Transcript May 26
Science news Rest of the film Science and Society: how society can inform good science 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. Gould on 19th century craniometry and anthropology: class and race differences. Gould on 19th century craniometry and psychology: gender/sex differences. Science and its social context: How society can affect science I. How social context can inform (good) science i. Gould on 19th century craniometry and anthropology: class and race differences. ii. Gould on 19th century craniometry and psychology: gender/sex differences. How society can affect science How social context can inform (good) science Things we have studied to consider: I. II. III. IV. The presence and role of auxiliary assumptions The role of systems or bodies of theories or hypotheses in generating “If H, then I” The role of paradigms in setting up a puzzle-solving tradition The theory-ladenness of observation How society can affect science The presence and role of auxiliary assumptions II. The role of systems or bodies of theories or hypotheses in generating “If H, then I” III. The role of paradigms in setting up a puzzle-solving tradition IV. The theory-ladenness of observation Are the only relevant auxiliary assumptions, bodies of theories, paradigms, etc. internal to science – or do they include social beliefs? I. How social context can inform (good?) science S.J. Gould, “Wide Hats and Narrow Minds” The hypothesis: intelligence is caused by brain size (larger is better!) The players: Paul Broca Founder of The Anthropological Society and Renowned Craniologist Players continued: Louis Gratiolet Comparative anatomist How social context can inform (good?) science S.J. Gould, “Wide Hats and Narrow Minds” The players cont’d: (the late!) Cuvier The “crucial test”: the size of the great Cuvier’s brain The evidence: his hat! And G. Hevre: Was there water on Cuvier’s brain? How social context can inform (good?) science Gould’s bottom line: “On the surface, this tale seems ludicrous. The thought of France's finest anthropologists arguing passionately about the meaning of a dead colleague's hat could easily provoke the most misleading and dangerous inference of all about history—a view of the past as a domain of naive half-wits, the path of history as a tale of progress, and the present as sophisticated and enlightened. How social context can inform (good?) science Gould’s bottom line: “But if we laugh with derision, we will never understand. Human intellectual capacity has not altered for 50,000 years so far as we can tell. If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding of their world, not in their distorted perceptions.” How social context can inform (good?) science If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding of their world, not in their distorted perceptions. What do we “fail to understand” about their world if we laugh at this example? Metaphysical commitments to distinct and significant biological groups: men vs. women, white Europeans vs. people of color, intelligent vs. less intelligent. Social position reflects innate capacities and traits, not social bias or engineering. How social context can inform (good?) science If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding of their world, not in their distorted perceptions. A then current paradigm (or auxiliary assumptions, or body of theory): “Among the questions heretofore discussed within the Anthropological Society, none is equal in interest and importance to the question before us now. . . . “The great importance of craniology has struck anthropologists with such force that many among us have neglected the other parts of our science in order to devote ourselves almost exclusively to the study of skulls. ... “In such data, we hope to find some information relevant to the intellectual value of the various human races.” How social context can inform (good?) science S.J. Gould, “Women’s Brains” The hypothesis: Women had smaller brains than men and, like it or not, could not equal men in intelligence. Players: Broca, Le Bon, and others. The tests: head/skull measuring of contemporary women in autopsies, and skull measuring of fossil remains. How social context can inform (good?) science From L. Manouvier, Broca’s colleague who rejected Broca’s conclusions about women: “Women displayed their talents and their diplomas. They also invoked philosophical authorities. But they were opposed by numbers … unknown to John Stuart Mill. “These numbers fell on women like sledge hammers, and they were accompanied by commentaries and sarcasms more ferocious than the most misogynist imprecations of certain church fathers.” How social context can inform (good?) science Gould’s argument: some of Broca’s numbers are impeccable … “I have the greatest respect for Broca’s meticulous procedure [in the measurement of autopsied brains]. His numbers are sound. But “But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalogue of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends on what you do with them.” How social context can inform (good?) science Gould’s conclusions: some of Broca’s numbers are impeccable but… What did the women die from whom he autopsied? And what age were they as opposed to the men? And are the sizes of women’s brains relative to overall body size the same (or even a bit larger) than those of men? How social context can inform (good?) science Broca’s response to such queries: We might ask if the small size of the female’s brain depends exclusively upon the small size of her body [as some colleagues ask]. But we must not forget than women are, on average, a little less intelligent than men, a difference which we should not exaggerate but which is nonetheless real. Circular reasoning: he was supposed to establish that women are a little less intelligent then men! We are therefore permitted to suppose that the relatively small size of the female brain depends in part on her physical inferiority and in part on her intellectual inferiority. How social context can inform (good?) science Broca’s study of and conclusion from hominid remains. A very small difference between the apparent sizes of male and female brains (based on skull size) Conclusion: the current larger differences in the sizes of male and female brains are the result of evolutionary pressures upon “dominant” males or men, and “passive” females or women. Gould: Only 7 male skulls and 6 females skulls, all from one location and time: “Never has so little data yielded such far reaching conclusions.” How social context can inform (good?) science Gould, again, trying to understand “their” world, and his “bottom line” in the essay: “To appreciate the social role of Broca and his school, we must recognize that his statements about the brains of women do not reflect an isolated prejudice toward a singular disadvantaged group. “They must be weighed in the context of a general theory that supported contemporary social distinctions as biologically ordained … How social context can inform (good?) science Gould and “their” world: “Women, blacks, and poor people suffered the same disparagement, but women bore the brunt of Broca’s argument because he had easier access to data on women’s brains. “Women were singularly denigrated but they also stood as surrogates for other disenfranchised groups. As [one of Broca’s disciples] wrote, “Men of the black races have a brain scarcely heavier that that of white women.” “I do not regard as empty rhetoric the claim that women’s battles are for all of us.” How social context can inform (good?) science Contemporary lessons? If we don’t take past scientists to be dimwits, and we recognize that the human brain hasn’t changed, then we need to consider how if at all, in our own time and “world,” social beliefs and context can impact (good) science. Although differences in intelligence between the poor and the well off are no longer directly studied, those alleged to distinguish the sexes and races continue (although the latter to less of an extent than in the 1960’s through the 1980’s). Exhibit A: The Bell Curve Exhibit B: Larry Summers when president of Harvard!