Recent developments in the History of Science, a breif recap.

It is my opinion that the cultural beating evolution has taken at the hand of in the past 30 years is symptomatic of a larger anti-scientific and anti-technological trend that has evolved out of disparate corners of American society.

First some historical perspective. Back around the turn of the previous century, there was a movement called Logical Positivism. During the high times of Modernism, philosophers and scientists pursued goals like the formalization of all mathematics. The problem, as demonstrated by Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems in the case of the Principia Mathematica, was that the Positivists were reaching for things that were in principle impossible. Regardless of the philosophical turmoil brewing the demands of WWII and post-war reconstruction made science and technology as the driving force in human civilization.

The problem was that Positivism's demise left a gaping void, with nothing to fill it (hard to accomplish the impossible). Postmodernist philosophy instead lead to attempts to reenvision reality, and included in that science and philosophy. Of these, the most influential was probably Thomas Kuhn's theory in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Disregarding other theories for the moment, Kuhn's basic insight was that scientific progress did not work solely via altruistic scientists who steadfastly developed theories by following where facts lead. Obviously, a serious furor developed. Scientists did not appreciate the accusation that scientific truth was merely a social construct, true only because we believed it to be so.

Disregarding Kuhn however is impossible. Kuhn was right in part. Science was and is a human endeavor. Humans aren't perfect, and as the adage "there are three kinds of lies -- lies, damned lies, and statistics" points out, research can be twisted for all sorts of purposes. Nor are the goals of research programs necessarily determined by scientists, as DARPA is well aware (Yes, of course a missile defense shield is possible!). Anyway, with the departure of the modernist dream, Kuhn drove the nails into its coffin by removing scientists from the seat of impartiality and neutral pursuit of Truth (note capital T).

That brings us up to modern day philosophically. What i've written thus far sounds pretty bleak, but science has made due. But remember, modern day scientists, don't claim to be perfect. However, a lack of perfection doesn't mean that scientists can't be, and don't strive to be, impartial. Because of this point Scientists don't tend to buy Kuhn. Most scientists fall into the philosophical tradition of Karl Popper, who's solution to the problems of verificationism was something called Falsificationism (where you test theories by trying to make them break).

So what's this got to do with anything? Kuhn opened the door to a new kind of relativism, relativism over the fundamental facts of science. Operations such as the Discovery Institute, and other efforts to undermine science, such as global warming deniers function by exploiting this belief that scientific conclusions are determined merely by what people believe.

Unfortunately the position of science today is more dire than just what i've described above. The present day first world is closely associated with all things technological. As such, technology and science bear the wrath of individuals in our society who are dissatisfied with society. Whether they are anti-evolution literal biblical creationists, anti-authoritarian hippies and/or libertarians, anti-urban sprawl ruralites, anti-pollution environmentalists, or those opposed to processed food, many view the failures of society as the result of forms of technological domination.

As a result, science is facing not only acute attacks by groups with particular agendas, but also a general malaise of distrust from the general public.

Later i'll post some on perspectives of science, and what i think needs to be done to rehabilitate the science of cool.