|
‘A People’s History of Science’ Cuts Through
Elitist View of Human Accomplishments
by Mary Scully / June 2006 issue Socialist Action
"A People’s History of Science" by
Clifford D. Conner is an important book. For those interested in the
history of science, it is an essential read. For those interested in social
transformation but not science, it is a wonderful introduction to the
political importance of science.
For those of you who, like me, went through
high school and college feeling like you came in at the middle of the play,
this book will clarify much of your experience.
Some of the most important political issues
today are also scientific matters—global warming and all of the problems of
the environment, evolution vs. creationism, stem cell research, genetic
engineering. Medical science alone has a wide range of problems to be
addressed, from the so-called war on cancer to the causes and treatment of
AIDS.
But science education, at least in the
U.S., is of poor quality, and scientific knowledge is popularly viewed as
inaccessible—even inscrutable—to those without formal training. It is
presented as an elitist pursuit requiring genius.
Of all the sciences, physics and
mathematics have been particularly subject to mystification. Popular
presentations of physics like the film "What the Bleep Do We
Know?" boldly present a religious interpretation of physics relying on
this pervasive and widespread ignorance of science. In fact. many
physicists (notably but not only Fritjof Capra, in "The Tao of
Physics") have written books directly tying physics to a metaphysical
view of life.
During the l960s and l970s radical scholars
coming out of the newly established Black and women’s studies departments
began to challenge the orthodoxies and the Authorized Version of
history. Their criticisms had more influence because of the
tremendous weight of the social movements behind them. This book is of that
genre of radical social critique but focusing on some of the most basic
concepts of our view of science.
As Conner’s bibliography (which is a gold
mine for those interested in the subject) shows, he is not the first or
alone in challenging the orthodoxies of science—but his is one of the
best-argued books. "A People’s History" centers on the canonical
concepts in scientific knowledge that we have been raised on—particularly
elitism and the cult of genius, philosophical idealism, the counterposition
of theory and practice, and Eurocentrism.
It comprehensively, beginning with forager
societies and moving to the present day, disputes the fictitious and
alienating tradition we have been bred on. (We have all been taught the
cult of genius, i.e., every scientific advance has been introduced by some
luminary figure—Aristotle, Bacon, Newton, Einstein—thinking great
thoughts.)
A People’s History" examines the
central (not peripheral) role of artisans in the acquisition of scientific
knowledge and in developing the empirical method itself. Science is
depicted not as the work of an individual superstar but as "a social
activity by emphasizing the collective nature of the production of
scientific knowledge."
The elitist caricature has intellectual
implications that have been an impediment in scientific education and
achievement for the past several hundred years. This is most evident in the
exalting of theory over practice. "A People’s History" shows
quite convincingly that the dichotomy between elite and popular knowledge
is based on contempt for manual labor originating in class differentiation.
These distinctions, particularly
destructive in mathematics, and so conducive to Platonist idealism, are at
last finally being challenged.
Much of "A People’s History"
focuses on the Eurocentrism of the history of science we have been taught
and discusses the actual Afro-Asiatic origins of scientific knowledge. The
touted classical curriculum has now degenerated into some elective Latin
courses, but the general Eurocentric notion that the only body of science
and literature worth knowing is that of European culture is as strong as
when it was first propagated in the Renaissance.
Correcting the historical record by
presenting the Afro-Asiatic roots of scientific knowledge has now generated
a few decades of vitriolic debate. "A People’s History" does a
good job of showing how the classical curriculum is really a fictitious
tradition with a hidden agenda of not just ethnocentrism but white
supremacy.
One of the parts I most liked about this book
is the explication of Plato’s ideas. Ironically, although Aristotle and
Plato are still held up as the greatest classical thinkers, there is no
place outside of a few philosophy courses where one studies their writings
or gets introduced to their ideas. We read that so-and-so was an
Aristotelian, or so-and-so a Platonist but we aren’t offered a clue as to
what that means.
We are certainly not taught the
distinctions between philosophical idealism and materialism. The discussion
here of Plato’s ideology—its elitism, antidemocratic nature, and
metaphysical character—clarifies a central problem plaguing science and
especially mathematics up to today.
Another of my favorite sections is the two
chapters dealing with the Scientific Revolution. In these chapters the
Zilsel Thesis is presented.
According to Edgar Zilsel, modern science
arose in Europe as a result of collaboration between artisans and scholars.
The experimental method that characterizes modern science originated not
from individual geniuses but in the collective efforts of anonymous
workers.
Modern science was born when academics
adopted the methods of craftsmen, not when craftsmen followed the theories
of abstract theorists.
So many of today’s political problems
require scientific knowledge. Cafés Scientifiques originated in England
several years back and have proliferated in U.S. cities. This is a salon
concept, where those interested in scientific issues gather to educate
themselves. Their continued growth indicates the interest and concern thoughtful
people have about scientific issues.
"A People’s History" will not
make you a physicist or a mathematician, but it is an essential guide in
understanding the conceptual framework of these sciences. I loved this book
and cannot recommend it highly enough.
|
