The Hierarchical Essence of Science…Returning to the Wisdom of Your Senses
From Louis Liebenberg’s Art of Tracking: the Origin of Science
A characteristic feature of an advanced science such as modern physics is the coplex hierarchical structure of hypotheses and the fact that the chain of reasoning from observational “facts” to the most general hypotheses mya be very long (Holton, 1973). In contrast, the art of tracking does not have a complex hierarchical structure and the chain of reasoning from observation to the most basic hypotheses is fairly short.
But how does this impact the quality of science?
In contrast, the art of tracking does not have a complex hierachical structure and the chain of reasoning from observation to the most basic hypotheses is fairly short. Yet the lack of a formal hierarchical structure allows for a greater multitude of basic hypotheses.
Thus a culture of informed inquiry, what we now might call a culture of “citizen scientists”, though such a term sounds a bit condescending - not just “citizen scientists”, but citizen thinkers…more informed and insightful than most hierarchically-trained scientists. You can easily observe this in any extant indigenous tracking culture.
Furthermore, the hierarchical structure of an advanced science also makes it less accessible to people who do not have sufficient background knowledge. This situation gives rise to an authoritarian elitism in modern science.
The most influential and dominant tradition among modern scientists in the approach to scientific theories is elitism. According to this view, the layman or the outsider cannot understand and therefore cannot appraise scientific theories. Only a privileged scientific elite can judge their own work. Within the scientific elite there is an authority structure, which means that the scientific community is predominantly authoritarian in its appraisal of scientific theories (Lakatos, 1978b)….Scepticism, including Feyerabend’s (1975) “epistemelogical anarchism”, denies that scientists can have any authority to appraise theories. Scepticism regards scientific theories as just one belief-system which is epistemologically no more “right” than any other belief-system….In contrast to the relatively authoritarian nature of modern sicentists, trackers are much more egalitarian. Even young trackers may, for example, disagree with their elders and propose alternative interpretations of spoor.
Or in the words of the well known tracker, Tom Brown, Jr., “If you believe what I say, you are a fool…prove me right, or prove me wrong…and I bet you can’t prove me wrong!”.
[to buy Louis Liebenberg’s book, try visiting White Pine’s website]
January 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Willy baby — can I call you Willy baby? –
I cannot afford book, so I’ll have to ask you. Does Mr… Dr? … uh… scrolling… Liebenburg… offer any more facts concerning ‘the most influential scientists’ of 1995? Who they are? Does he mention if anyone has executed a study to find out if the unsavvy ones have the potential to muster up the mental machinery essential in acheiving a worthy understanding of their scientific theories?
January 25th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Ha ha. No you can’t. Though I like Monty Python too.
1995? Why 1995? He doesn’t talk much about ‘influential scientists’ though he has an extensive bibliography and footnotes.
I also don’t remember him mentioning any studies done on scientists themselves - truthfully, from what I understand, the science done ON science amounts to almost nothing; someone has their work cut out for them, if they want to research how modern scientists do modern science.
January 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
According to Amazon the date of publication for Art of Tracking was December 31, 1995. Taking into account the material deals with the scientific community eleven years ago statements such as “In contrast to the relatively authoritarian nature of modern scientists, trackers are much more egalitarian.” are now moot. Without specific examples I have a difficult time believing these generalizations. The book ‘dualism and hierarchy in lowland South America : trajectories of indigenous social organization by Alf Hornborg’ might provide a different perspective. But I can’t afford that one either.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Richard-
With a little perserverance, you can uncover a wealth of supporting examples for Liebenberg\\\’s characterizations of modern science \”as authoritarian\” and stubborn to change.
The physicist Richard Feynman tells many stories about this kind of thing in his various autobiographies.
More to the point, all the articles at Dharma Haven on western science will expand on this theme very constructively, including:
Dispelling Some Common Myths About Science
The Myth of the Magical Scientific Method
The Terrible Truth About Truth
Psuedo-science or Proto-science?
Also, at Bill Beatty\’s science hobbyist webpage, the many articles on pseudoskepticism (the authoritarian dismissal of laymans as quacks, and of whole fields of study as quackery):
Closeminded Science
In order to see the influence of authoritarianism in science, you have to track the symptoms…all these previous articles deal with the symptoms of a hierarchicalized process of inquiry; a process, I\’d suggest, intrinsicly prone to corruption and power plays, owing to the pyramidlike structure of the entire endeavor.
Hope you find these links interesting; I\’ve been reading and observing such phenomenon for years now, in my personal life and through the experiences of others, and I have no doubts left in my mind…science has little to do with the pursuit of knowledge, and everything to do with the pursuit of control and abuse.
January 29th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Willem -
Thanks, those links are very interesting indeed.
Historically there are many examples of the scientific community revealing their role as a major cogs in the machine. I cannot disagree with that.
I think it’s possible that as things continue to change on a global scale the nexus of scientific influence and the direction of their attention and intention will shift in response.
The human race can’t ignore the facts forever - perhaps the scientists concerned with ecological destruction will step up and let their voices be heard, some already have, and perhaps the public will listen. I know anyone who wants to understand can understand, even if at the most basic level.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Glad you found those links interesting!
I get rather strident when talking about science, and I apologize if I make it seem like nothing will change…I think quite the opposite, I write and speak these things because I feel I can see the ways in which science must change.
And in changing, perhaps we will no longer call it science. But at long last, the process of our curiousity will begin creating life, and the old ways of control and domination will fade away.
To the credit of humans, many human cultures all over the world (specifically the ancient tribal cultures that still carry on, where we have not destroyed them, but also other ancient-wisdom cultures too) have never ignored the facts, and continue to weave their ways of insight and deep knowing…I agree, at some point the modern human cultures will have to return to this, will have to learn to listen to these other wiser voices.
I wonder if part of our modern scientific blindness comes from thinking that WE represent the human race, when in fact we consitute no more than a blip in the vast millenia, in the the vast colorful diversity, in which countless tens of thousands of human cultures have flowered and danced. Our modern one, now a globalized culture, a mere speck amongst all the ways humans have ever lived.