The crusading face of contemporary science
The Editor of Nature on science and anti-science

`Science' is under attack. There are growing numbers of people who are not happy with the way `science' is practised. The doubters are becoming more vocal about their concerns. Such a phenomenon is worthy of study, and it is perhaps unsurprising that the label `anti-science'has been given to it. Three pieces of literature have addressed this theme recently: the book Science and anti-science by Gerald Holton, a sympathetic review of this book in the 10th February 1994 issue of Natureby Professor John Ziman, and a strongly worded article in the 17th March issue by the editor, John Maddox, entitled `Defending science against anti-science'. Maddox felt that Holton's book lacked something: it was `too measured for many tastes, and the present need'. In his view, science faces a `torrent of attack' and a fight against it must be mounted. `There is a need for concerted action against the forces of anti-science; simply ignoring the critics will not suffice to counter the phenomenon'.

Who are the enemies of `science'? Ziman's review mentions philosophers who are undermining the special status of scientific knowledge; cultural critics who consider the reductionism of contemporary science to be most unhealthy; new age and eastern mystical devotees who deplore the concept of objectively-reachable data; and radical feminists who object to the `androcentrism' of established science. The criticisms made by these groups relate to inhumane technology, environmental devastation and technocratic authoritarianism. There is more in Ziman's review and Maddox's article, but this suffices to introduce some discussion.

Many of the criticisms emerging from the `anti-science' camp indicate a disillusionment with science. There are particularly strong feelings about the alienating effects of technology in society and the trails of environmental destruction affecting our planet. For example, scientists are very good at developing know-how to mine a mountain, to recover fine particles of ore and to separate gold from silver and copper. But what happens to the all the fine particles that once formed the mountain? Scientists seem noticeably quiet about cleaning up after their processes have been used. Consequently, scientists are often perceived as the servants of capitalism. Where is the conscience of science? Who speaks for the people? Who speaks for the Earth?

There are two broad stances that can be taken regarding these criticisms. First, that these are `attacks' on science and that a defence must be made; and second, that they are a response (albeit lacking in logical coherence) to some real deficiencies. Holton, Ziman and Maddox take the first stance, giving warnings that the dissident voices are a threat to the scientific culture which has contributed so much to our civilisation. The discontents are viewed as `modernists' who are undermining traditional values. Ziman's review presents the warning like this: `The disastrous consequence [of defeat] would be the supersession of "modernism" as the driving force of our civilisation'. My personal view is that this first stance is unwise, and that an alternative response is needed. Something is wrong with contemporary scientific culture. We err if we do not listen to criticisms and if we do not try to understand why people are upset. My own analysis of the criticisms is that they represent diverse reactions to the lack of ethical principles in science and in scientists.

The leaders of the scientific revolution in Europe understood the need for ethical principles. They rallied round the Baconian ideal of utility - that science should be used for the benefit of mankind. The pursuit of science could not be divorced from its applications which were to improve society and to enrich the lives of individuals. Thus, for example, a chemical plant with high levels of toxic waste is not in the public good: the plant is not complete unless it has reprocessing of by-products to protect the environment.

Maddox goes much further than Holton and Ziman in his attitude towards `religion'. The passage to highlight reads as follows.

`The idea that religion may be a way of organizing one's appraisal of one's place in the world is not very different from what astrologers tell their clients. In other words, it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science. Holton, who skirts round this issue, is nevertheless correct in saying that `creation science', as its practitioners call it, deserves the fiercest counter-attack, especially now that so many of its practitioners have qualified as scientists and engineers, and so are all the more insidious because they know the language.'

`Creation science' is perceived as a particularly influential form of anti-science and it is in the forefront of Maddox's crusading agenda. However, the above quotation shows that many more are going to be attacked as soon as creation science is dealt with: `the practice of religion' is next in line. What is going on here? For years it has been widely known that men and women of faith have played a distinguished role in the history of science - how can it be that these people were all the time harbouring views that were dangerous to the scientific enterprise? This is a question to which we must find an answer.

The issue revolves around our understanding of science. What is science? Maddox draws his own polemical piece to a close by suggesting `the essential ingredients'. He has three crucial elements.

`First, truth is not absolute, but rather a series of working hypotheses that are defined by increasingly rigorous rules; that means that the range of credible heterodoxy steadily diminishes.' Words must be chosen carefully. As it stands, this ingredient is both ambiguous and controversial. There is no qualifier to the word `truth'. Had Maddox written `Scientific truth is not absolute', this would be acceptable. However, he did not. Some will interpret this as a statement that there are no absolute truths. Many of Maddox's colleagues are overt about this. Their denial of absolute truth is held as a religious dogma. Richard Dawkins, for example, has said `There is no truth but scientific truth'. For Christians, this is folly, for the concept of revealed truth is fundamental. If God has revealed truth to us, then it is our duty (scientist and non-scientist) to receive it as authoritative.

`Second, to stifle arid arguments on questions such as the propriety of reductionism, it would suffice to say that science takes as its general working hypothesis the notion that all systems (in physics and biology) contain the ingredients and forces of their own evolution. . . ` The idea that all living systems behave in a way consistent with physical and chemical laws is non-controversial. The history of science provides innumerable examples of successes when people have used this methodology. However, it is not right to evade issues raised by reductionism. Advocates of reductionism fail to address evidences of intelligent design in living things. When some scientists assert that living things have not been designed by a creator God, they are arguing deductively and injecting their personal philosophy into their scientific work. Any definition of science must guard against this behaviour. Over the years, there have been many scholars who have made logical deductions from their personal worldview - and it has never been in the interest of science. Statements of scientific methodology should seek to guard against trends known to undermine the self-checking character of empirical investigations. One further point, Maddox employs the word `evolution' - but what does this word mean? It is used so loosely today that it can almost mean anything to do with change.

`And finally, the purpose of it all is to understand the world more fully for no other purpose than the enhancement of the general enlightenment.'Many will understand this as `science for its own sake'. The words are ambiguous. More important, they sidestep the issue of ethical principles in science - there is no sense here of how science is to be used. By contrast, the Baconian view of science was unambiguous: it was to contribute to the individual and social well-being of man. Maddox's words show a significant departure from traditional views about the purpose of science, and this may help explain why science is now viewed with suspicion by many people who are linked to the `anti-science' movements.

The question I want to see discussed is `Has modern science itself strayed into `anti-science'?' A few pointers may assist thinking. The answer is `Yes' where presuppositions are unacknowledged and where they have a significant deductive influence on the thinking of scientists (examples include: the rejection of intelligent design, reductionism, untested extrapolation of biological evolutionary trends beyond the boundaries of Basic Types). The answer is ` Yes' where `science' attempts to become a worldview with claims to be the only source to truth (albeit relative). An example of this danger is found in Maddox's own words, when he wrote that it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science. The answer is `Yes' where science declares that it exists for its own sake and rejects any obligation to act in an ethical way.

In my view, Maddox himself has crossed the boundary and wandered into the realms of anti-science. A crusade against the forces of anti-science is needed - ignorance and confusion are rife. However, the crusade needs to start at home - the scientific establishment must address the charge that anti-science trends are apparent in many of its vocal advocates.

David J. Tyler (1994)

Return to top of page