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.
Description: