THERE has been a marked reaction against science in recent decades in some intellectual circles. The criticism comes in particular from certain literary, philosophical, sociological and environmental theorists.
The general public, by and large, is unaware of the detailed arguments used by these theorists. Nevertheless, these critics have a widespread effect through the influence they exert on committed cores in various organisations, for example, the environmental movement.
The consequent negative attitude towards science filters out passively, but quite effectively, into the general organisation membership. The basic intellectual criticisms made of science are fatally flawed and, therefore, the prescriptions based on such analysis cannot work. I will discuss this matter specifically in the context of the environmental movement.
I am a scientist, and also an environmentalist. My principal environmental interest is radiation in the environment. I think that the general environmental movement that has arisen over recent decades has made a very valuable contribution. However, I have noticed over the years, when discussing various matters with very "committed" environmentalists, that many of them have a very suspicious attitude towards science. This sparked my interest to find out about the philosophical underpinning of the radical Green mentality.
Basic radical eco philosophy holds that modern man has become estranged from his natural environment, and that all of our current environmental problems have been caused by this estrangement. This radical philosophy attempts to understand the nature of this estrangement, this flaw, and to pinpoint the moment in history when it occurred. The idea is that a full understanding of this basic flaw will allow us to correct and repair it, and this, in turn, will allow us to rehabilitate our environment.
Most of this philosophical analysis pinpoints the historical period of the Enlightenment as the time when things really started to go badly wrong. The philosophers and scientists Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Renc Descartes and Isaac Newton are identified as the culprits who intellectually "killed nature". In other words, they firmly introduced the idea that it can be fully comprehended and, therefore, "dominated", by the impersonal and "value free" scientific method of hypothesis and experiment.
In summary, it is charged that the rise of science abolished the old view that the earth is a living thing, worthy of respect.
SOME Green philosophers would put the turning point much earlier than the Enlightenment. Some claim the troublestarted with the development of agriculture several thousand years ago. Yet others go back to the Book of Genesis, and claim that the rot set in when God granted man "dominion" over the earth and all its creatures. Whatever about the exact timing of the initiation of the unhappy estrangement, the general argument remains the same - there was a time when man lived in idyllic harmony with nature, a condition which precluded environmental degradation; at some point an estrangement between man and nature began which eventually became grossly accelerated with the development of modern "soul less" science.
According to this view, the very spirit of science is inimical to the fostering of the caring attitude towards the environment which is essential if we are ever going to reverse the effects of environmental degradation.
The philosophical analysis just outlined does not stand up to scrutiny. The concept of the idyllic phase in history when man lived in harmony with nature, and inflicted no damage on nature, is largely founded on wishful thinking. Of course, until recent centuries, small population numbers and the lack of large scale polluting technologies would, in themselves, have greatly limited the potential for any large scale artificial debilitation of the environment.
But it is another thing altogether to think, because people lived closely with nature, were dependent on nature, and used only simple manual technologies, that they were consequently imbued with an ethic that enjoined them to nurture band protect all things natural at all times. Indeed, it would be very surprising to find such tender solicitude for non human nature cohabiting with a long history of savage behaviour towards fellow humans.
Just a few weeks ago I visited the exhibition of torture instruments in common use in medieval Europe, on display in the Poble Espanyol in Barcelona. Anyone who needs convincing that, despite our many problems, the world today is a place than it was then, should visit that exhibition.
There is no shortage of evidence that, in past ages well before the emergence of science, communities regularly inflicted damage on their local environments - deforestation, over hunting, torture of animals, etc. Indeed, there is evidence that, even in the late Stone Age, man found it difficult to live in harmony with nature. There is evidence that human beings at the time wiped out dozens of species of large mammals by over kill.
Of course I readily admit that several of our modern science based technologies have caused serious environ mental degradation carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning power stations have contributed significantly to the enhanced greenhouse effect; emissions from the refrigeration industry have damaged the ozone layer; the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant caused wide spread radioactive contamination, etc.
But it is wrong to blame these problems on science. Decisions regarding the implementation, scope and policies of science based technology are largely made by non scientists, such as industrialists, politicians and civil servants. To blame science for the pollution emitted by a science based industry makes no more sense than to lay the blame for all fraud and forgery at the door of our education system.
HOWEVER, I must differentiate between science and scientists. Science is simply the furtherance of knowledge about the material universe using the scientific method of hypothesis and experiment. It is an intrinsically human and good activity. On the other hand, scientists, just like any other group, are fallible, can make errors of judgment and, at times, can indulge in downright wrong behaviour.
For example, scientists developed the atomic bomb. Although there were powerful mitigating circumstances involved in that drama, it was, in my opinion, a wrong decision, and a bad thing to do. On the other hand, the discovery of nuclear fission, on which the atomic bomb was based, was neither wrong nor bad. It was simply the discovery of new knowledge.
To reject science as advocated by radical Green philosophy, would he a disastrous mistake. The modern world is entirely dependent on science and science based technology, and this is not going to change. Modern society is irreversibly "hooked", economically, psychologically and culturally, on the products, and the productivity, of science based technology. To take but one example, the world population now could not be fed by relying on traditional methods of agriculture.
Science is essential in order for us to understand fully the nature of the impact we have had, and are having, on the environment. Science is essential in order to develop new technologies that are benign as regards environmental effect, and new interventions that will reverse damage already caused to the environment. It is true that science based technology has produced many of our current environmental problems. It is equally true that only science can lead us out of these problems.
In attacking science, the radical environmentalists are attacking their greatest potential ally.