Cogent science in context: the science wars, argumentation theory, and Habermas

357 Pages·2009·1.84 MB·English

by  William Rehg

Th C COGENT SCIENCE IN CONTEXT
e M O
philosophy of science IT G The Science Wars, Argumentation
Pre E COGENT Theory, and Habermas
s
WaHta ISbLaeLirInAmt MLaos R’usE iBsH eUGtnw iisve eeArnss isFtoyac.c Hitaset e ais nP tdrh oNef oetrsramsnossr:l aoCtfoo Pnr htorifilbo Jusü­otrigpoehnnys “ Rsthceaiehtng hc abev roeil vlioeacrn cttulhyrer se nudam toumvreear r oitzhf eeds i lsatchsote v hmearlayf,j- ocerex npdtleuabrnyaa ttweioshn iil,ne a panldhs iolpo epsrrosopuvhaidsyii noognf s | Mas NT S SCIENCE WILLIAM REHG
to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democ racy (1996) the most informed critique of Habermasian discourse theory yet to sa C
c
and the coeditor of Deliberative Democracy: Essays appear. His judicious use of real-life examples drawn from Fermilab hu I
s E
on Reason and Politics and Pluralism (1997) and The and elsewhere and his extension of argument theory to include the ett N IN CONTEXT
Pragmatic Turn: The Transf ormation of Critical Theory social visions that frame current hot-button aca­demic disputes s In C Recent years have seen a series of intense, increas-
(2001), all published by the MIT Press. regarding global warming and intelligent design make his book ex- stit E ingly acrimonious debates over the status and legiti-
tremely timely and indispensable reading for laypersons trying to ute macy of the natural sciences. These “science wars”
aosf sceosgs esnccieyn twifiilcl rjeovuornluatliisomni zaen dth ree pwoaryt incgri.t iRceahl gth’se orirviesttisn, glo agciccoiaunnst, of Tec IN toavkeer epvlaocluet iionn t haned p gulbolbica la wreanram—inwgi—tha ncdu rinre ancta bdaetmtleias,
and rhetoricians think about argum entation in general and, more par- hn C where assumptions about scientific objectivity have
o O
tic ularly, about how we should assess the social institutionalization log The Science Wars, been called into question. Given these hostilities, what
of collaborative research and debate in science proper for years y N makes a scientific claim merit our consideration? In
t o come.” | C TE Argumentation Theory, Cogent Science in Context, William Rehg examines
a what makes scientific arguments cogent—that is,
DAVID INGRAM, Loyola University Chicago mb X and Habermas strong and convincing—and how we should assess
rid T that cogency. Drawing on the tools of argumentation
“ In bringing the disparate poles of Habermasian argumentation ge
theory and the thickly descriptive approach of ethnomethod­ , M theory, Rehg proposes a multidimensional, context-
a sensitive framework both for understanding the co-
s
ology together in the form of a new ‘critical contextualism,’ Rehg s
a gency of scientific arguments and for conducting
c
has provided a realistic basis for overcoming the ‘science wars’ h
u WILLIAM REHG cooperative interdiscipli nary assessments of the
Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought divide between the philosophical and the social scientific—the set REHG cogency of actual scientific arguments.
t
prescriptive and the descriptive—approaches to understanding s
0 Rehg first shows how argumentation theory, with
science. Just when ‘science studies’ has begun to explore a ‘norma- 2
14 methods for evaluating arguments that draw on disci-
tive turn,’ Rehg’s clearly written and rigorously argued book pro- 2
vides a new interdisciplinary framework and point of departure for | h pinltineerds isrcainpgliinnagr yfr loemns ltohgriocu tgoh rwhheticohri cto, cvaienw p trhoev iidsseu aens
charting the way ahead that neither practitioners of science studies, t
tp in the academic science wars. He then closely exam-
philosophers of science, nor science policymakers can afford to ://m ines Jürgen Habermas’s argumentation theory and its
i gnore.” itp implications for understanding cogency, applying it to
r
LENNY MOSS, Department of Sociology and Philosophy, es a case from high-energy physics. A series of problems,
s
University of Exeter .m however, beset Habermas’s approach. In response,
it
.e Rehg outlines his own “critical contextualist” approach,
d
u | 9 wanhdic hm uosrees caorngtuemxte-nsteantsioitniv-teh ewoaryy cinastpeigreodri ebsy in e at hnneow-
7 graphy of science. Critical contextualism not only
8
-
0 responds to the academic debates but also has rele-
-
2
6 vance for the study of debates in the public arena, as
2
-
18 Rehg demonstrates with a case study of National Acad-
2
7 emy of Sciences panels appointed to study the pos-
1-
3 sible links between diet and health.
