The Customization of Science

The Impact of Religious and Political Worldviews on Contemporary Science

S. Fuller, M. Stenmark, U. Zackariasson, S. Fuller, M. Stenmark, U. Zackariasson

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137379603
• eBook ISBN: 9781137379610
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Biology
• Index: Social Sciences

This collection explores whether and how religious and secular worldviews and political ideologies held by scientists, citizens, decision-makers and politicians influence science as practiced and understood today. Contributors explore the social and scientific repercussions of 'customizing' science to fit the needs and interests of various groups.

1

The Customization of Science: An Introduction to the Debate

Mikael Stenmark

The core idea discussed in this book is the thesis that science today is becoming increasingly customized in various ways, whether it be to fit the economic interests, the political ideologies, or the religious or antireligious convictions of different institutions and groups in society; and that, owing to this development, people’s conception of science is changing. It is not just that science customizes us, changing our ideas about nature, society, and ourselves; we customize science in return, and increasingly so. There is two-way traffic, rather than a one-way street, and this needs to be taken into account in our theories about science, and about how it relates to society as a whole.

We used to leave it to scientists to decide what questions to ask, how to answer them, and how to interpret the findings of science; but this is all changing. Science is powerful, and various groups want to customize it to fit their interests, values, ideology, or religious or secular worldview. For these reasons, the perception of science among the public, and even among scientists themselves, is shifting. If science is increasingly perceived not to be free from social trammels, but to be frequently driven by corporate, political, ideological, or worldview considerations, scientists will more and more be seen as (partisan) lawyers, rather than as (neutral) experts. Both lawyers and experts have to get their facts straight, but whereas experts aim more at giving the interpretation of the facts, lawyers aim at giving an interpretation intended to prioritize certain interests above others. Think about the scientific theories and findings about issues such as IQ and race, sex and gender, free will and consciousness, free markets and economic growth, environmental emissions and planetary weather, genetically modified organisms and global climate change, cloning and stem cells, health and insanity, nuclear power and radioactive waste disposal, evolution and intelligent design, the Big Bang and the multiverse, and about morality and religion: are these unaffected by economic interests, political ideologies, or religious or antireligious convictions?

Not all contributors to this book agree with the thesis that science is becoming increasingly customized to fit the interests of different institutions and groups in society today, or that owing to such a development people’s conception of science is changing. One might deny that it is happening at all; or one might believe that it is happening, but that it is a marginal feature without much significance; or one could argue that science has always been customized in this way, and, therefore, that there is nothing new in what we are experiencing today. Or one could accept the thesis as an empirical claim, but reject it as a normative one, and argue that this is not how good science ought to be. Or one could maintain that some forms of customization of science are acceptable, whereas others are not. We have intentionally invited as contributors to this book people who hold very different opinions on the issues concerning the customization of science. The diversity of views presented makes for a really exciting and stimulating debate.

Thus, the aim is to explore how the political ideologies and religious or secular worldviews that people hold (be they scientists, citizens, decision-makers or politicians) influence science as it is practiced and understood today. We analyze and critically discuss the issue of the extent to which science is becoming more and more customized, and what might be thought about such a development. A customized science is, roughly, a science built according to, altered to, or fitted to a particular group’s specifications—that is, the group’s needs, interests, or values, its political ideology, or worldview. It is a science governed not merely by epistemic goals, such as increased knowledge and explanatory power, but also by nonepistemic goals, such as economic growth, sustainable development, the equality of women, the end of religion, or the glory of God. It is a science oriented towards a target group and shaped by this group’s interests, values, and commitments.

Within the European Union (EU), for instance, there is a movement away from pure environmental research towards environmental research for sustainable development. A particular social objective—intergenerational anthropocentrism—is assumed to govern the development and focus of environmental studies. An example of a different sort would be Steven Weinberg’s attempt to customize an atheistic science. He says that “anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization” (Weinberg, 2006). Of couse, this is not a science for all, but a science for those who embrace the ideology of secularism.

A number of Christians and Muslims seem to nurture a similar idea, but they move in the opposite direction. Both Mehdi Golshani and Alvin Plantinga think that it is excessively naïve to believe that contemporary science is religiously neutral. Whilst parts of science might be like that, the closer the science in question is to what is distinctively human, the deeper the worldview involvement becomes (Plantinga, 1996; Golshani, 2000). Therefore, they argue against a secular science and for a science shaped by religion. Golshani advocates an explicit Islamic science: “By Islamic science we mean a science that is framed within an Islamic world view and whose main characteristics are that it considers Allah as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe; does not limit the universe to the material world; attributes a telos to the universe; and accepts a moral order for the universe” (2000, p. 4).

Further, we have radical feminists such as Helen Longino, who maintains that “In order to practice science as a feminist, as a radical, or as a Marxist one must deliberately adopt a framework expressive of that political commitment” (1990, p. 197), or environmentalists who, for a long time, have maintained that “Modern science and technology are themselves major elements in the ideology of industrialism. There are those who would have us believe that science itself is neutral, yet more and more it is being put to ideological uses to support particular interests, especially by those who already wield the power in our society” (Porritt, 1984, p. 50).

