Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method

by Henry H. Bauer

Challenging popular misconceptions about the nature of science and scientific activity, Bauer introduces for the intelligent lay reader the relatively new academic field of science, technology, and society studies, which describes science as first and foremost a social activity and examines the roles science and technology play in modern life. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.

Genres: Science, Education

180 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1992

Reviews

[Gerald Jerome · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's not very often that I find a book that alters my perception of a subject so radically. The author has a very thorough way of examining the topic at hand and truly delves into how one might come to understand and define science. In a lot of ways this book is more philosophical and semantic than anything. A couple noteworthy illuminating points:

- Science as a communal human activity as opposed to being defined simply by method

- Better educated does not necessarily mean better behaved

- Different studies under the label of "science" are not so homogenous as might first meet the eye (the initial perception is a by-product of the 'myth of method')

- Scientific facts are sometimes mingled too much with interpretation and overextended in what they come to infer

- The known known, known unknown, the unknown unknown, and how they come to influence ideas and perception

- Though facts are constrained by reality, theories are yet approximations of nature, not mirrored copies

- Science with a goal must have the appropriate knowledge to extend from, otherwise it is a waste (at least from standpoint of reaching that particular goal)

- The difference between frontier and textbook science

- Facts, though the most tangible element we can grapple with, are still open to interpretation and subject to perspective

All these points expose much when considering science. It is a book that I would recommend to everyone as there is so much to learn here. Even so, I must end with a few criticisms.

There were times when the author's assertions were not greatly substantiated or extrapolated. STS (Science, Technology, and Society) is sold quite hard in the beginning. It is stated initially and in the closing of the book that any type of literacy is good because it makes man more civilized. The problem is that this runs contrary to his point that being better educated doesn't necessarily mean better behavior and that, if anything, better intelligence or education can allow for more elaborate rationalizations of still pervasive and irrational human foibles. Furthermore, the author argues in the introduction that it is his preferred brand of education about science that is more vital to citizens of democracy. Again, the further explanation of why this is so, is lacking. The addition that the unexamined life is not worth living is reminiscent of Nietzsche's Übermensch attempting dismally to fill the void left by the philosopher's own reasoning away of absolute value or purpose.

The original standpoint appears to be that most studies under the label of science share very little in how they perform (method), but that the teasing out of natural facts is one major component common among them. To quote the author near the beginning of the book: "Once one has said that science is the study of nature, and that scientific knowledge is valid only so long as it is not contradicted by nature, one has said essentially all that is truly common, without qualification, among all the sciences." Near the end of the book, there is a chapter that fleshes out why social sciences are not really science after all. Granted, this book is a little dated, but it's a perspective that still pervades many opinions today. The author did not state that this made these studies any less useful, just less scientific. There are times when it seems we are playing a game of semantics more than anything.

The definition seemed to begin more broad and become more narrow as the inclusion of other studies came into discussion. Certain sciences are often vigilant in the protection of their classification. Rightly so, as there are many entities at any given time that wish to be called "science" in order to add to their supposed legitimacy. Regardless, social sciences do attempt draw facts from nature and pool them into workable theories. Not only were some of the contributions of the social sciences underplayed, but there are multiple issues at hand that the other sciences do not experience either currently or by the same degree:

- Social sciences are rather young in comparison to most other sciences. There has not been the same amount of time allotted to their cultivation.

- Humans are self-aware. They are the observer and the observed. This introduces greater issues of bias and complexity not found within more fundamental sciences.

It can be agreed that social science, more than fundamental science, can be obscured more by value judgments from a particular social and cultural perspective, reflecting opinion more than fact. It can be agreed that as a young science, it reflects more of frontier notions than the well-rounded textbook relationships. If anything, this further establishes his earlier and more liberal definition that the sciences are different in how they approach natural phenomena, which is, inherently, different. Social sciences are no exception.

There are areas of predictive ability within the social sciences. There have been contributions of very clear relationships between what is introduced to a person and the behavior they exhibit. The relationships are greatly obfuscated by the natural essence of the topic itself. This does not make it less legitimate as a general study. It simply means that those who choose to study it are tasked with traveling a less-understood path and that the fringes of any study are rife with bad examples to choose from. As the author mentioned himself, look to history for the examples of science tempered through self-correcting miscalculation. Phrenology is a thing of the past.

[Wlad · Rating 3 out of 5]

Acho que traz pontos relevantes para manter em mente sempre que estiver realizando experimentos ou aplicando os conhecimentos obtidos através do método científico. Achei que tratou com certo desdém as ciências humanas, colocando as ciências naturais em uma posição meio de superioridade. Em um momento, mesmo reconhecendo que a interpretação dos fenômenos observados é feita através das experiências do observador, ele continua insistindo que fatos serão iguais, independente de serem "politicamente corretos" ou não. Não foi uma leitura fácil, achei bem engessado às vezes.

[Geordie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Invaluable, clear-headed, thorough, and jaw-droppingly conscientious about the principled way to examine the world. Read this unless you are a total muffin-head and then if you are, don't read it but just sit around with your big honking muffin head nodding and saying things like "I like it in grape flavor better" or whatever guys like that say...

[Benjamin Deloso · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book for a class that was a mixture of the history of science and ethics and absolutely loved it. I found it eye opening that there really isn't a scientific method, but discoveries come to light in very disorganized ways.