Steelers Fever Forums

Steelers Fever Forums (
-   Locker Room (
-   -   Scientists are Storytellers (

Preacher 11-25-2008 03:59 AM

Scientists are Storytellers
I came across this article in my research for a paper I am doing in theological Post-Conservatism.

The article is specifically dealing with the intellectual foundations of science and more specifically, how postmodernity and science interact. It is, in essence, narrating a few of my personal beleifs, though I disagree in a number of areas as well. Thought it would be good for discussion.

BTW, It is quite interesting that it is found on a leadership website. However, Jean-Francois Lyotard is a name I have come across in my studies on postmodernism before. So don't let the site itself throw anyone.

What is the intellectual foundation of science? What is the basis of the claim of scientists to have access to a higher form of knowledge? Often scientists simply assert the claim, without bothering to probe the philosophically murky foundation on which all knowledge ultimately rests. According to scientists, research is conducted in an objective spirit of scientific inquiry, that discoveries add to our ever-growing knowledge about the universe, and that it is self-evident that science will in due course improve the lot of humanity. Television reinforces such views with the use of laboratory technicians as a source of evidence about the germ-killing properties of a particular brand of bleach, or the clinically-proven ability of a mouth wash to fight bad breath.

In 1979, Jean-François Lyotard was asked by Quebec's Conseil des Universités to review the state of scientific knowledge and information in the late 20th century. He looked at how knowledge comes into being, who controls it, who has access to it, and how it becomes accepted as valid. He concluded that science's claim to possess a higher kind of knowledge was seriously flawed.
For Lyotard, scientists have no more direct access to the truth than philosophers or historians, or anybody else for that matter. For him, scientists are storytellers. Thus it is not possible to describe the result of an experiment except by telling a story. The narratives that scientists produce, such as research papers, hypotheses, histories, are always governed by the protocols of the field in which they work. Each discipline is like a game. It has a special terminology which only makes sense within its own boundaries. In practice, a theorist or researcher is not faced with infinite possibilities to explore, and can only play within the limits of a system of permissible moves. The scope of permissible moves is determined by the power structure of the particular branch of science in which the scientist is working, which is just as political and unscientific as any other human activity.
Thus, according to Lyotard, narrative is not a sub-branch of science. The truth is exactly the opposite: science actually comprises particular branch of narrative. In effect, science is a sub-set of storytelling. Science is made up of language games which generate particular forms of narrative. Lyotard's view goes against the common sense view of science as a superior form of knowledge. It also contradicts modern science's view of itself.
For science to maintain its privileged status, it has usually tried to deny its own involvement in storytelling, denigrating storytelling as the epitome of the unscientific, the very thing that science must fight against, and expel from civilized discourse and education systems.
Science thus pretends to be beyond narrative. How does science do this? Ironically, it appeals to a story, or what Lyotard calls grand meta-narratives. A meta-narrative is an over-arching story, which can supposedly account for, explain, or comment on, the validity of all other stories. It is implicitly a universal or absolute set of truths, which transcends social, institutional or human limitations. Thus, a small local narrative, such as the result of a scientific experiment, or an individual action, is usually granted significance only by its ability to reflect or support some broader narrative which people generally support, like the pursuit of truth, justice, or economic growth.
Lyotard argues that some time around the 18th century, science developed the view of itself as the source of enlightenment. Prior to this, appeals to religious narratives had often been used to guarantee truth. Now, building on its practical successes and on the theoretical work of Francis Bacon and others, science took over and put forward the claim that it alone was the source of truth. It suggested that being scientific or rational was the sign of credibility. Possessing scientific knowledge implied that you could get behind mystification and superstition, reveal the facts about world and lead all of humanity to a brighter day. The underlying assumptions were:
  • science is progressive, moving towards a state of complete knowledge;
  • science is unified, with many different areas, but all sharing the same goal;
  • science is universal, working for the good of all of us, and
  • science aims at total truth that will benefit all of human life.
Thereafter, science justified itself through the neat trick of claiming that science needed no further justification. Thus, it took advantage of the idea that its activities were pursued in the name of the timeless meta-narratives of progress, emancipation and knowledge. By appealing in this way to ideas whose meanings were quietly assumed to be self-evident and universally agreed, science was able to masquerade as a single project, objectively carried out for the good of the entire human race.
More recently, particularly in the last few decades, scientists have had growing difficulty in getting away with these claims, and cracks in the facade of science's grand meta-narrative have been appearing:
  • science's own contribution to ecological problems and the development of nuclear and chemical weapons has made obvious that science is not always directly beneficial to the human race;
  • groups who perceived themselves as disadvantaged by the existing political and institutional arrangements (women, developing countries, the poor) have argued that the science's claims to benefit the entire human race have often turned out, on closer inspection, to be linked in practice to promoting the interests of privileged minorities.

