How society can affect science How social context can inform (good) science Things we have studied to consider: I. The presence and role of auxiliary assumptions II. The role of systems or bodies of theories or hypotheses in generating “If H, then I” III. The role of paradigms in setting up a puzzle-solving tradition IV. 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, “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.”

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? 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?