Two Forms of Customized Science

The customization of science can go in at least two different directions, even if there are overlaps. We have a capitalist market science in which the customization is driven by the economic interests of different groups of people. As nation-states are losing their monopolies on science, much of the scientific research is done by private—national and international—companies with the aim of gaining a profit and selling a product. In biotechnology in particular, there are scientists who have patented discoveries, and formed or joined companies to profit from them. Today, many universities actively encourage the development of this form of applicable and tailor-made science. National states and the EU increasingly wish to shape science in a particular way: they want strategic research, a relevant and useful science. The EU aims to become a smart, sustainable, and inclusive economy, and wants to use and shape science to attain this objective. This is a dramatic example of the customization of the sciences, and one that we are witnessing right now.

We can also distinguish a second, and of course related, form of customized science. In this case, the customization is driven not primarily by economic interests, but by religious or antireligious, right or left wing, anthropocentric or nonanthropocentric, and feminist or nonfeminist interests or commitments. If we call the first form of customization “market-customized science”, what should this second form be called? I suggest that we can call it “worldview-customized science”. In this book, we focus more on the latter than on the former version of customized science. We explore and critically debate the impact of atheism, Christianity, feminism, Islam, environmentalism, and conservatism on science, and we discuss the intellectual and social conditions that make such customization of science possible and perhaps also desirable.

Atheism or naturalism is, roughly, the view that there is no God or anything like God, and, consequently, that there is nothing beyond or besides nature. Now, as atheism or naturalism cannot plausibly be called a religion, as its advocates argue against religion, we need another notion that can capture the idea that atheism or naturalism can fulfill a similar function in people’s lives to that of religion—to give shape and meaning to the world in which an individual or a group experiences and acts. The notion of worldview can be used for this purpose. We would then have religious worldviews, such as Christianity and Islam (or something more abstract—namely theism—that they presumably have in common), and nonreligious or secular worldviews, such as atheism or naturalism, and perhaps agnosticism.

A worldview is, roughly, the constellation of attitudes, beliefs, and values that people, whether consciously or unconsciously, hold and which are of relevance for understanding who they really are, what the world is ultimately like, what their true place in it is, what they should do to live a satisfying or good life, and what they can say, know, and rationally believe about these things. However, there is a fundamental ambiguity in the way the notion of worldview is used. On the one hand, we can talk about the scientific worldview and by that mean the picture of the universe that emerges if we bring together the different theories of physics, astronomy, biology, sociology, and so on into a systematic whole. On the other hand, we can talk about the embeddedness of science within a particular worldview, for instance within Christianity, feminism, Islam, or naturalism. It is in this second sense that the notion is used in this chapter. Notice, however, that other contributors to this book may use the notion in a different way, or oscillate between these two senses.

We think that the concept of worldview is flexible enough to also include political ideologies or political value systems; thus, we also treat standpoints such as feminism, environmentalism, socialism, and conservatism (left or right wing, anthropocentric or nonanthropocentric thinking) as worldviews. If a political ideology is taken to be a constellation of beliefs and values about human beings and society that is held in common by a group of people, and which both expresses and serves their social interests, and which they hold in the hope of gaining or sustaining political power, then political ideologies express a worldview, or can at least be taken to be a part of a worldview. Notice that this notion is also used in different ways in the literature; therefore, on the understanding adopted here, it does not necessarily entail the assumptions that an ideology contains false or unjustified ideas, or that only the ruling ideas of a particular society can be an ideology, or that an ideology is used to oppress other people.

The analytical categories of worldview and customization make it possible for us to interrelate, in a way that has not been done previously, the discussion of value-free science in the history and philosophy of science, the discussion of the social and political ramifications of scientific enterprise in the studies of Science, Technology, and Society (STS), and the debate about a religiously neutral science in the philosophy of religion and in the religion–science dialogue. These notions give us the conceptual resources to discuss within the same publication, for instance, feminist and Islamic science.

So what we explore and cross-relate in this study is the influence of worldviews such as Christianity, Islam, atheism, environmentalism, and feminism on science in late-modern society and how they directly or indirectly shape the scientific enterprise. The study concerns the impact of worldviews on science: whether such impact is not merely possible, but also desirable; and, if desirable, what limits there should be on the roles that worldviews play in science. One might say that the project is about how society—filtered through different worldviews—speaks back to science.

This customization of science could either take place, as I have so far described the phenomenon, on a collective or group level; or else it might be located at an individual or personal level. It is, of course, a matter of degree, but as Steve Fuller—in this book and elsewhere—points out, there is a trend in society today to take science more personally (2010, pp. 61–71). The general public is showing an increased willingness to try to make sense of the findings of science on their own, regardless of what the scientific establishment takes to be the orthodox interpretation of these results. This questioning of whether scientists can be trusted to provide a disinterested interpretation of their own findings is typically not directed against science per se and is thus not an expression of an antiscientific stance. It is more a matter of treating scientists as merely human; of acknowledging the difficulty, if not impossibility, of being an expert, yet not also an advocate, especially on issues that bear upon what sort of life one should live. Such a changing attitude towards science is induced by the ability of people to access on the internet almost the entire storehouse of scientific findings and theories from virtually any starting point. Science is becoming increasingly customized in the way that religion in the Western world has been customized ever since the Protestant reformation. In this respect, too, the notion of worldview is a fruitful analytical tool to use, as a worldview does not have to be well developed or systematic. It can be, but the worldviews of most people remain simply a set of background assumptions and attitudes, against which they understand themselves and the world, and act within it.