Preacher 11-25-2008 04:00 AM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
Here is the last bit of the article


  • the outcome of scence - technology - was supposed to save time and reduce stress, but few people today feel as though they are enjoying the fruits of that promise. Technology often seems to make life more complicated, more hectic, more stressful, with time feeling every day more scarce, and everyone's nerves more frazzled.
  • the unscientific politics of science has come under the scrutiny of writers like Thomas Kuhn, in his depicting of the social processes of science and the phenomenon of paradigm shifts;
  • complexity theory and quantum mechanics have highlighted the fundamental uncertainty in understanding the world;
  • private sector funding of science has given rise to suspicions that theories and discoveries are based on contributions to performance and efficiency and contributions to the bottom line as much as on truth or purpose.
  • public sector institutions are sometimes perceived as pursuing their own agendas, driven by the internal interests of the institutions themselves, independently of the genuine public purpose.
  • even scientists have largely abandoned the goal of penetrating truth or finding the answer, in favor of the pursuit and promotion of the perspective of their own particular sub-topic.
  • scientists themselves are sometimes perceived as interested in putting out work which will generate more research funding and add to their own power and prestige within the academic "market-place".
  • science has splintered off into a mass of specialized sub-topics, each with its own language, pre-occupations, priorities, agendas, and politics, and each seemingly disinterested in the work going on in other sub-topics. Some funding sources such as foundations encourage inter-disciplinary research, but the overall dynamic is that of knowledge silos.
  • the overall result of this mass of fragmented, and only partially-compatible, activity on separate sub-topics is not necessarily enlightenment and the betterment of the human race, but often noise and a degraded quality of life for all.
  • an underlying issue is that many of the elements excluded by definition from the purview of science, because not directly observable, turn out to be some of the things that make life most worth living. It is painful to think of the coming millennium being based on such a stunted vision of human life.
Stephen Denning, The Secret Language of Leadership: How Leaders Inspire Action Through Narrative (Jossey-Bass, October 2007)
Stephen Denning, The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations. Boston, London, Butterworth Heinemann, October 2000, chapters 7, 12.
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (1960)
Jean-François Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1979.

Glen Ward, Postmodernism, London, Hodder & Stoughton, (1997)[/QUOTE]

Preacher 11-25-2008 04:10 AM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
I have not seen nor read it, but here is a piece that if anyone is interested... possibly comes from the other side.

Alan Sokal and Jean Briciinont's Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers' Abuse of Science (New York: Picador USA [St. Martin's Press], 1999).

Yes, someone would actually have to go out and buy this one! :chuckle:

X-Terminator 11-25-2008 07:41 AM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
Nah, nevermind. I was going to comment on the topic, but it'll just be a waste of time and energy.

RunWillieRun 11-25-2008 08:00 AM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
Being a scientist, myself...there are so many problems with this article I don't even know where to begin.

I think I'll just get back into the lab and continue to work with my "source of enlightenment."

I do what I do because it is a way of learning about the natural world in the most objective way possible....and it is fun to me.

BTW...I consider myself conservative.

revefsreleets 11-25-2008 08:00 AM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
Interesting. Although, upon further reading, Lyotard's own Philosophy (and this is speculative philosophy...Lyotard's trade is Philosopher) becomes contradictory because it, too, offers a grand narative. His Philosophy ends up doing the same thing it is arguing against.

Leftoverhard 11-25-2008 09:17 AM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
Hmm - but what I want to know is if this Jean-François Lyotard invented the leotard - or even it's infamous predecessor - the unitard.

Preacher 11-25-2008 05:02 PM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers

Originally Posted by revefsreleets (Post 482213)
Interesting. Although, upon further reading, Lyotard's own Philosophy (and this is speculative philosophy...Lyotard's trade is Philosopher) becomes contradictory because it, too, offers a grand narative. His Philosophy ends up doing the same thing it is arguing against.


That is exactly the argument that many, including I make against the sweeping gestures of postmodernism. This is a big topic in theology right now.

The key, is dealing with foundationalism.

Do you keep foundationalism, or dispose of it? Personally, I dispose of Cartesian foundationalism, as I am truly more Kantian.

Preacher 11-25-2008 05:03 PM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers

Originally Posted by Leftoverhard (Post 482233)
Hmm - but what I want to know is if this Jean-François Lyotard invented the leotard - or even it's infamous predecessor - the unitard.

:chuckle: I had the same thought, though not so thoroughly expressed!!

beSteelmyheart 11-25-2008 08:21 PM

Re: Scientists are Storytellers
Interesting read!
Although I know that most who study may not feel this way, it seems that some have drifted away from their true purpose-which is a love for the subject & a desire to know more & to share it with the rest of the world-it's a shame when politics or corporate greed overshadow that passion. When it becomes greed, science has lost it's essence, it then becomes all about the papers, the money, whatever.
I believe in both spiritualty and science. Why can't we have both? Why does it always have to be one or the other?
I say spirituality because I don't believe in religion, but believe in God. But not as some puppetmaster somewhere up above pulling the strings for everything-there are laws that are set in place that have nothing to do with the Bible. Laws of Nature, laws of Physics, etc, etc, & that is science.
One can watch nature for a lifetime & always wonder why & seek those answers & still delight in Creation.
There are many times when this can create a struggle where the 2 sides will debate the age of the Earth for an example or in my case the story of Noah's Ark...Although I love the story it still raises some questions about the gene pool there..
But all of my ramblings aside, I'll leave with one of my favorite quotes...
"The scientist does not study nature because it is useful...He studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful" (Henri Poincare)

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum