Table Of ContentCAN THAT BE RIGHT?
BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Editor
ROBERT .S COHEN, Boston University
MARX .W WARTOFSKY t (Editor 1960-1997)
Editorial Advisory Board
THOMAS .F GLICK, Boston University
ADOLF GRUNBAUM, University of Pittsburgh
NAVLYS .S SCHWEBER, Brandeis University
JOHN .J STACHEL, Boston University
VOLUME 199
ALLAN FRANKLIN
University ofColorado
CANTHAT
BERIGHT?
Essays on Experiment,
Evidence, and Science
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available frorn the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-94-010-6242-8 ISBN 978-94-011-5334-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5334-8
Printed on acid-free paper
AII Rights Reserved
©1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1999
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 1999
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any rneans, electronic or rnechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval systern, without wrltten permission frorn the copyright owner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ix
INTRODUCTION: CONSTRUCTIVISM, POSTMODERNISM, DNA SCIENCE ..... 1
CASE STUDIES
CHAPTER .1 HOW OT DIOVA EHT EXPERIMENTERS' REGRESS 31
CHAPTER .2 EHT APPEARANCE DNA DISAPPEARANCE FO EHT
-71 VEK NEUTRINO 93
CHAPTER .3 INSTRUMENTAL LOYALTY DNA EHT RECYCLING FO
EXPERTISE 79
CHAPTER .4 EHT ESIR FO EHT "FIFTH FORCE'~ 331
THE ROLES OF EXPERIMENT
CHAPTER .5 THERE ERA NO ANTIREALISTS IN EHT LABORATORy 941
CHAPTER .6 DISCOVERY, PURSUIT, DNA JUSTIFICATION 361
CHAPTER .7 EHT RESOLUTION FO DISCORDANT STLUSER 381
CHAPTER .8 CALIBRATION 732
CHAPTER .9 SWAL DNA EXPERIMENT.. 372
POSTSCRIPT 283
REFERENCES 285
INDEX 303
v
ECAFERP
It smees ot em taht publishing a noitcelloc of one's syasse si na act of .sirbuh
My esnefed si taht enoemos esle tsrif detseggus eht aedi ot .em Nevertheless I
enthusiastically detpoda eht .aedi A rojam nosaer rof siht si taht I wanted ot
eugra tsniaga tahw sah emoceb nwonk sa eht nredomtsop or constructivist
criticism of ecneics dna I thought taht gnitcelloc eseht syasse rehtegot sdda a
weight of evidence ton present ni eht separate .syasse
nehW I tsrif nageb gnikrow ni eht yrotsih dna philosophy of ecneics erom
naht twenty sraey oga sgniht demees relpmis dna erom .laigelloc My tsrif work
no modem ,scisyhp a yduts of eht yrevocsid of ytirap non ,noitavresnoc saw
dednetni sa na rewsna ot samohT Kuhn's mialc taht laicurc experiments did ton
.tsixe It demees ot em na tnemugra taht dluow eb delttes ylelos within eht
.ymedaca ,woN sa detacidni ni eht ,noitcudortni snoissucsid of eht erutan of
ecneics evah emoceb htob erom tnatropmi dna considerably ssel .laigelloc I
eveileb taht eht sweiv of ecneics detneserp by nredomtsop scitirc ot both our
stneduts dna ot yteicos era .gnorw They raeb ,elttil if ,yna ecnalbmeser ot eht
ecneics I practiced rof neetfif ,sraey ot taht decitcarp by ym ,seugaelloc or ot eht
yrotsih of .ecneics esehT sweiv ,nac I ,eveileb osla esuac .mrah Many important
lacitcarp snoitacilppa ni our sevil dna ynam laicos snoisiced depend no a
egdelwonk of htob ecneics dna sti .ecitcarp In order ot ekam reasonable
snoisiced ew need ot wonk dna dnatsrednu .ecneics I yrrow taht eht postmodern
weiv lliw htob daelsim yteicos tuoba eht erutan of cifitneics egdelwonk dna osla
egaruocsid eht study of .ecneics If ecneics tonnac eb ,detsurt why expend eht
effort ot nrael ?ti
My krow detcelloc ni siht emulov si a esnefed of ecneics sa a elbanosaer
enterprise desab no dilav latnemirepxeecnedivedna lacitirc .noissucsid ecneicS
seod provide su htiw egdelwonk of the lacisyhp .dlrow This emulov si osla a
egnellahc ot eht scitirc of .ecneics teL meht wohs erehw I evah edam srorre ni
either tcaf or ni .noitaterpretni teL meht reffo evitanretla snoitanalpxe of eht
episodes and seussi discussed.
