Davon Jones
Argument Analysis/ Response
Professor Grogan
February 26, 2013
Science: Friend or Foe
When you think of Science you might at first only think of the sun, moon, stars and
planets as the structure of the broad concept, which has in fact been used to explain more than
our interplanetary location. Since the beginning of mankind, Science has been used as to tool to
gain a better understanding of the world people live in and around. Science has created many
opportunities that which mankind has extended upon and made greater evaluations and proposals
to assist in the understanding of life. Yet as dependable as Science is, others believe that it is the
product of faith alone. Challenged by writer Theodore Schick Jr. he evaluates that Science has
reached the end of its reign has producer of knowledge, science has become a failed ideology
based on faith, lacking philosophical elements, and aspects of falsifiability and relativism to
further strengthen his claim that science may be coming to an end.
“Why do many now view science as a failed ideology rather than as an epistemological
ideal? Should science be viewed that way?”(Schick 36). These are the questions that author
Theodore Schick Jr. starts with in his article titled “The end of science”. He goes on to explain
how these questions even came about, starting with a 1991 Nobel conference at which
philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend spoke. Feyerabend views science as more a myth, a
thought created by man that has no strong credibility to it. A thought so heavily carried by man
that those who hold favor of this ideology will always hold it in superiority to other ideas. He
then makes claim that science is a religion that because of the belief system involving religion
cannot be rationally justified. This in turn sets up his claim that we do not live in a true
democratic society because the teachings of science and religion prevent us from acquiring
knowledge in various ways. After stating several negative implications of science the author
again raises the question why did science become viewed as more of a failed ideology than a
theory of knowledge. To answer this question Schick examines the works of fellow Philosophers
Karl Popper and his view on science pertaining to falsifiability and Thomas Kuhn with his work
on science dealing with relativism. “But Unless scientists become more philosophically
sophisticated, their apologetics will continue to ring hollow”(Schick 36). Schick ends with this
view of science, believing that science is credited by so many because it is the most rational
explanation, a shortcut in a sense. The concept of science itself should also not be to blame,
education, justification and independent thought seem to be key traits that scientist lack.
“Why do many now view science as a failed ideology rather than as an epistemological
ideal? Should science be viewed that way?”(Schick 36). This is a claim Schick makes to grab
reader’s attention on the main topic at hand. The fall down of science appears to have happened
during the late 1900’s yet Schick claims it was best said by philosopher of science Paul
Feyerabend. Hearing the words from such a scholarly philosopher like himself and as colleagues
in similar fields, Schick felt the end of science had really come and that others were aware of
this. As said by author Evan Lehmann “Conservatives' trust of science has gradually decreased
over the past 40 years” (Lehmann 1). Conservatives aim to keep things in the same order as they
also have been to preserve peace and balance. Times change effortlessly and along with it the
order in which people live in will change. Yet those who seek only to keep peace and
balance(Conservatist) feel as if science is not what is used to be and thus can no longer be
credited. 40 years ago, the idea of science was still applauded, the methods scientist came up
with and the conclusions were not as challenged as today.
Feyerabend also calls on Science as a matter of faith than knowledge when Schick states,
“In Feyerabend's view, science is a religion, for it rests on certain dogmas that cannot be
rationally justified thus, accepting it requires a leap of faith” (36). So not only is science closer to
a myth but it is also religiously based. Schick then goes on to say that the government should not
be teaching religion or science in public schools as it risks a true democratic state. Not only here
does Schick support Feyerabend’s claim but he also attacks the government as well hinting some
sort of corruption within its framework. To further strengthen the claim that science is faith
Schick recalls physicist Sheldon Glashow debating against Feyerabend by stating
"We believe that the world is knowable, that there are simple rules governing the
behavior of matter and the evolution of the universe...[and that] any intelligent alien anywhere
would have come upon the same logical system as we have to explain the structure of protons
and the nature of supernovae. This statement I cannot prove. this statement I cannot justify. This
is my faith" (Glashow 1989, 24).
