The 43rd Lecture of the Peking University Forum on the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology
Time: Friday, November 16, 2007, 3:00–5:00 p.m.
Venue: Academic Lecture Hall, Center for the Study of Society and Science, Chengzeyuan
Speaker: Zhang Zengyi (Professor, School of Humanities, Beijing Institute of Technology)
Topic: On the Trial of Intelligent Design Theory—The Question of Demarcating Science in the “Dover Case”
Commentator: Ren Dingcheng
Although it doesn’t seem to have sparked much heated discussion, today Teacher Zhang’s lecture was still splendid~
The original title had been “On the Trial of Intelligent Design Theory—The Question of Demarcating Science in the ‘Dover Case,’” but in the live presentation the title was changed to “Demarcating Science in the Courtroom……”
I think the revised title is better, because it highlights one of Teacher Zhang’s key perspectives, namely the practical reality of the issue of “demarcating science.” The century-long struggle between creationism and evolutionism reflects the fact that the problem of demarcating science is not merely a matter of armchair scholarship, but also something highly real and immediate.
Later, when Teacher Ren commented, he mentioned that the issue of demarcating science has two levels: the “normative” and the “naturalistic.” But I feel that this distinction is not sufficient to capture what is special about the problem of demarcating science in these courtroom cases. Or rather, what I mean is that the distinction between “normative” and “naturalistic” (or between “is” and “ought”), and the distinction between “theoretical/armchair” and “real/practical,” are distinctions along two different dimensions. Whether one starts from norms and discusses what science ought to be, or starts from naturalism and discusses what science in fact is, both can be armchair-style discussions; and the issue of “demarcating science in the courtroom” may likewise invoke doctrines about what science should be, while also drawing on understandings of what science actually is. The special feature of the problem of “demarcating science in the courtroom” is not that it is a normative or a naturalistic inquiry, but that it is a problem “in the courtroom.”
The biggest difference between a problem “in the courtroom” and a problem in the study, as Teacher Zhang pointed out, is that a problem in the study may never yield a result, and may require long-winded, repeated deliberation; but a problem in the courtroom is different. The court must require that the problem be “resolved” within a relatively short time. A scholar may hope to stir up as much controversy as possible, but a judge must take it as his or her duty to bring the dispute to an end as quickly as possible.
As for the dispute between creationism and evolutionism, I think the key is perhaps not simply how to draw the boundary of science. Because, as Teacher Zhang also quoted, what gets written into textbooks—especially primary and secondary school textbooks—must not only be “science,” but “mature” science. Those sciences at the very cutting edge, those that have only just begun to develop, will never be written into primary school textbooks. So even if creationism is “science,” it is obviously immature science, and still should not be written into primary and secondary school textbooks either (just as things like string theory need not be written into ordinary textbooks). Therefore, beyond the question of whether creationism is science, there are other points to consider, such as the purpose and method of “education” (I don’t know much about American educational philosophy); and also the question of what exactly “religion” is (clearly religion is not the complement of science), and so on.
I myself remain very interested in the related issues, and I’ve read quite a few relevant books as well, but recently my brain seems to have become a bit rusted over, and I can’t think of any questions to raise…… I hope everyone will continue the discussion……
November 16, 2007
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply