Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Biology can be used to further political agendas, 10 Dec 1997
By A Customer
Dick did it again. Richard "Dick" Lewontin, one of the most esteemed (or hated, depending on the viewpoint) geneticists of our era has written yet another controversial, highly readable, and thoroughly enjoyable, book. A booklet, to be sure, fruit of a series of radio broadcasts for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is an agile group of six chapters, spanning a mere 128 pages including a scanty bibliography. But you're in for an intense if short intellectual ride that you won't easily forget. Lewontin starts with a very wide brush, asking nothing less than the fundamental question: what is science? He begins with a theme dear to him and brought to the forefront of modern philosophy by the classical book of Thomas Kuhn about scientific revolutions: science is always a product of the society that generates it, and therefore that society needs to be understood and considered in order to comprehend both science's progress and mistakes. According to Lewontin, science has two functions: 1. It allows us to manipulate the world; 2. It provides an explanation for the world. Obviously, the two are related to some extent (you can hardly manipulate - at least safely and successfully - something which you don't understand, or not?). Nevertheless they are in principle, and often enough in practice, distinct. But not necessarily in the sense you might think. Lewontin makes the interesting and provocative argument that some major progress in applied science is made without the corresponding understanding of the underlying principles, in flagrant opposition to what most scientists (and your high school teacher) would tell you. For example, we obtained better and better varieties of crop plants literally centuries ahead of any scientific understanding of the principles of heredity and the birth of modern genetics. Nevertheless, modern applied genetics gets its legitimation from the impressive body of knowledge we have accumulated about the way cells, chromosomes, and DNA works. Lewontin's almost subversive conclusions stemming from this premise is that modern science has taken over the role that used to be the realm of institutionalized religion throughout antiquity and the middle ages. Scientists, like modern priests, endorse the status quo of modern society, being able to reassure the public that things are going well on the basis of the fact that science does have a tremendous explanatory power, very much like religion use to (in other words, we know what we're talking about...). And here is where the problem lies, according to Lewontin: see, you (science) can't be at the same time claiming to represent a universal truth that transcends human society and be a result of that very society. To put it into another fashion, you can't have the cake and eat it too! Now, before you start seeing every scientist as a member of a secret society of conspirators devoted to the ultimate control of the planet and unleash your James Bonds on every campus, beware. Lewontin clearly states that most, if not every, scientist, are not actually conscious of the role they have and the power they excercise, in the same way in which priests and cardinals defended the status quo during the Inquisition because they really believed they were the repository for the only universal truth, not because they conspired in the labyrinths of the Vatican... (this notwithstanding what some Americans might think of the Pope). What are the foundations of such a tremendously effective tool such as modern science? There are two that clearly stand out according to the author: reductionism and the clear distinction between cause and effect. Reductionism, which basically traces back to the writings of the 17th century French philosopher Rene` Descartes, is the assumption that complex systems can be understood entirely in terms of their minutest components. As Lewontin puts it, societies are the result of individuals, not viceversa. Think about it, it requires a bit of intellectual effort to see the point that in fact the relationship between societies and individuals is a dialectical one, a perennial chicken and egg process. But when you do the gestaltic switch, it really grows on you... The clear relationship between cause and effect is epitomized by the classical assumption in evolutionary biology that organisms "respond" to the environment, as if they were not part and creator of their own environment. The environment is supposed to be the cause of evolution, and the change that occurs in populations and species is the effect of these pressures. But, as we know now, the environment itself can be greatly affected by organisms. And I'm not thinking of relatively recent phenomena such as human-induced global warming. If you're breathing oxygen today, this is entirely because some microscopic relative of modern algae "invented" photosynthesis a couple of billion years ago. The world didn't know free oxygen up to that point, but it just so happens that the precious substance is a "waste" byproduct of the reactions that make up the process of photosynthesis, the major way of making a living for most algae and plants. The alternative to this mechanistic worldview, of course, is known as holism. But this word has very negative connotations, which are intertwined with mysticism and irrational beliefs. And here is the challenge that Lewontin and some of his colleagues - chiefly Stephen Jay Gould, also at Harvard - have faced for most of their active lives as scientists. How to debunk reductionism without falling into a vague and fruitless alternative; how to retain the power of scientific inquiry while acknowledging its limits; how to maintain the public confidence of science's power while asking them to keep an eye on the assumptions that scientists make about the world. I'm afraid you'll have to read the book to know the rest; hopefully, the above ranting has at least tickled your intellect enough to do just that. And I can guarantee you that your view of the world would be changed forever... or maybe not.
|
|
|
|
by R Lewontin
by Richard C. Lewontin
by David Harvey
