the same location as evolutionary teaching...in the furnace.

You’ll note that I put “postmodernism” in quotes because I don’t think it is a very useful term, especially as being used here, where it seems to be simply a more contemporary sounding term for “relativism.” This pretty much avoids the specificity of the diverse viewpoints lumped under the term. Many, such as the deconstructionists (Derrida) would say that they are not relativists. Of course, “deconstruct” is another one of those terms that has entered wider discourse stripped of its specificity- most use it simply as a jargonish way of saying “analyze

Mike - it looks like Hawaii is going to convert its "professional development days" into teaching days, because teachers are being furloughed for 17 days this school year and teaching time is short. Kind of a double-edged sword, but at least it gets rid of those. Of course, the schools here are still catastrophically bad and giving less teaching time will only make them worse.

Creationism is not supported by “postmodernism” because each creationism posits a single correct viewpoint. The fact that there are multiple different creationist models doesn’t change the fact that each asserts that their model is the one true one e.g. YEC will say the earth is young, an OEC would say it is old. A “postmodernist” in the sense being used here would say that each of these is equally valid. No creationist adopts that position; even when they speak of different “interpretations” of the evidence, they still assume that one (theirs) is correct, just not provable yet.

— Sylvilagus

Henry J said:

As long as you bad-mouth “Darwinism” you’re in the club.

Would that include science advocates who advise people to stop using the term "Darwinism"? ;)

Midnight Rambler said: Mike - it looks like Hawaii is going to convert its "professional development days" into teaching days, because teachers are being furloughed for 17 days this school year and teaching time is short. Kind of a double-edged sword, but at least it gets rid of those. Of course, the schools here are still catastrophically bad and giving less teaching time will only make them worse.

I would have thought that posters here might feel inclined to a strong SSK position.

Does a worldview that there is a personal God who intervened miraculously 2000 years ago in form of His Son tend to lead to a position that the world was created? Evidently, yes.

Does an atheistic worldview (such as my own) lead to a belief in evolution through natural selection? Evidently, yes.

Note that neither of the above positions (special creation & evolution) tend to require any evidence to reach them. Most fundamenalists will be creationists; most atheists will be evolutionists. (I ignore the multitude of belief systems between these two for the purposes of keeping this post shorter than a full length book.)

Now, what about that evidence? As an avid consumer of popular science, I have read my Dawkins, Gould, Ridley and Pinker. What they say is, for the best part, convincing and informs my belief that there is a materialist explanation for the world around me.

Have I read the technical papers on evolution? No. Have I undertaken a postgraduate course on molecular biology? No. Will I ever do either of the above? No. (I'm a little busy at the moment.)

Consequently, my 'belief' in evolution is guided by 'faith' in the above writers, along with a few others. (I have got half way through Origin of the Species, and will attempt it again one day.)

Is my 'faith' well placed? Yes, since I accept that their position is widely accepted by those in the scientific community, allowing for a few quibbles here and there about marginal stuff.

But, and here's the point, my belief is not founded on any unmediated access to 'truth' (note scare quotes), but on a confidence that good scientists, backed by good universities and reputable publishing houses tend not to lie to me.

In effect, a strong SSK position, although it doesn't make me question evolution on a day-to-day basis.

And, for the benefit of some posters above, note that this a self-reflexive position from an SSK-believer.

p.s. Before anyone else points it out, I am aware that SSK refers to the beliefs of scientists, not laymen like me (a professional historian). I use my own biography only as an example of how belief systems can (ahem) evolve independently of 'truth'.

eddie said: p.s. Before anyone else points it out, I am aware that SSK refers to the beliefs of scientists, not laymen like me (a professional historian). I use my own biography only as an example of how belief systems can (ahem) evolve independently of 'truth'.

Chip Poirot said: They first propose a ridiculous proposition like "evidence is never the cause of the beliefs of scientists" and when confronted with its absurdity, fall back on some kind of common sense and much weaker version such as "there is a connection between world view and belief" (which is actually tautological).

