{"id":139893,"date":"2021-06-02T12:12:57","date_gmt":"2021-06-02T20:12:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=139893"},"modified":"2021-06-02T12:18:34","modified_gmt":"2021-06-02T20:18:34","slug":"the-scientific-revolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=139893","title":{"rendered":"The Scientific Revolution"},"content":{"rendered":"

From the London Review of Books<\/a>:<\/p>\n

* For the great majority of people, believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith. Most of us neither witness the successful experiments nor would be able to understand them if we did. So we put an extraordinary amount of trust in things we know virtually nothing about…<\/p>\n

* The rhetoric of science has, however, acquired such prestige since the 17th century that it has become difficult not to believe that through science the world is finally telling us what it\u2019s really like. That if the world could speak for itself it would speak science. Indeed it can sometimes seem as if scientific descriptions are not made by people at all, especially when these descriptions involve accounts of our cosmic irrelevance. Science often suggests that the most brilliant thing about us is that we invented science. There is something ironic about such persuasive man-made accounts of our own unfreedom and redundancy. It is like God proving that God is dead.<\/p>\n

* Science proves that science is true. In other words, scientific criteria of value dictate most of what we are supposed to take seriously, or believe in (or rather, put our money on). It is part of Steven Shapin\u2019s point to explain how we have been prepared \u2013 taught, encouraged and sometimes coerced \u2013 to put so much of our trust in such things. And that trust is what is at issue. It\u2019s not that Shapin is in any way anti-science: his interest is in what he calls the \u2018pervasive stories\u2019 we tend to be told about it. In his view there is no essence to the scientific revolution: what we now call science has always been \u2013 despite its will to consensus \u2013 the site of a multiplicity of competing social practices. When Shapin states in his Introduction, \u2018I take it for granted that science is a historically situated and social activity and that it is to be understood in relation to the contexts in which it occurs,\u2019 the italics are not to be quibbled with. It is the story of this distinction between the scientific and the social, between fact and value \u2013 and the fact that we talk in these terms at all \u2013 that Shapin tells so incisively.<\/p>\n

* When Galileo assembled various eminent fellow practitioners of astronomy to view the moons of Jupiter through his telescope they were mostly disappointed. But when we learned to use such instruments at school, “we belonged to a culture that had already granted the reliability of these instruments (properly used), that had already decided for us what sorts of things authentically existed in the domains of the very distant … and that had provided structures of authority in which we could learn what to see (and what to disregard).”<\/p>\n

* We can privilege what we say by claiming it comes from a superior source that we, or some of us, have unique access to \u2013 God, the Tradition, the Unconscious, Scientific Method.<\/p>\n

“The more a body of knowledge is understood to be objective and disinterested, the more valuable it is as a tool in moral and political action. Conversely, the capacity of a body of knowledge to make valuable contributions to moral and political problems flows from an understanding that it was not produced and evaluated to further particular human interests.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From the London Review of Books: * For the great majority of people, believing in the truths of science is unavoidably an act of faith. Most of us neither witness the successful experiments nor would be able to understand them … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16225],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=139893"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139893\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":139898,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139893\/revisions\/139898"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=139893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=139893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=139893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}