From Pox to Pax?: Response to Labinger.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From Pox to Pax?: Response to Labinger.
Authors: Fuller, Steve1 Steve.Fuller@dur.ac.uk
Source: Social Studies of Science (Sage Publications, Ltd.). May95, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p309-314. 6p.
Subject Terms: *Rhetoric, Science & society, Science & civilization, Myth, Philosophy of science, Uniformity of nature
Abstract: In the article, the author comments on the article "Science As Culture: A View From the Petri Dish," by Jay A. Labinger, published in this issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." According to the author, Labinger's own practice offers the best model to date for fruitful science-science studies engagements. However, the author disagrees with Labinger on certain points. He confess that earlier he had not anticipated much of a natural science audience, and there was still a battle to be won among humanists and social scientists that the cultural dimensions of the natural sciences can be made central to their own agendas. He believes that a deeper source of his "condescension" is the irony that comes from seeing history repeat itself. An especially striking precedent is "critical-historical" theology, a field whose practitioners revealed the Gospels to be myths but then concluded that myths are a necessary component of religious belief- and that, in fact, the ability to keep the faith in face of demystified scriptures is the ultimate test of the "true believer." The temptation to treat science's "uniformity" as bearing the mark of nature or truth often reflects a failure to appreciate science's underlying social complexity. Turning to the question of whether all possible histories would lead to today's science, the author thinks Labinger has hit upon an important issue that our literature has yet to address properly.
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:In the article, the author comments on the article "Science As Culture: A View From the Petri Dish," by Jay A. Labinger, published in this issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." According to the author, Labinger's own practice offers the best model to date for fruitful science-science studies engagements. However, the author disagrees with Labinger on certain points. He confess that earlier he had not anticipated much of a natural science audience, and there was still a battle to be won among humanists and social scientists that the cultural dimensions of the natural sciences can be made central to their own agendas. He believes that a deeper source of his "condescension" is the irony that comes from seeing history repeat itself. An especially striking precedent is "critical-historical" theology, a field whose practitioners revealed the Gospels to be myths but then concluded that myths are a necessary component of religious belief- and that, in fact, the ability to keep the faith in face of demystified scriptures is the ultimate test of the "true believer." The temptation to treat science's "uniformity" as bearing the mark of nature or truth often reflects a failure to appreciate science's underlying social complexity. Turning to the question of whether all possible histories would lead to today's science, the author thinks Labinger has hit upon an important issue that our literature has yet to address properly.
ISSN:03063127
DOI:10.1177/030631295025002006