Chip Poirot said: SSK is not trying to explain the beliefs of people in society in general. It is trying to explain the beliefs of working scientists.

eddie said: Consequently, my 'belief' in evolution is guided by 'faith' in the above writers, along with a few others. ...But, and here's the point, my belief is not founded on any unmediated access to 'truth' (note scare quotes), but on a confidence that good scientists, backed by good universities and reputable publishing houses tend not to lie to me.

eric said: I've never studied aerodynamics but its not 'faith' that guides my belief that physicists have it right, and its not the books I've read; its observing that planes stay in the air. Similarly, working vaccines are a good indication that the biologists may be on to something with this evolution thing. I think your argument ignores the evidence provided by working science-based technologies. This is empirical evidence available to scientists and laymen alike. "Faith" probably has a lot less to do with your confidence in science than, say, the fact that your refrigerator depends on science (specifically in this case, thermodynamics) being reasonably reflective of the real world to work.

eddie said: But planes will not fall out of the sky if aerodynamics is radically revised tomorrow. Nor will my refrigerator stop working even if all of thermodynamics is rejected on Sunday week.

Arguing from pragmatics that planes and refrigerators work, therefore the explanation behind them must be (absolutely and unquestioningly) true, simply isn't convincing.

A major factor in acceptance of evolution is the simple fact that the "arguments" against it consistently fall apart when looked at by people with the relevant knowledge.

(And some of the "arguments" don't even wait for somebody with relevant knowledge, when obvious logical fallacies are involved.)

Henry

eddie said: Planes do not fly by aerodynamics, they fly by being constructed correctly by engineers. Aerodynamics offers an explanation of why they don't fall out of the sky and may (I haven't studied aerodynamics either) even offer hints to said engineers about how to construct better planes. But planes will not fall out of the sky if aerodynamics is radically revised tomorrow. Nor will my refrigerator stop working even if all of thermodynamics is rejected on Sunday week. Arguing from pragmatics that planes and refrigerators work, therefore the explanation behind them must be (absolutely and unquestioningly) true, simply isn't convincing. That said, even if I could come up with a sociological reason why a particular refrigerator engineer believes in thermodynamics, and even convice her of the origin of her beliefs, there's no good reason why she should stop designing perfectly functional fridges based on those beliefs.

eddie said: But planes will not fall out of the sky if aerodynamics is radically revised tomorrow. Nor will my refrigerator stop working even if all of thermodynamics is rejected on Sunday week.

eddie said: With your concern for evidence, you will have no trouble providing a reference for an SSK proponent who says "evidence is never the cause of the beliefs of scientists".

From which I take, scientists are somehow exempt from being members of society (whether in general or not).

Just in case you fail to find a source for your claims about SSK proponents (although I have every faith in you), it is obvious that evidence causes beliefs. The difficult question is what counts as evidence in the first place.

The whole point of SSK is that scientific beliefs-say for example laws of mechanics or thermodynamics-are no more justified by evidence than are the beliefs in fairies and witches.

eddie said:

Chip Poirot said: SSK is not trying to explain the beliefs of people in society in general. It is trying to explain the beliefs of working scientists.

From which I take, scientists are somehow exempt from being members of society (whether in general or not).

fnxtr said: The principles that lead to things that work are held because they work; because so many different, disparate "world views" (a phrase that annoys me as much as "music scene") all converge and agree; not because of any kind of... erm... "single-perspective hegemony"(?).

Maybe there's a reason that the word "switch" contains the word "witch"? :p

Wheels said: When you're talking about working scientists specifically, you focus on the scientists rather than the "society in general" part. It strikes me as sloppy to go from Chip's statement to your conclusion. You can be a member of society without being representative of your society in general.

It is also a fact that vastly different societies invent and make use of technologies from an understanding of how Nature works. Sectarian backgrounds, political backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, gender, age, ideology; all these are irrelevant when it comes to the rules of Nature.

Chip Poirot said: It's almost an exact quote from David Bloor-I'll find the precise reference later. It's also the fundamental building block of SSK.

"[T]he validity of theoretical propositions in the sciences is in no way a ected by factual evidence." Gergen (1988, p. 37) Gergen, Kenneth J. 1988. \Feminist critique of science and the challenge of social epistemology". In: Feminist Thought and the Structure of Knowledge, edited by Mary McCanney Gergen, pp. 27{48. New York: New York University Press

"The natural world has a small or non-existent role in the construction of scien-tific knowledge." Collins (1981, p. 3) Collins, Harry M. 1981. \Stages in the empirical programme of relativism". Social Studies of Science 11: 3{10.

