The Flight from Science and Reason

by Paul R. Gross (Editor), Norman Levitt (Editor), Martin W. Lewis

"Evidence of a flight from reason is as old as human the fact of it certainly goes back an even longer way. Flight from science specifically, among the forms of rational inquiry, goes back as far as science itself... But rejection of reason is now a pattern to be found in most branches of scholarship and in all the learned professions."--from the introduction In the widely acclaimed Higher The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt offered a spirited response to the "science bashers", raising serious questions about the growing criticism of scientific practice from humanists and social scientists on the academic left. Now, in The Flight from Science and Reason, Gross and Levitt are joined by Martin W. Lewis to bring together a diverse and distinguished group of scholars, scientists, and experts to engage these questions from a wide variety of perspectives. The authors take on critics of science whose views range from moderate to extreme, from social constructivists to deconstructionists, from creationists and feminists to Afro-centrists. They discuss the rise of "alternative medicine" and radical environmentalism (here skewered as "ecosentimentalism"). They explain why the "uncertainty principle" does not work as a metaphor for ambiguity, and why "chaos theory" cannot be invoked without an understanding of mathematics. Throughout, they grapple with the paradox inherent in arguing with opponents who contend that reason itself, and thus logic, is suspect. Distributed for the New York Academy of Sciences

Genres: Science, Philosophy

593 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1996

Reviews

[Stephie Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book that I have just reread. I originally read it in the 1990's. It is a collection of papers presented at a conference on how to combat the postmodern attack on science and reason in the academy. It covers a wide range of research area: natural science, sociology, anthropology, religion, feminism, mathematics, education, and medicine. All the papers are well written making them understandable to a well versed reader in science and philosophy. As with any collection of writings I like some more than others, and there were a few I did not care for at all. For instance, a chapter on chaos theory and its abuse is more technical than I think it needed to be. Some were gems. It included several papers by Susan Haack and one by Paul Kurtz, both high on my list of favorite philosophers.

While dated to some extant, it is still a valuable source for how to defend science and reason, both of which I adore, but do not idolize. They have a prominent place in my life, but do not make up the whole. After all, is laughter or being kind, science or reason; even though, both of these things can be studied scientifically and reasoned about, but do not capture all aspects of these important human activities.

[Grazyna Nawrocka · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a fascinating overview of trends in current science. The chapters, which I really liked were: "Is Environmental Cancer a Political Disease?," "Old Messages [...]," "Building Bridges to Afrocentrism [...]," and "The Science Question in Postcolonial Feminism."

Let me tease a little. I don't think "catholicity of tastes" is well defined term, and I'd love to get meaning of it. The next sentence is long, and convoluted, so perhaps I cut it in wrong place, but I cannot make heads or tails of "cogent response from scientist willing to take the time to study and respond thereto; and vice versa!"

"Prehistoric remains had been discovered in France and Germany, and there were even rumors of findings in Africa. Surely human life could not have started in those uncivilized places [? it's very untrue and racial statement]. In other place again: "Afrocentrists, but also academics in other disciplines who steered fastidiously clear of the argument, not only because they accept enhanced self-esteem as a remedy for the handicaps [?] borne by some black students [...]" [what kind of handicaps, perhaps definition would help?]

"No Jungian psychology is taught in any self-respecting department of psychology. Whoever believes in homeopathy cannot make it into an accredited medical school." [It's a very controversial statement.]

"To encourage people to learn about evolution, it is necessary to allow them to retain their faith." [Ouch! I could write whole dissertation about this statement. Let's speak about liberty, fraternity, and equality - yes, equality. Who are you to allow me to retain my faith? I have it granted by the constitution. What would make you so superior to people who have ideas other then yours? Perhaps a little tolerance would help?].

I loved some parts, like "idea of statistics as a means of ascertaining 'the 'quantum of happiness' enjoyed by the inhabitants if a country,'and the means of its future improvement." Also:'"authority unjustified by reason is tyranny, and when supported by reason, is redundant, for reason alone should suffice." This recognition is the necessary step toward selfhood.' Funny ideas reported about attempts to weight soul or extract light from cucumbers.

"[In] natural selection (very few animals have offspring) [except for insects, rodents, cats, dogs, rabbits, etc.]

Those were bits and pieces that I had issues with. However, whole book is very enriching. It helps understand importance of scientific method in exploring the world, and promotes separation of religion from state and science. It is hard to read, but very interesting and comprehensive. I enjoyed reading it. One more issue: I would wholeheartedly agree that alternative medicine should not be used instead of regular one, however it shouldn't be discarded, because it is as a very effective method of prevention. That is the reason I would find using of herbs (especially now, that may people are resistant to antibiotics) equally scientific as any other subject.

[Gabrielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed bag of essays. Some legitimate criticisms against extremist wings, some poignant analyses of the forces of anti-science in the US, and some that committed severe fallacies. Best sections involved education, health, and the overviews as well as the religious sections. Environmental and feminism also had good criticisms (not of each per se, but for instance, "feminist epistemologies" which embrace the same aspects of women as mysogeny [women as emotional, "the moon," etc]). Some did feel either short-sighted or slipped into anecdotal evidence in absence of more rigorous evidence. Happy I read it, won't read it again

[valiantdust · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't finish this whole thing because there are chapters on subjects I don't care to know much. But I read most of it. It's a collection of essays from a conference held in 1996 after the publication of Gross and Levitt's Higher Superstition. It represents a major component of the Science Wars. Unlike Gross and Levitt's book (or Sokal and Bricmont's) there are multiple contributions from various disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences, which were the major targets of the natural science critique of the postmodern turn in social sciences and humanities in the 1980s and 1990s. I got this used. It's tough to find, but if one is interested in this topic, this book is a must. I think in the years to come when postmodernism becomes less and less favourable, volumes like this and the persepectives therein will become more and more important. And if this book suggests anything, it is that the various critiques of PoMo that dominate today were present 25 years ago but were simply ignored by academics.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

A reaction to current educational theory from what seems to be the scientific right wing. Interesting points, but trods a bit heavily on the humanities.