One rehtruf ni--thguoht preparing eseht syasse rof noitacilbup I evah noticed
na unfortunate tnuoma of .noititeper The emas sedosipe era used lareves semit
ot etartsulli tnereffid .seussi For taht I .ezigolopa ,sselehtreveN ym work has
sentitemos neeb dezicitirc rof being oot .lacinhcet spahreP noititeper nac breed
understanding.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In an laedi academic world one would evah colleagues who syawla had time ot
discuss ,seussi ot daer your ,krow dna ot offer constructive .msicitirc Fortunately
rof ,em the laer world sah been a reasonable approximation ot the laedi .eno In
my previous work I have acknowledged the help of those who assisted in the
specific .krow In this book, ni which tsom of the lairetam has been previously
published, I would ekil ot recognize erom general .stbed These era sdneirf dna
colleagues ohw have edam working ni eht history dna philosophy of science a
joy. I thank Robert Ackermann, Jed Buchwald, Robert Cohen, John Earman,
Tim Gould, Colin Howson, Noretta Koertge, John Norton, Joseph ,ttiP Alan
Shapiro, Howard ,relkomS Roger Stuewer, dna leoN Swerdlow rof being laedi
colleagues. David Bartlett, John Cumalat, Bill O'Sullivan, John ,ecirP Mike
Ritzwoller, dna Chuck Rogers, colleagues ni the Physics Department ta the
University of Colorado have taken time morf actually doing science ot ekam
important contributions ot ym .krow ,yllaniF ym gratitude ot Cyndi Betts, whose
support and encouragement have been invaluable.
Most of the syasse ni this book have been published previously. The original
publications :era .4991 How ot Avoid eht Experimenters' .ssergeR seidutS ni eht
yrotsiH and yhposolihP of ecneicS :52 97-121; .5991 The Appearance and
Disappearance of the l7-keV Neutrino. sweiveR of nredoM scisyhP :76 457
490; .3991 The Rise of the Fifth .ecroF ,ecnednopserroC ecnairavnI and
:scitsirueH syassE ni ruonoH of znieH .tsoP .S French dna .H Kamminga.
Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 83-103; .6991 There Are No
Antirealists ni eht .yrotarobaL msilaeR dna msilaeR-itnA ni eht Philosophy of
.ecneicS .R .S Cohen, .R Hilpinen dna .Q Renzong. Dordrecht, Kluwer
Academic Publishers: ;841-131 .3991 ,yrevocsiD Pursuit, and Justification.
sevitcepsreP no ecneicS :1 252-284; .5991 The Resolution of Discordant
.stluseR sevitcepsreP no ecneicS :3 346-420;1997. Calibration. sevitcepsreP no
ecneicS :5 31-80; and .5991 Laws dna Experiment. swaL afNature. .F Weinert.
Berlin, De Gruyter: .702-191
ix
INTRODUCTION: CONSTRUCTIVISM,
POSTMODERNISM, AND SCIENCE
In these postmodern times, when scholars proclaim the impossibility of knowledge,
except, ofcourse, theirown, Iwould like to defend aratherold-fashioned notion. This
is the idea that science provides us with knowledge about the world which is based on
experimental evidence and onreasoned and critical discussion.I I further suggest that
we can, and do, have reasonable grounds for beliefin thatevidence. In short, I believe
thatscienceisareasonableenterprise.2
Even a generation ago this idea would have seemed obvious and in no need of
defense. Things have, however, gotten worse since c.P. Snow bemoaned the lack of
conununication between the two cultures, the literary and the scientific, and tried to
encouragemutualunderstandingand interaction. AlthoughSnow'shumanistswere both
ignorant ofscience and also quite happy about that lack ofknowledge, they did not
claim that science wasn't knowledge. It just wasn't valuable knowledge. Noting the
self-impoverishmentofscientists,whopaylittleattentionto literatureandhistory, Snow
asked, "But what about the other side? They are impoverished too--perhaps more
seriously, because theyare vainerabout it. Theystill like to pretend that the traditional
culture is the whole of'culture,' as though the natural orderdidn't exist. As though the
explanation of the natural order is of no interest either in its own value or its
consequences. As though the scientific edifice of the physical world was not in its
intellectual depth, complexity and articulation the most beautiful and wonderful
collective work ofthe mind ofman" (Snow 1959, p. 15). Snow wentonto discuss the
then recent discovery ofthe nonconservation ofparity in the weak interactions, or the
violation ofleft-right symmetry (for details see Franklin 1986, Chapter 3). "It is an
experiment ofthe greatest beauty and originality, but the result is so startling that one
forgets how beautiful the experiment is. It makes us think again about some of the
fundamentals ofthe physical world. Intuition, conunon sense--theyare neatly stood on
their heads. The result is usually known as the contradiction [nonconservation] of
parity. If there were any serious conununication between the two cultures, this
experimentwould have beentalked aboutateveryHighTable inCambridge. Was it?"
