Customer Reviews

The Unnatural Nature of Science (Questions of Science)

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

 

 

Excellent essay about the real nature of science and the fact that day-to-day common sense will never give an understanding of the nature of science.
Absolutely to the point are his analyses of science and technology (science produces ideas whereas technology results in the production of usable objects), science and philosophy (science has been immune to philosophical doubts) & science and morality (decisions are political and economic).
His viewpoint on genetic engineering is 'common sense': "... genetic engineering ... has so far damaged no one. By contrast, smoking, AIDS, drugs and alcohol have caused massive damage to children in utero." (p.168)
Particularly impressive are the chapters on 'Science and religion' (7) where the author defends secularism, and on 'Moral and Immoral Science' (8).
This book contains some very painful paragraphs on Konrad Lorenz.
A must read for everybody interested in western and scientific culture.

I agree that Lewis Wolpert's language is "measured and thoughtful" in "The Unnatural Nature of Science", as advertised. He asks thought-provoking questions (What catalysts produced the scientific revolution? What are the origins of creativity?). The book, though, does not fully answer the questions and suffers from three fundamental problems:

1) "Unnatural" is not clearly-defined
2) He relies on unsubstantiated assertions and generalizations
3) He disparages psychology and philosophy as unscientific, yet psychology and philosophy (or, his own version of them) comprise his argument.

The first problem is the biggest. If Wolpert had provided a coherent definition of "natural" and "unnatural", we could verify or falsify his argument. As it is, we are left to infer his precise meaning from examples and assertions about "common sense" versus science, which he apparently contends are mutually-exclusive. Because he does not clearly define his terms, the book prods in search of an objective.

Wolpert generalizes heavily from anecdotal evidence, asserting various assumptions (i.e., 'phlogiston leaves burning materials', 'the earth is the center of the universe', 'science is dangerous and produces monsters like Frankenstein') to be common-sense and natural, while the scientific explanation presumably defies a common-sense, natural approach. This seems to be a straw-man, as the scientific explanations are often more natural, more common-sense (by my own understanding), when all the facts are reviewed.

Besides: granting his assertion for argument's sake, how did "unnatural" science arise from natural origins? Wolpert is no Design proponent, so attributing its cause and stewardship to Greek and Christian thought as he does simply multiplies the questions he means to answer.

Finally, Wolpert denigrates the philosophy of science (which forms the basis of science) while embracing his own version of philosophy (namely, that science is "unnatural"). He largely scorns psychology while promoting it in every chapter. While touting scientists as "self-aware", Wolpert apparently fails by his own definition. This simply doesn't work.

"Science does not fit with our natural expectations," Wolpert says, but he has not defined "natural expectations", has generalized from anecdotal observation, and has failed to realize that his own psychology (the study of which he scorns) apparently provides all but a rough outline for his thoughts. Though it wanders through some promising territory, his "unnatural" argument never gets off the ground. Disappointing.

To me this is a very valuable book because what he discusses is at the roots of the trouble people have in understanding science. The review by Luc Reynaert highlighted important aspects of the book. The flaws pointed by other reviewers are, to me, secondary to the contribution of setting science apart from common sense. The other book about the subject that I like immensely is Uncommon sense by Alan Cromer. He further explores the subject and links it to the effectiveness of teaching science.

This is a down-to-earth, clear introduction to the scientific way of thinking.

I agree with evolutionist R. Dawkins's advice that the book should be read regardless of your personal views about science and scientists.

I believe Wolpert's book is an excellent introduction to science because it clarifies how technology and science are different and yet feed on each other;and enable the advance of our knowledge of the real world.

What impressed me the most is the author's separation of "common-sense beliefs" from scientific thinking. And how serendipity arises from hard work, educated guesses and "inspiration";the willingness to take a leap into the darkness and advance predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or by other observations and measurements (e.g., in cosmology).

This is yet another naive pro-science crusade full of historical and philosophical ignorance, the usual clichés and staple block quotes held together by scotch tape, and predictable rants on pseudo-science.

Wolpert claims that all philosophy of science is of "no relevance to science and can be ignored" (p. xiii, 1992 Faber&Faber ed.). His decree would carry more weight if he had actually read the works he is trying to devalue. That he has not done so is evident, for example, from his absurd attempts to refute Kuhn's claims regarding incommensurability by exhibiting paradigm shifts where the new theory was not incommensurable with the old one (pp. 103, 117). This proves nothing since Kuhn of course never claimed that all paradigm shifts lead to incommensurable theories. He did, however, give several concrete examples of such shifts, which anyone interested in honest, intellectual debate is free to challenge. But Wolpert is too cowardly to do so, of course.

Here is another ridiculous argument, one of many aiming at remedying the problem that "people do not understand" how marvellous scientists are and how blindly they should trust them. "It is at first sight curious how concerned people are about genetic engineering, which has so far damaged no one. By contrast, smoking, AIDS, drugs and alcohol have caused massive damage to children in utero." (p. 168). Some decades ago smoking had not damaged anyone either, so the exact same argument, mutatis mutandis, could have been used to refute pesky protesters back then. Indeed, the health effects of smoking were known but kept secret, in the interest of profit. Or take the case of the atomic bomb, which Wolpert discusses at length (in order to passionately defend the scientists who developed the bomb). Well, we did go to an innocent island in the Pacific, blew it out of existence with a massive atomic bomb, and then declared on scientific authority that it was safe for the inhabitants of neighbouring islands to move back, whereupon they gave birth to three-headed babies and suffered the highest cancer rates in the world. Perhaps cases like these are why people have this "curious" measure of distrust for scientists? No, no, don't be silly. Wolpert knows better. The real reason is that they are scientifically illiterate and have read too much "Drs Frankenstein and Moreau" (pp. 166, 168). Only a Royal Society commissar can make such an utterly contemptuous and idiotic argument.

Wolpert makes many other assertions which I would have liked to challenge, such as his claim that scientific creativity has essentially nothing in common with artistic creativity. But unfortunately this is not possible since, although Woplert devotes 30 rambling pages full of quotations and anecdotes to this topic, there is no trace of an argument anywhere in this entire chapter.