In the end, Glashow only depleted his own credibility and unknowingly supported Feyerabend’s
claim. This gave Schick more reason to believe that Paul Feyerabend was right, that if another
person openly claimed that their belief of science is based on their faith then surely it must have
been right about others.
Schick also makes claim that scientists lack understanding and experience of knowledge,
reason, existence and values, they are philosophically naïve. He takes note of biology nobelist
Sir Peter Medawar who makes note of their shifty-eyed solemn answers. He views this to be
because they feel they must have an opinion despite not having any real opinion at all. So now
Scientist lack understanding of the field that they have for many years worked hard on and to
accomplish many achievements. Scientist may view this as an insult to their character and their
work as they work to ensure that their work is not gone unnoticed. However, Schick says
“Scientists are a philosophically naive lot. But this naiveté does not come without a price. (36).
He makes a statement that lacking philosophical understanding means that they cannot justify
their own methodology which in turns leaves Feyerabend’s claim unchallenged. With this,
scientist did indeed take a hard hit as there was a decrease in jobs and research funds.
To further augment his claim author Theodore Schick Jr. he interpreted the work of
respective philosophist Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Popper views the scientific method
and its works as a way to not verify the hypotheses but to falsify it. Through the method of
inductivism, “Popper objected to all three of these steps on the grounds that scientists do not and cannot - follow them”(36). He then goes on to say “no universal generalization can be
conclusively confirmed, for we can never be sure that we have examined all the relevant data.”(
36). This would mean that all data that can be possibly measured is not and thus any results are
based on irrational conclusion thus can be proven false. Popper concludes that because science is
tested through induction it is a dogma which is not fully rational. The author must have chosen
Karl Popper’s work to strengthen his opening claim about Feyerabend stating that science rested
on dogmas, both philosophist appear to have the same view.
Another work Schick introduces is by Thomas Kuhn who is famous in the works of
Paradigms and Relativism. Schick is again able to bring forth a philosophist who shares a
common thought on science and how it works as well. They agree that the observations made by
scientist are theories which are all immesurable, impossible to measure as an individual theory or
to another theory. Because the theories cannot be tested against another theory it rest based on
the perception of the scientist observation and conclusion who may be driven by faith and not by
knowledge. Like Feyerabend, Kuhn views science a puzzle-solving exercise a view that weakens
its superiority and seriousness. Schick goes on to explain that the rules for the exercise exist
within paradigms. Yet sometimes the methods for solving the puzzle are inconclusive and new
answers must be searched for. Kuhn calls a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift which then
causes scientist to adopt new tools and explore other areas. It is almost like they are looking for
something all over again and this time looking in between the cracks with a flashlight. Schick
has certainly done research in proving his point. He has viewed the work of influential figure
Paul Feyerabend but also gathered similar views to him by citing other famous Philosophist such
as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. This increases the influential hold the work may have over
those who are increasingly weary of the science community. Yet in my opinion the science
community has done more for us than any of us could imagine.
Science has always been an essential part of life dating back nearly 9000 years ago if not
later. It has been used to test and scientifically prove many aspects of life and how the world
works. It has also created an era for creating advanced technologies that have proven to be
beneficial to many people. Despite what the opposition says many can argue that scientist have
created many workable theories in science that even most philosphist may not admit to using.
Thus, the philosophists do not appreciate the work that science has done for society since its
birth. Philosophist also impose the special pleading fallacy to give science limited praise, a more
clear definition of science should be given(which the author failed to mention), as well as a redefinition of philosophy of science itself and the many advantages of science to which mankind
have accepted into their daily lives.
