Download Dec. 1

Science and Society: how societal beliefs
and values can inform good science
1.


Ape Genius: how views of non-human animals,
including other primates, shaped what was
observed for centuries and how this is changing.
Gould on 19th century anthropology, psychology,
biology: how social views about innate differences
between alleged “biological groups” shaped
scientific hypotheses, auxiliary assumptions, and
observations
Science and Society: Are there (should there
be) ethical constraints on scientific research?
2.

Secrets of the Wild Child: The Case of Genie
Science and its social context: How society
can affect science
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


Are the only relevant auxiliary assumptions,
bodies of theories, paradigms, etc. internal to
science – or can they include social beliefs?
When are Broca and colleagues studying a
biological basis for (allegedly) innate
differences between races, classes, and
sexes? What is the specific historical and
cultural context?
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
Broca: “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, “Wide Hats and Narrow Minds”

The players cont’d: (the late!) Cuvier

The “crucial test”:

The size of his hat…
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. ..
How social context can inform (good?) science
What do we “fail to understand” about their world
if we laugh at this example?



Long standing beliefs (beginning with the Ancient
Greeks!) about the inferiority of women, slaves,
servants…
Given a relatively “monolithic” science
community in terms of gender, ethnicity, social
class… it was easy to take such differences as a
starting point, rather than something to be
established…
Given restrictions on education opportunities for
members of groups regarded as inferior, it was
hard to establish one’s intellectual equality…
How social context can inform (good?) science
A then current paradigm, or current auxiliary
assumptions, or current system of theory as
background and as shaping observations:
“Among the questions heretofore discussed within
the Anthropological Society, none is equal in
interest and importance to the question
before us now. . . .
“[Discovering] the intellectual worth 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
Sex differences
Broca: Anthropometrists [studiers of human body
size] are working very hard “to measure with
scientific certitude the inferiority of women”
Broca: “There is no faith, however respectable, no
interest, however legitimate, which must not
accommodate itself to the progress of human
knowledge and bend before truth”.
Broca (et al): Sad to say, but we must, that
women’s smaller brain size renders them
inferior to men.
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
“Numbers by themselves do 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…
He did not take into account the age of the women whose
brain he autopsied…
The number of ancient skulls on which he based his
argument that men’s brains are now bigger than
women’s because of their need for intelligence to
survive and provide, was way too small.
And what if women’s brains are smaller on average simply
because their bodies are smaller…? And thus have
the same ratio of body size/brain size as 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 the
average, a little less intelligent than men, a
difference which we should not exaggerate
but which is, nonetheless, real.
That they are less intelligent was supposed to be
what he was establishing – not assuming!
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
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.
Exhibit A: The Bell Curve
Exhibit B: Larry Summers when president of
Harvard!
What ethical responsibilities (if any) are
attendant to the practice of science?
Recall the norms:
The autonomy of science
Knowledge is a good for its own sake
The case: the discovery of a so-called feral child in
California
The scientific question: Were Chomsky and other
linguists correct that there is “a critical
window” for language acquisition, beyond
which language can’t be learned.
What ethical responsibilities (if any) are
attendant to the practice of science?
Genie as a “natural experiment” to study the question of
whether there is “a critical window” for a child’s
acquisition of language… after which, it is too late to
learn a language.
The players: linguists, psychologists, social workers, social
agencies, Genie (!) and her mother…
Did those studying Genie protect her well being? Suffer
from “rescue fantasies” that motivated too much
attention to teaching her language and too little to the
other needs she had…?
In this case, was/is the knowledge to be gained “a good in
itself” that trumped ethical questions?