Cogent Science in Context
Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought (partial listing)
Thomas McCarthy, general editor
Theodor W. Adorno, Hegel: Three Studies
Theodor W. Adorno, Prisms
James Bohman, Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi
James Bohman, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy
James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, editors, Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan
Ideal
Hauke Brunkhorst, Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community
Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato, Civil Society and Political Theory
Maeve Cooke, Re-Presenting the Good Society
Pablo De Greiff and Ciaran Cronin, editors, Global Justice and Transnational Politics: Essays on the
Moral and Political Challenges of Globalization
Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
Jürgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory
Jürgen Habermas, The Liberating Power of Symbols: Philosophical Essays
Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action
Jürgen Habermas, The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate
Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures
Jürgen Habermas, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays
Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Communication
Jürgen Habermas, On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative
Action
Jürgen Habermas, Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God and Modernity
Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois
Society
Jürgen Habermas, Truth and Justifi cation
Joseph Heath, Communicative Action and Rational Choice
Axel Honneth, The Critique of Power: Refl ective Stages in a Critical Social Theory
Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Confl icts
Tom Huhn and Lambert Zuidervaart, editors, The Semblance of Subjectivity: Essays in Adorno’s Aesthetic
Theory
Elliot L. Jurist, Beyond Hegel and Nietzsche: Philosophy, Culture, and Agency
Cristina Lafont, The Linguistic Turn in Hermeneutic Philosophy
Jeff Malpas, Ulrich Arnswald, and Jens Kertscher, editors, Gadamer’s Century: Essays in Honor of
Hans-Georg Gadamer
Christoph Menke, The Sovereignty of Art: Aesthetic Negativity in Adorno and Derrida
Brian O’Connor, Adorno’s Negative Dialectic: Philosophy and the Possibility of Critical Rationality
Claus Offe, Modernity and the State: East, West
Claus Offe, Varieties of Transition: The East European and East German Experience
Kevin Olson, Refl exive Democracy: Political Equality and the Welfare State
Kirk Pillow, Sublime Understanding: Aesthetic Refl ection in Kant and Hegel
William Rehg, Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas
William Rehg and James Bohman, editors, Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of
Critical Theory
Albrecht Wellmer, Endgames: The Irreconcilable Nature of Modernity
Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Signifi cance
For a full list of books in the series, please see http://mitpress.mit.edu
Cogent Science in Context
The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas
William Rehg
The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England
© 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or
mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval)
without permission in writing from the publisher.
For information about special quantity discounts, please email [email protected].
This book was set in Baskerville by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong Kong, and was printed
and bound in the United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Rehg, William.
Cogent science in context : the science wars, argumentation theory, and Habermas / William
Rehg.
p. cm.—(Studies in contemporary German social thought)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-0-262-18271-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Habermas, Jürgen. 2. Science—Philosophy. 3. Debates and debating. 4. Persuasion
(Rhetoric). I. Title.
B3258.H324R444 2009
121—dc22
2008029433
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments vii
Introduction: Science Wars, New and Old 1
I The Argumentative Turn in Science Studies 15
1 Science as Argumentative Practice 17
2 Kuhn’s Gap: From Logic to Sociology 33
3 Closing the Gap: Three Rhetorical Perspectives on Science 57
Postscript I: The Return of the Logical: Achinstein’s Realist
Theory of Evidence 81
II Integrating Perspectives: Habermas’s Discourse Theory 99
4 Habermas’s Critical Theory and Science: Truth and
Accountability 101
5 Habermas’s Theory of Argumentation as an Integrated Model of
Cogency 129
6 Argumentation at Fermilab: Putting the Habermasian Model
to Work 163
Postscript II: Who’s Afraid of SSK? The Problem and Possibilities
of Interdisciplinary Cooperation 195
vi
Contents
III Toward a Critical Contextualist Framework for
Interdisciplinary Assessment 211
7 Adjusting the Pragmatic Turn: Lessons from Ethnomethodology 213
8 Three Dimensions of Argument Cogency—A Contextualist Case
Study 241
9 Critical Science Studies and the Good Society 269
Notes 297
References 313
Index 337
Preface and Acknowledgments
In this work I refl ect on the cogency of scientifi c arguments. Although I
approach that issue primarily as a philosopher, the issue itself is a matter
of concern for many groups—not only the scientists who make arguments
when they adduce evidence in support of hypotheses, but for anyone
concerned about the basis of scientifi c claims or interested in understanding
that basis: laypersons, policymakers, science journalists, scholars of science
and technology studies (STS), critical social theorists, rhetorical scholars, and
argumentation theorists. Although many members of these groups do not
consider themselves philosophers, they nonetheless have an interest in the
philosophical issues raised by scientifi c inquiry. I therefore address this
book not only to professional philosophers but also to members of these other
groups as well—in the hope that they do not fi nd the philosophical terrain
overly taxing. The growing importance of science for policy-formation and
lawmaking, as well as the increasing need for interdisciplinary work, poses
tough philosophical problems that are not well served by superfi cial
treatment.
