Science in an Age of (Non)Reason
In this chapter, we wish to reflect on some of the issues we see as affecting our work, how we see the ethos of our research institutions changing, the role of science in an age in which ‘experts’ are seen as an unnecessary luxury who stand in the way of popular and populist movements but in which, at the same time, people crave the products invented, developed and produced by such ‘experts’. We take a structured approach that uses the norms of science defined by the social scientist Robert Merton (the so-called Mertonian norms) and examine how each of them is affected by the current climate for science. We also look at some cases—historical and current—to help specify the intrinsic and extrinsic challenges that a reason- and evidence-based approach to knowledge is now facing.
KeywordsMertonian norms Scientific freedom and autonomy Evidence-based facts Fake news Skepticism Objectivity
- Fuller, S. (2003). Kuhn vs. popper. The struggle for the soul of science. Cambridge: Icons books Ltd. ISBN 1-84046-468-2.Google Scholar
- Graham, L. R. (2016). Lysenko’s ghost. Epigenetics and Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 987-0-674-08905-1.Google Scholar
- Hossenfelder, S. (2017). Science needs reason to be trusted. Nature Physics, 13(4), 316–317.Google Scholar
- Janick, J. (2015). Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov: Plant geographer, geneticist, martyr of science. HortScience, 50(6), 772–776.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the message. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9, OCLC 755754.Google Scholar
- Miller, H. I. (1995). USA biotechnology policy: The ghost of Lysenko? Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 6, 255–260.Google Scholar
- Ollier, C. (2009). Lysenkoism and global warming. Energy & Environment, 20, 197–200.Google Scholar
- Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2012). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. ISBN 978-1408824832.Google Scholar
- Roll-Hansen, N. (2015). On the philosophical roots of today’s science policy: Any lessons from the “Lysenko affair”? Studies in East European Thought, 67(1–2), 91–109.Google Scholar
- Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge: Its scope and limits. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
- Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 10(10), 507–514.Google Scholar
- Siebert, S., Machesky, L. M., & Insall, R. H. (2015). Overflow in science and its implications for trust. ELife, 4, e10825. https://doi.org/ 10.7554/eLife.10825.
- Vatiero, M., (2016). Learning from the Swiss corporate governance exception. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/07/learning-swiss-corporate-governance-exception.
- Ziman, J. (2008a). Science in civil society. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1845400828.Google Scholar
- Ziman, J. (2008b). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521893107.Google Scholar