Customer Reviews

Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Very valuable discussion of science; science, technology, & society (STS)

I consider this short book by Professor Bauer a must read for any person, scientist or non-scientist, who wants a concise but thorough discussion of the way science works, and of the myth, really ideal, of the scientific method, and most importantly, of what the author calls STS: science, technology, and society. I found the book remarkable because Professor Bauer is a practicing scientist, yet he delineates a philosophy of science from a very objective, dispassionate point of view. While he rightly praises science much in the last chapter, most of the rest of the book focuses not only on the limitations of science and scientific knowledge, but which sciences really are and are not scientific as he defines it. Clearly the fact that Professor Bauer has been the dean of arts and sciences at Virginia Tech has given him a balance between science and the arts, and has allowed him to see science both as an insider and an outsider.

Thus the main thrust of the book is to show that what is most vital for the layperson is not to attempt to become "scientifically literate," which the author claims would be a very time-consuming task, even for a college student, but rather to see that science is a human activity whose theories and models are limited not only because scientists are human, but because almost without exception scientific "truths" are at some point superseded by better "truths," a process which repeats itself ad infinitum. It is therefore far better for the layperson to try to understand science's relationship to technology and society. The book does cover the relationship between science and technology well, but the author seems to be content to let the reader explore science's relationship to society through other sources, which I did not see in the references. Still, this is a very minor shortcoming in my view because of the many great insights and sources which he does provide.

A key point stressed by Prof. Bauer in different contexts is that the power of science is that it is agreed on by consensus, but that does not always mean that the consensus is right, again because humans are fallible, and because data is *always* interpreted according to a theory or some other bias. The author, as have many other philosophers of science, refutes the common belief that in science knowledge is

gained exclusively by strict Baconian impartial induction. Examples are cited where scientists could not accept data obtained wholly by scientific methods because it didn't fit their prejudices.

The chapter called "The So-Called Scientific Method" is the best I've read on why the empirical scientific method, while a wonderful ideal to strive for, is nevertheless a myth. Prof. Bauer makes many important points, such as that some sciences (physics) are theory-driven, while other sciences are observation-driven (geology); some sciences can make precise theories through specific experiments (physics and chemistry), while other sciences (cosmology and paleoanthropology) cannot run experiments and are thus very "data deficient." As well chemistry, Prof. Bauer's specialty, is itself sub-divided into disciplines that work according to different methodolgies.

Another chapter that is also outstanding is the following chapter, "How Science Really Works." Prof. Bauer uses as the main theme the excellent analogy devised by Michael Polyani of scientific problem solving as a puzzle of different teams communicating with each other, getting at the truth, piece by piece, separately but in tandem nevertheless. Another theme that is very helpful in this chapter is the author's cogent distinction between textbook science and frontier science. Textbook science is almost always reliable because it has passed the test of time through repeated verification. On the other hand, frontier science, which is unfortunately what is usually reported in the news precisely because it is "new" and exciting, often turns out to be dead wrong. The chapter also discusses those levels of science between these two "extremes." After reading this chapter I feel that I now have a much clearer way to assess the truth of whatever science I might be reading about.

There is much more to this book than I can go into here. Again, I recommend it very highly to those who want a clear and insightful perspective on science and STS.

I took a class from Professor Bauer at Virginia Tech (the title eludes me) about pseudoscience - Loch Ness monster hunts, cryptozoology, UFO's, Cold Fusion, Kirlian Photography, Psychic/Palm Readings, etc. - and this was a supplemental text for the class. The book really explores how the Scientific Establishment/Hierarchy operates and how it isn't all that "objective" after all. Scientists are people, after all, and with that comes all the animosities, territoriality, envy, back-stabbing, and greed that all people exhibit. Radical discoveries by groups of people may get ignored, dismissed offhand, or viciously attacked by the establishment so as to preserve the integrity and perceived authority that the establishment weilds. Science is not an immaculate, dust and static free process - there are struggles and paradigm shifts all the time - and the general public tends to think it is just the opposite. I recommend this book for anyone who likes to challenge conventional modes of thinking and re-examine some of the longest-standing illusions about science ever created.

I am trained in a scientific discipline and have always been fascinated personally with the "ways of science". I have learned over the past 30 years that science is not one way of doing things. Science's goal is to seek the "truth" but the truth can be derived via numerous paths depending on the body of knowledge and discipline one is dealing with.

Science is also practiced by flawed human beings whose actions may diverge from the strict mental discipline required to practice good science--science that can ultimately be trusted by the layperson who pays the scientist's bills.

This book, although written well before the global warmist myths, predicts such a myth because they have been seen before; and because the nature of scientific endeavor and its claim to truth through reason is so powerful it is also intoxicating to those seeking power over others.

Science can be ultimately used for the wrong reasons--an hypothesis, so attractive to the user, may be proven wrong--or contrary facts never even sought or in fact suppressed--that the hypothesis begins to be seen as fact. This is the nature of the global warmist myth.

This book is an inner look at science in action by a person engaged in a hard science and fascinated with it, but also fully aware of its good and bad players. It is as relevant today as when it was written. I believe it should be required reading and discussion at the college level for those who seek a scientific career.

Anti-creationism dressed up in a mountain of fancy talk. You don't need a mountian of fancy talk to learn "science" isn't something to base your life on. The author seems very confused, in which he doesn't want people engaging in "scientism" and not to base your life on it, and that there's different types of science, and it shouldn't be closed off to new ideas, yet this guy sneaks in some asburd comments about creationism being pseudo science without ANY evidence. Yet clearly, his book is supposed to be against that type of discrimination. What a whopper of a mistake. This is just an anti-religionist trying to come across as reasonable, but fails, because he is against the very thing he's teaching: being open to what is reasonable.

Bauer argues that the notion of a single, logical Scientific Method is contradicted by the ongoing process of science and by its history (i.e., the history of science).

The facts strongly suggest that something similar to a Douglas McGregor "Theory Y" mindset and the set of relationships it implies are necessary to produce useful scientific results, while "Theory X" minds and relationships, though possibly useful in simplifying communications or in taking credit for "Theory Y" activities, are not ideas that can by themselves legitimately create paradiam shifts. (Read the Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor to understand what I'm getting at.)

"Theory Y" does not deny that Love is a commodity. Nor that competitive forces are not part and partial of this entity. Love has its own market with rules, supply, and demand dictacted by the heart.