Science word instigates from “scientia” which is a Latin name with the meaning of acquaintance. Science therefore is the acquaintance gained in the course of the progression of learning and applying what has been learned. The structures of attaining the knowledge are by the application of examination, explanation for demonstrations and enlightenment on the natural occurrences. From that, philosophy of science deals with the assumptions and methods of science as per the worth of science. It gets it support form a common quote that says that philosophy of science is useful for scientists as ornithology is to birds. This paper will be expounded on what the science wars is as well as stating if anyone is winning.
The science wars
These are a series of intellectual exchanges between scientific realists and the postmodernist critics. Their point of contentions was in the nature of scientific theory that happened in the United States in the early 1990s. (Stove, 122-124) The wars started with confrontation from scientists or ex-natural scientists that had implicit the role of representatives of science to the outside world. The front runners in these wars in the United States were individuals like Paul Gross, Norman Levitt, and Alan Sokal while in Britain, the front runners in this war included but not limited to Lewis Wolpert. (Gasper, 76-77)The main point of contention between them was in the psychoanalysis of the science coming out of fictitious studies as well as the communal sciences.
The post modernist did query the objectivity of the scientific methods and the scientific knowledge in cultural studies as well as the science and technology studies. These was countered by the realists by claiming that the aim of scientific acquaintance is for real and that the postmodernist critics had little understanding on the same science they were trying to criticize.
The scientific realism
Scientific realism in terms of its origin or history is associated to former philosophical positions that do include rationalism and realism and it was formulated giving an expression that realism in terms of its antique, medieval, and recent cousins being misleading. It was formulated majorly to counter react to the logical positivism which comes into existent as the fore runner of the scientific realism. (George, 125-127) The setbacks of the logical positivism did give way for the formation of realism as a philosophy in science. Illustration of such difficulties is the verification theory of connotation, the theory leadenness of surveillance as well as the indistinctness of the observational theoretical distinction. (Stove, 122-124) Bas Van Fraassen did expand the constructive empiricism as an alternative to realism with the responses to Van shaping the version of scientific realism.
Scientific realism is portrayed in a different perspective by every scientist trying to elaborate on it. This does offer challenges to us the learners when it comes to understanding and depicting the main objective behind this topic in general. The common ideas that have been depicted here are results of scientific investigations concerning the observable and the unobservable features of the world with the distinction between them reflecting the human sensory capabilities. (Michael, 86-88)The observables features according to the scientists are the features that under normal conditions that are contusive to the human beings, they can be seen or perceived with the unaided senses for example microscopes. On the other hand, the unobservable are those that cannot be seen or noticed with the normal eye of the human being. They therefore will need some aided tools and machines in order for them to be observable or seen. (Alex, 56-57) By example, they do include but not limited to proteins, protons as well as atoms. In conjunction with the philosophy of science, scientific realism is categorized as to give an answer to the question that say how is the success of science portrayed.
The main characteristics for the scientific realism do entail the two fundamental positions. The claims on the characteristics of an ideal scientific theory which is the kind of theory that science aspires to fabricate and secondly, is the obligation that the science in the long last make the theories to be similar to an ideal theory with the science having gone through some tremendous progress.(Igor, 76-77) As per the scientific realism, a scientific theory encloses some attributes that include the assertion that the theory makes either factual or phony assertions depending on if the entities about the theory do exist. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism. The next feature according scientific realism is the objectivity and the mind self-determining and is said to be the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism. (Helen, 78-80)The last characteristic under this believes that there exists some noteworthy segment of what the theory does claim. It is the epistemological obligation as per the scientific realism’s features.
It is held that under the scientific realism, science makes advancement. This implies that through this theory, more and more inquiries can get responses. This makes the scientific realism to be held that the progress of science when it relates to theories is successful and match the way they are described. There are several claims that are held by the scientific realists and they include but not limited to the most excellent scientific theories are at least moderately true. Another claim is that the predictive success of a theory is the verification of the referential accomplishment of its nucleus terms, the objective of science is the account of the physical world that is factually accurate and it is the objective that progress has been made towards. The degree of the extrapolative achievement of a theory is obvious of the referential success of its essential phrase is another feature.
Postmodernism
This is the rejection of the independent autonomous individuals with strong stress on radical collective, unidentified experience. Collage, diversity, the mystically not represent able, Dionysian passion are the force of care. Postmodernism is concerned with a wide variety of areas including general those of thought. These areas include; art design, literature and expertise. There is also an attention on disintegration and break including vagueness. (Han, 97) It stresses on a un structured, un centered humanity. This means confusion and disintegration, which are seen as bad qualities, are perceived as a tolerable demonstration of reality by the modernists. Modernization is considered the fragmented view of human life as bad or tragic whereas postmodernists somewhat celebrate this apparently worthless outlook of the world, they also accept the likelihood of indistinctness and they also see concurrent opinion not as clashing but as a vital part of the multifaceted pattern of fact.
Deconstruction is one of the known postmodernist’s inclinations. It is a deriding approach to written analysis, its work is within the calculated text aimed to expose and destabilize its frame of references, supposition and ideological basics. It influenced the creation of deconstructionism, which is a postmodern architectural movement that is characterized by fragmentation, alteration and displacement of elements such as structure and envelope.
Structuralism is a wide-ranging philosophical crusade which advanced in France around 1950 as a result of French Existentialism; it is branded to be either modernist or postmodernist trend. (Igor, 95-96)Those structuralisms that moved away from the strictest interpretation came to be known as the poststructuralists. Many of them were known as postmodern though a lot of them rejected to be referred by the word. Those linked to the word included thinkers like Claude Levi-Strauss, Marxists like, theorists Roland Barthes and psychoanalysts like Jacques Lucan.
They always put much emphasis on the ways which deferent features of a cultural order from its commonplace material details to its most abstract theoretical advocates. As structuralism did, it too places much focus on the determination of identities, values as well as the economies in relation to one another, rather than assuming internal possessions or essences of signs or components as starting points. This term came to use for the first time in 1870s by John Watkins Chapman ``a postmodern painting ‘as one strategy of moving away beyond the French Impression. The same term also came into use in 1914 by J.M. Thomson in his article journal. He used the term to define the changes in attitude and believes of the critiques of faith.
Thereafter, postmodernism was used in all sorts of movements like art, music and literature which responded against the tendencies in the Imperialist phase of capitalism known as `` modernism,’’ which are frequently marked by the revitalization of past rudiments and methods. (Helen, 122-124) Four postmodernism typological world views put forward by Walter T Anderson are namely; postmodern ironist, which sees truth to be socially built; the scientific rational, in which truth is established through systematic, controlled inquiry; social traditional, in which truth is found in the legacy of American and the westernization; and neo-romantic, where truth is found through attaining of harmony with nature.
This came as a response to the much perceived weakness, aggressions and utopianism that exists as a consequence of modern movement. (Sir, 199-200) Critiques of modernism say the attributes of perfectionism and the attempted harmony of form and function as well as the dismissal of ``frivolous ornament’’. They argue that the qualities of excellence and minimalism themselves were personal and pointed out relics in modern thought and questioned the paybacks of its philosophy. (Stove, 99-101) It begun in the United states in 1972 with the first issue of boundary 2,subtitled ‘’Journal of postmodern literature and culture’’ where school of art and poetry were integral figures as far as intellectual and artistic explanation of postmodernism at the time are concerned .
Arguments for and against scientific realism
The foremost argument against the realism do say that the past of the history do have several theories that were one time regarded as empirically successful but at present, they are being seen an termed as not true. (Igor, 65-66) To top on that, the science do have several successful hypothesis whose unobservable terms are not so true. By illustration, the effluvial hypothesis of motionless electrical energy is an empirically victorious whose innermost unobservable terms have been altered by the preceding hypothesis. They do so stating that the preceding ones are better and that they do provide progress in the nature of scientific knowledge to greater heights enabling the removal of the unobservable. By illustration, the hypothesis of Albert Einstein of special relativity designates that the perception of the aluminiferous could be let go due to the fact that it had not in any way contributed to the advancement of the hypothesis of mechanics.(Gasper, 99) A well acknowledged perception for example the perception of the atoms cannot be laid apart but rather it is incorporated into the new hypothesis.
Another argument against scientific realism is the squabble that the scientific realism is unable to give a description for the rapid transformations that do take place in the scientific acquaintance at the processes of insurrection. This argument does forget that several scientists are not realist and that the most distinguished transformation of science, the dominant philosophy of science was rational positivism. Observational data being able to be explained by several theories that are not at all related is another argument that is against the scientific realism.
