Because science claims to offer objective knowledge that transcends sectarian bias, it stands in a “middle” position between extremist ideologies of both the left and the right. Contrary to the claims of feminist philosophers such as Sandra Harding, traditional ideals of scientific objectivity do not require rejection or radical revision. Contrary to the claims of neo-creationists Phillip Johnson and Alvin Plantinga, scientific objectivity is not compromised by its commitment to naturalism. By eschewing ideological bias in favor of broadly shared standards (...) of objectivity, science provides an example of how diverse societies can pursue common aims. (shrink)

This essay reviews two recent books commenting on, and contributing to, the “science wars.” In Who Rules in Science? James Robert Brown respectfully but firmly rejects the “nihilist” and the “naturalist” wings of social constructivism. He rejects attempts to debunk science in the name of a relativist or anarchist epistemology. He also criticizes the “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge and its implied contrast between reasons and causes. In Prometheus Bedeviled Norman Levitt examines the cultural roots of current discontent (...) with science. Levitt's analysis—and polemic—charges contemporary culture with a pervasive cheapening of intellectual standards. (shrink)

This essay reviews two recent books commenting on, and contributing to, the “science wars.” In Who Rules in Science? James Robert Brown respectfully but firmly rejects the “nihilist” and the “naturalist” wings of social constructivism. He rejects attempts to debunk science in the name of a relativist or anarchist epistemology. He also criticizes the “strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge and its implied contrast between reasons and causes. In Prometheus Bedeviled Norman Levitt examines the cultural roots of current discontent (...) with science. Levitt's analysis—and polemic—charges contemporary culture with a pervasive cheapening of intellectual standards. (shrink)