(p. 17)Snowsuspectedthen, asIdonow, thatitwasn't.
The attitude of many humanists toward science has changed from indifference to
distrust, and even hostility. Today science is under attack from many directions, and
eachofthem denies thatscience provides us with knowledge. Whether it is because of
inherent gender bias, Eurocentrism, or the social and career interests of scientists,
science isuntrustworthyandfatally flawed. "Theradicalfeministpositionholdsthatthe
epistemologies, metaphysics, ethics, and politics ofthe dominant forms ofscience are
androcentric and mutually supportive; that despite the deeply ingrained Western
cultural belief in science's intrinsic progressiveness, science today serves primarily
A. Franklin, Can that be Right?
© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999
2 INTRODUCTION
regressive social tendencies; and that the social structure of science, many of its
applications and technologies, its modes ofdefining research problems and designing
experiments, its ways ofconstructing and conferring meanings are not only sexist but
also racist, classist, and culturally coercive" (Harding 1986, p. 9). One might ask how
such sexism, racism, or classism determine the content of modem physics. What
influence could theyhave onthe decisionas to whetherornotexperiments on atomic
parity violation confIrm or refute the Weinberg-Salam unified theory of electroweak
interactions? How would they enter into the decision as to whether or not a new
elementaryparticle, the 17-keV neutrino, existed? In my view, as shown in the essays
below, these issues were decided on the basis of valid experimental evidence and
reasoneddiscussion.
Recent critics of science do not seem to believe that a knowledge of science is
necessary in order to criticize it. Consider a recent work entitled, Strange Weather:
Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age ofLimits (Ross 1991). In a book which
claims to deal with science, the author, Andrew Ross, boasts ofhis ignorance ofthe
subject. "Thisbookisdedicatedto all ofthe scienceteachers Ineverhad. Itcould only
havebeenwrittenwithoutthem.,,3
Rossalsosummarizeswhathe regardsastheprevailinghumanistviewofscience.
It is safe to say that many ofthe founding certitudes ofmodem science
have been demolished. The positivism of science's experimental
methods, its axiomatic self-referentiality, and its claim to demonstrate
context-free truths in nature have all suffered from the relativist critique
ofobjectiVity. Historicallyminded critics have described natural science
asasocialdevelopment,occurringinacertaintimeandplace; aviewthat
is at odds with science's self-presentation as a universal calculus of
nature's laws. Feminists have also revealed the parochial bias in the
masculinist experience and ritual ofscience's 'universal' procedures and
goals. Ecologistshave drawnattention to the environmental contextsthat
fall outside ofthe mechanistic purviewofthe scientific world-view. And
anthropologists have exposed the ethnocentrism that divides Western
science's unselfconscious pursuit ofcontext freefacts from what it sees
as the pseudoscientific beliefs ofothercultures. The cumulative result of
these critiques has been a significant erosion of scientific institutions'
authoritytoproclaimandauthenticatetruth(Ross 1991,p.Il).
Ross' view is quite mild in comparison with Sandra Harding's characterization of
Newtonianmechanics. "Inthatcase, whyis itnot as illuminatingand honest to referto
Newton's laws as 'Newton's rape manual' as it is to call them 'Newton's mechanics'"
(Harding 1986, p. 113). To anyone who has looked, in an even cursory way, at
Newton's Principia this statement is neither illuminating nor honest. The level of
hostilitybetweenthetwocultureshas increasedmarkedly.
A recent issue of Social Text, a leading cultural studies journal, was devoted to
"Science Wars."This is the critics' termfor the ongoing discussion, between scientists
