RC Passage 6 — Philosophy, Ethics & Religion

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.

Protagonists in the so-called Science Wars differ most markedly in their views about the role of values in science and what makes science valuable. Scientists. . .have traditionally considered the principal aims of science to be Explanation and Application. Only cognitive values should influence what is taken to be explanatory. Social and political values affect the priority assigned to various scientific problems and the ways in which scientific results are applied. Ethical considerations may be brought to bear on the treatment of human and animal subjects and the manner in which scientific results are communicated.

Recent critiques of science allege that the content of scientific explanations reflects the dominant ideology and interests of scientists and their patrons. Instead of calling for more value neutrality, some now urge that science take as a principal aim the emancipation of oppressed subcultures. Not only should progressive political values be allowed to set the problems attempted, but they should also be used to constrain the types of answers pursued. Since we construct scientific knowledge, we should take responsibility for its content. . . .

In his poem, \"Choose Something Like a Star,\" Robert Frost urges us to be staid \"when at times the mob is swayed to carry praise or blame too far.\" Reacting to the polemical tone found in the writings on both or all sides of the Science Wars, there is now a rush towards what used to be thought of as \"the marginalized middle.\" I think that the search for a middle way on questions about realism/antirealism or investigations of the interactions between individual scientists, scientific communities, and the larger society makes very good sense. There is a need to build more sophisticated models of the structure of scientific theories/research programs that show the relationship between mathematical formalisms, technical scientific terminology, and the metaphors and analogies that guide scientific creativity and communicate scientific results to the public. On many issues, it makes sense to heed the plea to \"just be friends.\"

But the vehemence of the debate suggests that the divides go deeper. . . . [The] most fundamental dispute reflects a divergence in values. I have tried to articulate the difference by setting up antithetical normative models of scientific inquiry. One account sees the telos of science as Explanation; the other would make Emancipation the prime directive. . . . [On] this issue, no middle way is possible. Because there is no algorithm for evaluating the explanatory power of scientific theories, it is tempting to throw social values into the grab bag of desiderata that guide all aspects of scientific decision-making. But to do so is to jeopardize seriously the very features of science that make it so valuable in the first place. We want scientific results that have withstood the highest levels of empirical criticism and theoretical scrutiny. When political considerations are used to limit the questions that can be raised, the hypotheses that can be tested, or the alternative explanations that can be brought forward, that area of inquiry ceases to have scientific value, regardless of whether the political motivations are good ones or bad ones. Scientific norms are not negotiable, and scientific values are not fungible.