Since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature’s representation, not the consequence, we can never use the outcome | Nature to explain how and why a controversy has been settled.Latour (1987, pp. 99, 258) Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. </blockquote

For the relativist [such as ourselves] there is no sense attached to the idea that some standards or beliefs are really rational as distinct from merely locally accepted as such. Barnes and Bloor (1981, p. 27), Barnes, Barry and David Bloor. 1981. \Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge". In: Rationality and Relativism, pp. 21{47. Edited by Martin Hollis and Steven Lukes. Oxford: Blackwell.

Science legitimates itself by linking its discoveries with power, a connection which determines (not merely influences) what counts as reliable knowledge. Aronowitz (1988, p. 204) Aronowitz, Stanley. 1988. Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. Minnapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

I leave it to Eddie to show that these quotes are unfair or out of context. I repeat my earlier point: SSK advocates are either saying something interesting and important-but not all that earth shaking, or they are saying something quite radical. Which is it? I think the quotes and the record suggest the latter-or else there seems to be little point-or controversy to the whole matter. Eddie himself seems to first say it, and then take it back. So, just what is your point Eddie?

I leave it to Eddie to show that these quotes are unfair or out of context. I repeat my earlier point: SSK advocates are either saying something interesting and important-but not all that earth shaking, or they are saying something quite radical.

— Chip Poirot

I was going to cut and paste from the following sample, but this is apparently not possible:

Here is a link to the first chapter of Knowledge and Social Inquiry (1976) by David Bloor: http://books.google.com/books?id=hnxy0DTMvkMC&dq=Knowledge+and+Social+imagery&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=dNX4Sr6nHcW0tgfrhMWgCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

In this chapter, Bloor sets out the founding premises of the SSK and distinguishes it from the teleological and empiricist view of science. Specifically what Bloor means by the teleological view of science is Mannheim's view (as well as that of others) that it is scientific error that should be explained by sociological factors. Bloor argues for the principle of symmetry-both error and "correct" opinion should be judged equally. Of course what "error" would mean in this context is ambiguous, since Bloor rejects the idea that knowledge is justified belief. In criticizing the empiricist view, Bloor argues that very little of our knowledge is "built up" from our interaction with it.

Those interested can read the entire first chapter (which is better than just taking isolated quotes anyway) and judge for themselves whether or not my earlier description was accurate.

While the SSK program has developed significantly since Bloor wrote Knowledge and Social Inquiry I have never seen any significant departure from the underlying relativist epistemology.

Also, for those who want to see more of the SSK, simply follow the links in the post that started this thread.

I now think the ball is in eddie's court to show that I am mischaracterizing.

The quote from Collins is out of context, from an introduction to a set of essays. (As you would know having read it.) Nor is this even an epistemological stance by Collins but a methodological one.

You are entitled to disagree with the methodology, but quote-mining to make it look like that's Collins' epistemological viewpoint (tried hard to avoid worldview) is 'mischaracterizing'.

Only have time for one more (I am meant to be working), so:

Your summary of Bloor is inaccurate. To give one quote only (from p.7 of Knowledge and Social Imagery):

[SSK] would be causal, that is, concerned with the conditions which bring about belief or states of knowledge. Naturally there will be other types of causes apart from social ones which will cooperate in bringing about belief.

eddie said: The quote from Collins is out of context, from an introduction to a set of essays. (As you would know having read it.) Nor is this even an epistemological stance by Collins but a methodological one. You are entitled to disagree with the methodology, but quote-mining to make it look like that's Collins' epistemological viewpoint (tried hard to avoid worldview) is 'mischaracterizing'. Only have time for one more (I am meant to be working), so: Your summary of Bloor is inaccurate. To give one quote only (from p.7 of Knowledge and Social Imagery): [SSK] would be causal, that is, concerned with the conditions which bring about belief or states of knowledge. Naturally there will be other types of causes apart from social ones which will cooperate in bringing about belief.

