FAKING IT:

To make an overly broad generalization, philosophers like Daston and Chang work in the shadow of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), who taught philosophers of science that one way to understand the nature of science was to look at its history. Kuhn wrote in the opening of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), "History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed."

And what does this history tell us? Well, from Kuhn's perspective, textbook histories a la Sen are essentially comforting myths, ways for scientists to imbue their work with meaning. When scientific work becomes difficult and technical, as it often is, scientists are able to think back to the history stories, putting their work, which often amounts to very little, in the context of a grand tradition. Science history for scientists, in this view, functions as self-help, as motivational propaganda.

In other words, when scientists dislike the philosophers and historians who follow Kuhn, they have good reasons. Even leaving the unflattering caricatures aside, many scientists still generally think of themselves as chasing The Truth, while historians and philosophers of science more often see scientists as working together to fish for serendipitous accidents that somehow prove reliable.

Of course, I'm overstating things for effect, and I should remark that, despite what I've said so far, I'm generally sympathetic to Kuhn and his followers. When Chang shows over and over in Inventing Temperature that "decisive" experiments were far less decisive than their promoters claimed, I believe him. In their rigorous skepticism, philosophers and historians of science have the upper hand. But the goal of science is not just doubt...and here we find our paradox.

Suppose historians and philosophers of science--HSPs, to explicitly construct a strawman--are right. Suppose that science doesn't get at the deep essence of any phenomena, and that science history is filled with abandoned veins of gold. Given this, whose work would a benevolent mentor recommend to a student scientist: the HSP Chang, or the motivational guru Sen?

Though Chang, in this thought experiment, is more nearly right, the student may still benefit more from reading Sen. Why? Because in Einstein's Fridge, Sen gives the impression that empirical study can pay off. No doubt Chang would insist that Inventing Temperature is also a story of empirical studies that paid off, but science students need all the encouragement they can get.

I find myself, with this, circling back to religious analogies--to Pascal's wager, or to Kierkegard's leap of faith--where they may not be entirely warranted. But there does seem to be a connection. The belief in a sturdy framework, whether in religion or science, can be enormously helpful to young investigators as they launch themselves toward unknown depths. Though my own attitudes tend toward agnosticism in all things, this may not be the best attitude for someone aiming to make empirical discoveries. It may be that "mutual incomprehension," too, sometimes has its uses.

Tweet   @brothersjudd