As for the argument that do support the scientific realism, it does put its central fact on the concept that scientific acquaintance is transformative in nature and that it is able to predict occurrences or happens in this world very precisely. (George, 104-105) It is thought that the operational success of a hypothesis do lead to credence to the notion that it is more unobservable features that do exist. Ernan McMullin and Richard Boyd are such scientists that were realists and they could eventually argue that science must come out with some ontological support for the unobservable for the occurrence of the hypothesis to stand. (Michael, 128-129)The scientists in support of this do appeal addictive reasoning. This do imply that the influence to the best explanation. Scientific realism is proved to the success in predicting and giving explanation to several occurrences through which, best descriptions for our environment we can give appropriately.
Science wars in the Social text
In the year 1996, the Duke University did a publication that came to be called the Social Text. It was a postmodern critical theory that compressed the science wars into brief articles by the postmodernist social sciences and the humanities. This artifact did lay emphasis on the society’s role to science and the writer Andrew Ross noted that as long as the wars were going on, the attack on the science studies was going to be affected. (Stove, 89-91)This was to the fact that it could imply less funding for the scientific research because of the flight from the sciences to other areas of studies.
After some period of the production of the social context article, there were increased discussions by all the parties that were being affected by the science wars so that they could end their differences and conflict. This also could lead to reconciliation of both parties for the progression of the science as a subject. (George, 99-101)Both the postmodernists and scientists did avail themselves in the event that was termed as the Science and Its Critics. It was a conference that was held in the year 1997 and it did bring jointly scientists as well as scholars who were studying the science subject and the key speakers at the conference were Steve Fuller and Alan Sokal.
At the conference, the concluding features of substantial coverage but no resolutions were reached on the fundamental features of the social construction and the objectivity in science as a whole. In the same year, Mike Nauenberg a physicist at the California University did try to reconcile the two parties by hosting them in another conference. (Han,99-100)This was attended by Alan Sokal, David Mermin, and Harry Collins. Following that conference, Harry did organize another meeting that brought together a majority of scientists and sociologists so that an agreement could be reached on the wars that had been for some taken form.
Through this several conferences, it was agreed upon that a book that was for the purpose of giving guidelines with the aim of bringing to an end the disputes that they were facing. The one culture that was written and edited by Jay A. (Gasper, 126-128) Harbinger and Harry Collins was published in the year 2001 and was given the title of The Two Cultures. In it, there are contributions from Alan, Jean, Steven, as well as Chapin. To add on to that, the book Making Social Science Matter by Bent Flyvbjerg was produced and in, it was noted that social sciences are phronesis while the natural sciences was reoffered to as episteme. The phronesis is for the reflexive psychoanalysis and episteme was seen to be good for the advancement of the predictive hypothesis.
The fact that both parties were taking part in the conferences and giving contributions and eventually coming up with conclusions meant that no party in that was taking part in the science war was winning nor losing. (Helen, 102-104)This implies that there was the give and take from both parties leading to the agreement and conclusion that were eventually documented as we have noted above. In the recent times, the science wars are less mentioned and even if they are, their present effect is less unlike in the past when they had not been harmonized. Through the wars, the scientists enabled people to come to terms that there was not the slightest prospect that the kind of social encounters we come to face with will have purpose facts as their effects to the human kind. Therefore, the science war did not provide any winner or loser at the end of it all but rather, a compromise was reached upon.
In winding up, the year 1990s saw a conflict of the science of wars emerge led by conservatives in science and by name they were Paul Gross and Norman Levitt from the United States against the science bashers mainly from the United Kingdom. These wars as we have seen therein resulted in research and commentary from the scientists from the two countries and their confrontation majorly was in sociologists, natural scientists, anthropologists as well as historians. The discussed these issues in debates resulting to the science of the present being associated with destructive forces for example, science giving rise to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. In questioning how and why military, academic, and corporate science answers only the privileged needs and importances. Thanks to the science wars, their arguments have provided answers to many of the public questions as well as the emergence of popular alternatives established by science.
Works Cited
David Charles Stove, Popper and After. Four Modern Irrationalist, Oxford: Pergounon Press, 2004
Boyd, Richard and Gasper, Philip.The Philosophy of Science. New York: MIT Press, 2001
Couvalis, George. The Philosophy of Science: Science and Objectivity. Sydney: SAGE, 2007
Hanzel, Igor. The Concept of Scientific Law in the Philosophy of Science and Epistemology: A
Study of Theoretical Reason. London: Springer, 2009
Lange, Marc. Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008
Longino, Helen. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000
Radder, Hans.The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh,
2003
Rosenberg, Alex. Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge,
2012
Strevens, Michael. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanations. Havard: Havard University,
2008.
Ravetz,Jerome R. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Oxford University Press,2008
