During the past two decades science has come under persistent attack from an unexpected quarter, from groups within the groves of academe. These various groups can be loosely classified under the general banner of the academic left. The critics come from various areas, but mainly from the disciplines of social science, English, philosophy and history. They make their attacks on science from several viewpoints, principally radical feminism, radical ecology, multiculturalism and animal rights.
For a considerable time mainline science ignored these critics, treating them as extreme fringe elements that might burn brightly in the noonday sun for a short time, but would surely and quickly fizzle out. This, however, was to misjudge the climate of the times. Far from fading out, the critics have blossomed and bloomed.
They can no longer be ignored, and science is at last beginning to round on them. Most of the criticisms levelled by the academic left can be effectively answered. A recent comprehensive book dealing with this general area is Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, by P.R. Gross and N. Levitt (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994).
Readers of this column will know that I don't think science is above criticism. I do, however, believe that science is a fine thing, and certainly one of the best things we have. Which of us doesn't feel a little glow of pride watching the pictures coming back from Pathfinder on Mars, pride that we are members of a species clever enough to step off our home planet and confidently explore the cosmos?
Science is a pure product of human intelligence. Science works and we are right to be proud of it.
Of course, we must not make a god of science. Other dimensions are also of vital importance. These include the spiritual dimension, appreciation of music, the arts and literature, and a reverence for all life and for the natural world in which it lives. And now for the critics on the academic left. In this article I will deal only with the radical feminist and the radical eco-philosophers. Why, you might wonder, would radical feminists have any problem with science? Well, science is largely a product of Western civilisation over the past 400 years. This civilisation was patriarchal and deeply sexist, and science has emerged as a supreme and cherished product of this male-dominated society. There is a deep animosity towards science on the part of the high priestesses of radical feminist philosophy. They argue that the entire orientation and attitude of science has been conditioned by a specifically male rapacious attitude towards nature. I can see little sense in the feminist argument. Science works because it has a set of rules for guiding scientists so that they move forward when successful but are prevented from moving forward when they fail.
Science is consistent. For example the theory of evolution, as worked out by biologists, would not stand up if the age of the Earth, as independently determined by physicists, was significantly less than it is.
Science has a unifying power. For example, the idea of plate tectonics in geology explains many aspects of geology and geography in a single proposal. Science is predictive. Starting out with facts it predicts the future, e.g. we know exactly when Halley's Comet will return. Science works. It transcends culture. Sex, religion, age or colour make no difference. The science of Adam is the science of Eve.
The basic position of the radical green philosophers is similar to the feminist position. Radical eco-philosophy holds that modern man has become estranged from the natural environment and that our current environmental problems have been caused by that estrangement. It points to the Enlightenment as the time when things started to go wrong, when scientists and philosophers like Descartes, Galileo and Newton killed nature.
In other words, these scientists introduced the idea that the natural world works in a deterministic or mechanical manner and that it can therefore be fully comprehended and dominated by the impersonal and value-free scientific method. In summary, the radical eco-philosophers charge that the rise of science abolished the old view of the Earth as a living thing, worthy of respect.
The eco-philosophers believe that, prior to the estrangement, man lived in idyllic harmony with nature, a condition which precluded environmental degradation. In this view the very spirit of science is inimical to the development of a caring attitude towards the environment which is essential if we are ever to reverse the effects of environmental degradation.
The philosophical analysis just outlined does not stand up to scrutiny. There never was an idyllic phase in history when man lived in complete harmony with nature. There is no shortage of evidence that, in past ages well before the emergence of science, communities regularly inflicted damage on their local environments, e.g. deforestation, over-hunting, torture of animals etc. Indeed, there is evidence that, even in the late Stone Age, man found it difficult to live in harmony with nature.
There is evidence that human beings at the time wiped out dozens of species of large mammals by overkill. If this is true, the ecological damage caused to the planet then was just as significant as our current environmental problems.
Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that several modern science-based technologies have caused environmental problems, e.g. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations have contributed strongly to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
However, it is wrong to blame such problems on science per se. Decisions regarding the implementation, scope and policies of science based technologies are driven by complex social forces and are largely made by non-scientists.
The ideas I have discussed here are the ideologies of influential philosophers at the fountainheads of the radical feminist and the green movements. These ideas diffuse out into the general movements to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the country. As far as I can see, the effects of these philosophies are fairly minimal in Ireland. However, in my experience the philosophies of the radicals still have sufficient influence here to make the average feminist and green unnecessarily wary of science.
The radical philosophers have much more influence elsewhere, e.g. in the US. Most of these ideas have originated on American university campuses. This is the same firm that gave us political correctness (PC), a general philosophy for which I have little respect. By their fruits shall ye know them.
William Reville is a senior lecturer in biochemistry at UCC