f you think I am exaggerating in my somewhat dismal portrayal of the critical landscape, it is because we have had in effect almost no occasion so far to detect the total mismatch of the three contradictory repertoires—antifetishism, positivism, realism—because we carefully manage to apply them on different topics. We explain the objects we don't approve of by treating them as fetishes; we account for behaviors we don't like by discipline whose makeup we don't examine; and we concentrate our passionate interest on only those things that are for us worthwhile matters of concern. But of course such a cavalier attitude with such contradictory repertoires is not possible for those of us, in science studies, who have to deal with states of affairs which fit neither in the list of plausible fetishes—because everyone, including us, does believe very strongly in them—nor in the list of undisputable facts, because we are witnessing their birth, their slow construction, their fascinating emergence as matters of concern. The metaphor of the Copernican revolution, so tied to the destiny of critique, has always been for us, science students, simply moot. This is why, with more than a good dose of field chauvinism, I consider this tiny field so important: it is the little rock in the shoe that might render the routine patrol of the critical barbarians more and more painful. The mistake would be to believe that we too have given a social explanation of scientific facts. No, even though it is true that we have at first tried, like good critics trained in the good schools, to use the armaments handed to us by our betters and elders to "crack open"—one of their favorite expressions, meaning to destroy—religion, power, discourse, hegemony. But, fortunately (yes fortunately!), one after the other, we witnessed that the black-boxes of science remained closed and that it was rather the tools that laid in the dust of our workshop, disjointed and broken. Put simply, critique was useless against objects of some solidity. You can try the miserable projective game on UFOs or exotic divinities, but don't try it on neurotransmitters, on gravitation, on Monte Carlo calculations. But critique is also useless when it begins to use the results of one science uncritically, be it sociology itself, or economics, or postimperialism, to account for the behavior of people. You can try to play this miserable game of explaining aggression by invoking the genetic makeup of violent people, but try to do that while dragging, at the same time, the many controversies in genetics, evolutionary theories in which geneticists find themselves so thoroughly embroiled.20 On both accounts, matters of concern never occupy the two positions left for them by critical barbarity. Objects are much too strong to be treated as fetishes and much too weak to be treated as undisputable causal explanations of some unconscious action. And this is not true of scientific states of affairs only; this is our great discovery, what made science studies commit such a felicitous mistake, such a Felix culpa. Once you realize that scientific objects cannot be socially explained, then you realize too that the so-called weak objects, those that appear to be candidates for the accusation of antifetishism, were never mere projections on an empty screen either.21 They too act, they too do things, they too make you do things. It is not only the objects of science that resist, but all the others as well, those who were supposed to have been ground to dust by the powerful teeth of automated reflex-action deconstructors. To accuse something of being a fetish is the ultimate gratuitous, disrespectful, insane, and barbarian gesture.22 Is it not time for some progress? To the fact position, to the fairy position, why not add a third position, a fair position?

Chip Poirot said: I think your response and tactics are quite typical of SSK proponents. As I said earlier, they have a tendency to say it, and then take it back.

Chip Poirot said: Now why don't you quit playing games and say what it is you believe.

This is really incredible. The proponents of the strong SSK spend decades attacking realism and empiricism, and now eddie implies "there's no epistemology here", only method.

The proponents of the strong SSK go to great lengths and pains to distinguish their work from that of Mannheim, then eddie says I am inaccurate when I summarize Bloor critiquing Mannheim.

Eddie asks for quotes: I give him quotes and direct citations. I provide specific lengths to read fuller, longer arguments. Then eddie complains about my use of google.

Some responses:

1. Well that's a start. So we agree we are not brains in a vat and that evil demons or trickster gods are not pulling the wool over our eyes.

2. By saying we can come to "interesting theories" eddie betrays his actual epistemology. Note he doesn't say or admit that we can come to true or at least reliable theories.

3. Then admits "not all beliefs are true", which would seem to imply that eddie does believe in truth in some sense.

4. It depends on what you are trying to explain. Of course it is silly to hold ancient Greeks responsible for modern knowledge, and there are lots of ways to write intellectual history. But note how eddie embeds the implicit assumption that in the history of science, we should not be interested in understanding why some people held false beliefs and how or why false beliefs might be replaced by true beliefs. I'm not even sure what "methodologically relativist" means, aside from the fact that eddie might be arguing historians shouldn't engage in value judgements about the past-which is an arguable, but defensible position.

5. I think methodological relativism leads to a misunderstanding of what goes right and what goes wrong with science. It goes back to the difference between Mannheim and Bloor (a point eddie refuses to acknowledge). Mannheim argued that false beliefs should be explained by social factors. Bloor argues that even "true" theories should be explained by social factors. But Bloor, and eddie, are actually committing sleight of hand here by automatically failing to account for truth.

It's important to understand how scientists arrive at the conclusions they do. If you assume that all their beliefs are explained by social factors and not by the natural world, then you assume at the outset that truth in the sense of conformity with the natural world does not enter into the picture.