What we debate in this book is differing conceptions or views of science: whether people’s and scientists’ views of science are changing, and whether any such change is a good thing or something that should be resisted. A view of science or a conception of science expresses a standpoint about how science should be pursued and related to society. It tells us who counts as a scientist, how science should be internally organized and related to other institutions in society, what methods should be used, what aims might be achieved, and so on. In short, it specifies how science ought to conduct its internal and external affairs. A view of science is therefore a normative ideal, which—its advocates maintain—should regulate (if that is not already the case) actual scientific practice. It states and clarifies what is to be considered good or bad science.

The received view is the conception of a value-free science or a worldview-neutral science. Science should be immune to political and religious or antireligious influences; consequently, good science is value-free and worldview-neutral. Science should not be allowed to be customized in any way. (Let us understand this ideal as a-more-the-better view, so the idea is that the more value-free and worldview-neutral scientists are in their research, the better it is.) If instead we argue that both values and worldviews inevitably play a significant role in science and that we just have to accept this, then we are leaning towards a different view of science. We are then moving in the direction of adopting a value-directed science, or a worldview-supporting or worldview-guided science. On such an account as this, good science could be customized in a value-directed and worldview-supporting way.

Central Issues

A number of different, but related, issues and standpoints on these matters are covered by these broader questions of value-free and neutral science versus those of value-directed and worldview-guided science. Three of these issues are highlighted below (others are discussed in Stenmark, 2006, pp. 47–72).

The issue of autonomy

The autonomy of science is the idea that the direction of science is, or should be, an internal scientific affair. Science should be autonomous in the sense that scientists themselves—and not political parties, the government, religious or antireligious organizations, private corporations, or the like—ought to decide the direction of the research and what kind of questions ought to be asked in (and answered by) scientific research. The greatest benefits and the best theories from science will be obtained by letting scientists follow their own ideas of what kind of research should be pursued. Science should not be directed by anyone or anything outside the scientific community. Leave science to the scientists, and give them the resources to conduct their research with no strings attached! It is the values of, interests of, or priorities set by scientists—and not by nonscientists—that ought to guide the direction of future research. The more it is up to scientists to set these priorities, the better it is. The more it is up to nonscientists to set these priorities, the more problematic things become.

But the sources of funding for science and the institutional settings for research have, in recent times, been changing drastically. The fact that governments and corporations have become increasingly involved in the funding and direction of research, that science has become more and more politicized and commercialized in this way, entails the acceptance of a nonautonomous science—in the sense that a view of science becomes accepted in which it is appropriate that not only scientists themselves, but also bodies, such as political parties, governments, or private corporations, determine the direction of the research and what kind of topics should be addressed. Today, we can see in, for instance, the environmental sciences and biotechnology, the growth of a science that is less and less autonomous. Indeed, according to the advocates of these changing conditions for conducting science, the greatest benefits from science are to be obtained if nonscientists influence, to a significant degree, the direction of research. Therefore, they say, we ought to welcome this development.

The neutrality issue

Closely related to the idea of an autonomous science is the idea of a neutral science. Science is, and ought to be, a universal enterprise that people, regardless of their political ideology, religion, worldview, or conception of the good, can participate in and benefit from. Science belongs to neither side of any divide, be it between atheism and theism, Christianity and Islam, feminism and androcentrism, socialism and capitalism, liberalism and conservatism, sustainable development and ecocentrism, animal liberation and anthropocentrism, or any other. One should not need to make up one’s mind about which political ideology, religion, or conception of the good one should endorse in order to do science. Therefore, science ought to be neutral in respect of the worldviews that divide us. It should not proceed on the basis that any one worldview is probably true or the correct one to adopt. Science should be an activity we can all work at together, regardless of our political, religious, or nonreligious views. The more inclusive science can be, despite the worldview differences separating us, the better; the more exclusive science is in this regard, the worse it is.

But even if scientists alone were permitted to choose the direction of research, this would not mean that the choices made would be free from politics, religions, and so on, as scientists themselves adhere—consciously or unconsciously—to this or that worldview. Even if science is autonomous, the direction of scientific reasoning might still be significantly influenced by political and worldview concerns. Therefore, scientists should come out of the closet and be explicit about their worldview commitments and not try to hide them as their wo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Contributors
• 1. The Customization of Science: An Introduction to the Debate
• Part I: Worldviews and Customized Science
• Part II: Science and Scientists on Customized Science
• Part III: Society and the Customization of Science
• Postscript
• Index