The approach I defend is both critical and contextualist in character. In
calling the approach “critical,” I do not mean that it takes a dismissive, skepti-
cal attitude toward the sciences and scientifi c argumentation; rather, “critical”
here has the sense of a discriminating evaluation. In labeling the approach
“contextualist,” I emphasize the sensitivity of such evaluation to the particular
contexts—the particular experimental locales and subdisciplinary communi-
ties of discourse—in which arguments are made and assessed. At the same
time, I formulate the critical contextualist approach as a comprehensive frame-
work within which analysts from different disciplines can cooperate in the
viii
Preface and Acknowledgments
critical evaluation of scientifi c arguments. The endless parade of case studies
within STS has led some of its members to ask: to what end? The present
study, I hope, provides an answer: a way to see how case studies can fi t together
within a larger vision oriented toward the assessment of cogent science that
serves both the production of knowledge and the good of society.
This work is the product of engagement with many groups and individuals.
I am thankful to a number of people who provided helpful feedback on earlier
drafts: Garth Hallett, S.J., and three anonymous reviewers for going through
the entire book, Kent Staley and Richard Blackwell for feedback on chapters
dealing with the philosophy of science and physics, and Thomas McCarthy
for his ever sage advice on the introduction and overall framing of the project.
The History and Philosophy of Science reading group at Saint Louis
University, organized with the help of Kent Staley, Aaron Cobb, and Scott
Crothers, commented on two chapters. A number of people provided feed-
back on earlier versions of chapters or parts of chapters that appeared in talks
and articles: Alison Wylie, Paul Roth, James Bohman, Peter Achinstein, Steve
Fuller, Scott Berman, David Bogen, Douglas Marcouiller, S.J., Michael
Barber, S.J., Walter Jost, Walter Ong, S.J., Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, Andreas
Niederberger, Jean Goodwin, and J. Anthony Blair. I also thank participants
in the following occasions for feedback on papers that eventually worked their
way into book chapters: the 1999 and 2004 meetings of the Philosophy of
Social Science Roundtable (St. Louis, 1999); the Science Studies Seminar at
the University of Oslo (Oslo, Norway, 1999) and the STS Colloquium at
MIT (2002); philosophy department colloquiua at Saint Louis University
(2000, 2004), the Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany (2005), and
Loyola University-Chicago (2006); the Critical Theory Roundtable (St. Louis,
2004); and the Society for the Social Study of Science (4S) (Pasadena, 2005).
Finally, I am especially grateful to comembers of three interdisciplinary panels
of which I was a member, and to the audiences for those panels. The fi rst,
at the 2002 meeting of 4S in Milwaukee, included William Keith, James
Collier, and Steve Fuller. The second panel, held at the National Commu-
nication Association meeting in Chicago (2004), was organized by Jean
Goodwin and included J. Anthony Blair and Robert Asen, with Lynn Clarke
as chair. This panel proved especially important for chapter 8 of the book,
and I thank Jean for inviting me into such a fruitful exchange that continues
to this day. The third panel, organized by Kent Staley and including Henry
Frisch and Deborah Tollefsen, dealt with scientifi c collaborations; it was held
ix
Preface and Acknowledgments
at the 2004 meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association in Austin,
Texas.
Research for the book itself began during my stay as a Visiting Scholar at
the Science, Technology, and Society Program at MIT in 2001–2002, funded
by a Saint Louis University SLU2000 Research Leave Grant. At MIT I found
a very hospitable environment: as chair, Merritt Roe Smith graciously wel-
comed me into the STS Program, and Kenneth Oye of the MIT Political
Science Department invited me into his colloquium on science and technology
policy. For particular aspects of research, I owe thanks to Alison Wylie, who
generously provided me with a copy of an article by Jean Gero, and to the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) for a copy of their
1982 report on the National Academy of Science’s Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer.
For research assistance during the years I worked on the book, I thank Taki
Suto, David Packman, Jonathan Nelson, Paul Leisen, and Yong Li.
There is, however, an older debt I would also like to acknowledge. I doubt
that this book would have come about but for teachers who stimulated my
interest in science and for the opportunity to work as a research chemist in the
mid-1970s. For their stimulating teaching and mentoring, I am particularly
grateful to Joseph Sens, Rubin Battino, and Michael Smith. For the opportu-
nity to engage in professional research, I am deeply thankful to Robert E.
Sievers, with whom I worked over an exciting two-year career transition that
took him from Aerospace Research Labs and Monsanto Research Corpora-
tion in Dayton, Ohio, to the University of Colorado in Boulder. My gratitude
extends not only to Bob for his professional leadership but also to his entire
family for their gracious hospitality and friendship in Boulder.
This book incorporates some previously published material, most of it
heavily revised. Material in chapter 5 fi rst appeared as a chapter in Rhetoric and
Hermeneutics in Our Time (edited by W. Jost and M. J. Hyde; Yale University
Press, 1997). The postscript for Part II fi rst appeared in Philosophy of the Social
Sciences (March 2000). Earlier versions of chapter 7 appeared as a chapter in
Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn (edited by W. Rehg and J. Bohman; MIT Press,
2001) and then, after substantial revision, in Economic Policy under Uncertainty
(edited by P. Mooslechner, H. Schuberth, and M. Schürz; Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2004); chapter 7 also includes material from an article published
in the Canadian journal Symposium (2005). Some material in chapter 8 fi rst
appeared in the journal Informal Logic (2005). I gratefully acknowledge the work
of the editors and referees of these venues.