I would argue in contrast that understanding how or why scientists did or did not arrive at truth, or at least a strongly warranted claim to truth based on evidence, is central to any history or sociology of science.

6. Bullshit. It has been decades now with endless arguments from proponents of strong SSK, feminist viewpoint theories, etc. that science should not be "privileged".

7. I've provided you with the evidence. No matter how many times people present the direct evidence that proponents of strong SSK and other similar approaches make relativist, anti-realist and anti-empiricist statements, they always come back with "we're being misquoted-we didn't really mean it" and then go on to repeat it all, attack science as "privileged", reduce all explanation to sociological factors and then when confronted, take it all back.

Like I said at the beginning of this whole discussion. There is a need for a sensible program in the sociology of knowledge.

But eddie wants to play games.

eddie said:

Chip Poirot said: Now why don't you quit playing games and say what it is you believe.

Without playing any 'games' at all, I have no idea what you're asking.

Consequently, my ‘belief’ in evolution is guided by ‘faith’ in the above writers, along with a few others. (I have got half way through Origin of the Species, and will attempt it again one day.)

eric said: Do you still contend that your confidence in science, Eddie's confidence in science, is guided by faith in certain writers rather than any empirical evidence that science may be true? I, for one, very much doubt that because you are constantly observationally bombarded with ongoing experiments of science. I think your direct observation that these experiments generally work as advertised is information you use to form your opinion about science. Which makes it empirical more than social. In this respect, you are no different from any other westerner (in that we are all constantly bombarded...etc.)

eddie said: If you seriously believe that I obtain direct observation of natural selection every day, you must live in a very different suburb to me.

My knowledge of evolution comes only through the words of scientists in their books.

By the way, which bit of 'people form beliefs from a well-argued case in a well-written book by a knowledgable scientist' do you find disturbing?

Not trying to stir the pot here, eric, but lots of people trust things to work without understanding why.

When I was a kid I never attributed "you look almost exactly like your father did at that age" to evolution. Doesn't mean it's not true, I just didn't know it.

So Eddie's defence that he doesn't see evolution in action all around him is a fair one. Probably just never made the connection.

eddie said: My knowledge of evolution comes only through the words of scientists in their books. As it happens, I find what they say convincing.

But it remains that case, that I am persuaded by words. Until I take up that PhD in biology I keep putting off.

By the way, which bit of 'people form beliefs from a well-argued case in a well-written book by a knowledgable scientist' do you find disturbing?

fnxtr said: Not trying to stir the pot here, eric, but lots of people trust things to work without understanding why.

When I was a kid I never attributed "you look almost exactly like your father did at that age" to evolution. Doesn't mean it's not true, I just didn't know it. So Eddie's defence that he doesn't see evolution in action all around him is a fair one. Probably just never made the connection.

eric said: There's a deeper philosophical issue here though. If observation gives me confidence in this method called science, and biology uses this method called science, then my confidence in biology rests in part on observation. Without ever seeing evolution, I can have empirically-based confidence in the TOE as long as it derives from a method I have empirical confidence in. Creationists are very fond of claiming the reverse. Their variation of this argument is that our empirical confidence in "lab science" provides us no empirical justification to be confident in "historic science." That's untrue, because the method is the same. Substitute "physics" for the former and "biology" for the latter and ask yourself if the creationist argument is any better.

Airplanes are designed and constructed based on aerodynamic theories which work in the real world.(I design, build and fly model airplanes.) Both Popper and Kuhn have pointed out that theories which pass some tests can be used with confidence in the areas where they have passed the tests. This is what engineers, designers and builders try to do. Sometimes they test theories without intending to; the failure of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is an example.

I suspect your house was built on a flat earth. However, that you can live in your house does not validate flat earth theory as the best explaination of the shape of planet earth.

Jim,
It is not the flatness of the earth that I extrapolate from local to general, it is confidence in the measuring technique. Give me a long enough level, and yes, I can apply a technique from the "field of home construction" to the field of geography and get the right answer to the shape of the earth.

Similarly, if I see that some technique works in physics, and works in chemistry, and works in astronomy, then I have empirical reasons to have confidence that it works biology too.

We know that the curvature of the earth is 0.6 ft per mile below a level line (there is also a correction for refraction which is not relevant here.) My point is that although flat earth theory does not accruately predict the shape of the earth on a large scale, it predicts well enough on a small scale. We are justified in building houses on a flat earth, but not interstate highways.