To soften the harsh ‘banishment’ of science itself Theodore Schick, in his article “The
end of science” he claims “Science is superior to other methods of inquiry because it usually
provides better explanations than they do”(36). If that may be so, why is science being
denounced as a myth while other less knowledgeable methods are still able to be used with
higher priority. In the same instance Schick strengthens the importance of science by stating its
superiority to other methods. Spending so much time arguing against science, the audience may
notice that science does hold importance in society. Even philosopher of scientist Larry Lauden
claims in his 1981 article titled “The Problem Solving Approach to Scientific Progress” he notes
that science’s goal is to secure theories with high problem solving effectiveness. This proves that
not all philosophist are hive-minded as Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerabend are portrayed. Despite the
praise that Schick tries to inject his sources nor himself give a clear definition of what science is.
Science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering
general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific
method [and] concerned with the physical world”( Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). This
would imply that science is used to obtain knowledge through a different means than philosphist
and so should not be judged as if they are to interpret things as philosophist do. Feyerbend who
views science as a religion and a myth does not mention this when describing what science is.
This definition gives clearer meaning to science because it describes what it does and how it is
done. Science cannot be casted into the shadows because of a philosopher who does not fully
recognize his own title as a philosopher of science to which he argues against. Let us recognize
what a philosopher of science really is and how it interacts with science.
Explorable.com states that “Philosophy of science is the study of assumptions,
foundations, and the implications of science”. Philosophy heavily relies on rationality in an
argument and addressing argument critically. They stress on finding out the wrongs and
justifications in the exemplary work that scientist have done, to break them down and prove them
unusable. They often propose new ways that science should deal with problems by adding
philosophical elements. Many may point this out as a good approach but it could be done in a
less negative manner. Instead of spending time creating excuses for people not to believe in
science they should implant their own knowledge into the system of science. This could be a redefinition of philosophy, “to study the assumptions and implications of science and improve
upon them by expanding the knowledge through philosophical means. This would help for
people to view philosophy in a better light as it can easily be seen as a way to attack and refute
other scholarly works.
Again stressing the importance of Science, it has provided mankind with new ways of
understanding the world we live in. There have been discoveries and theories used to help
reshape and augment reality in many ways. Based on the collaborative work of many scientists
and teachers a compilation of work was posted on educational website undisci.berkley.edu they
described the many advantages of science. This includes its useful in the medical field where
science has been used to create more advance medicines. Many of these medicines help to fight
infections, cancers, and common colds that we are all often plagued with at some point in our
life. Scientist of course did not want us to suffer and created treatments used to repel the sickness
until it has become nothing but a bad day. I certainly do not believe philosophist could come up
with ways to treat infections based on rational arguments and implications of scientific testing. It
is because scientific testing is used to generate the medicines. How is it that philosophist could
argue against ideas that scientist are coming up with to improve the quality of life in people? For
this philosophist seems to have no answer and without an answer where is there argument.
Science has also created a way for new technologies to broaden our view of reality and
its various concepts. Science has led to the creation of medical imaging which is used to
diagnose medical issues that may be involved. Discovery of the x-rays led to x-ray telescope
being invented which in turned increased knowledge of space anomalies such as black holes.
One can began to think if we did not have these inventions, where would society have been
without them. Philosophers do not give scientist credit where credit is due, they fail to
understand the discoveries and there true meanings they hold to the past, present and future of all
mankind. These achievements should never be overlooked, as scientists have done things that
one can only dream of. They put their knowledge to the test by extending upon it and even
creating new theories to help improve life.
In conclusion, Schick’s compilation of science bashing philosophers has decided that
science is religiously based with implications that it is unjustifiable. The group may offer
criticism about science but do not offer solutions that can be established effectively. As Thomas
Friedman says in his book “That Used to Be Us”, “Like all human beings, scientists make
mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them”(207). Friedman
recognizes the humanity that scientist keep even when faced with challenges that may prove to
be too great. Their ability to improve upon their work it will no longer apply proves that they are
not only responsible but observant of their past work. They take into consideration what they
should have done and what they can do. Scientist will continue to do this, to create benefits for
society and erase the disadvantages that may come about in the process.