{"id":13947,"date":"2015-12-13T22:19:36","date_gmt":"2015-12-14T02:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/etherwave.wordpress.com\/?p=13947"},"modified":"2015-12-13T22:19:36","modified_gmt":"2015-12-14T02:19:36","slug":"methodology-by-cryptic-aphorism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/2015\/12\/13\/methodology-by-cryptic-aphorism\/","title":{"rendered":"Against Methodology by Cryptic Aphorism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Although this blog roams freely across the history of science and technology, it is first and foremost a methodology blog. One early conclusion reached here was that historians&#8217; interest in methodology is largely limited to consideration of certain\u00a0quasi-philosophical problems. By quasi-philosophical, I mean that ostensibly fundamental and thorny conceptual issues are not actually treated with careful language, nor do new conversations build systematically on prior ones. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Instead, these considerations often revolve around free-form discussion of certain\u00a0cryptic aphorisms.\u00a0<\/span><span style=\"color:#000000;\"><span style=\"line-height:1.5;\">Some examples:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Science\u00a0is socially constructed<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Science is no different from other forms of culture.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Scientific method\/the Scientific Revolution is a myth<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color:#000000;\">There is no such thing as scientific progress<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Objectivity is\u00a0illusory\/Claims to objectivity are ideological<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color:#000000;\">All technologies embody a politics<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"http:\/\/www.lastwordonnothing.com\/2015\/08\/25\/story-history-story\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">History is storytelling<\/a><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">All of these statements&#8212;which are obviously interrelated through a rejection of realist epistemology&#8212;are intentionally provocative, and intended\u00a0to challenge some purportedly widely held, capital-T Truths. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">These aphorisms do in fact embody valid\u00a0methodological concepts, which are brought out once the conversation moves from the aphorism to a more in-depth discussion. Typically those discussions date back many decades, with some of the best analyses\u00a0scattered across articles that might equally well have been written in 1975, 1987, or 2002.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Yet, rather than building on\u00a0the most advanced discussions available, time and again new conversations&#8212;conducted in forums ranging from\u00a0articles to Tweets to seminar rooms&#8212;start fresh from the primitive\u00a0aphorism. \u00a0Why?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:center;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">&#8212;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">One possibility is that a rehearsal of debates surrounding the aphoristic form is considered to be a kind of healthful exercise. It doesn&#8217;t really matter if discussions attain the philosophical heights of prior iterations of the debate. From a methodological perspective, the mere act of discussing such questions is sufficient to render one a more sensitive and skillful historian. I&#8217;ve witnessed a number of discussions\u00a0in which someone invokes\u00a0the aphorism, and someone else issues a challenge to such an apparently radical claim. After some back and forth, it is decided that everyone actually has a pretty unobjectionable position. The exercise ends with all being\u00a0congratulated on their\u00a0civilized and constructive\u00a0conversation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:center;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">&#8212;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">However, things change when the discussion is not among colleagues but\u00a0between inside groups and outside groups. Suddenly, the aphorism becomes a shibboleth. \u00a0To adhere to the aphorism is to confirm one&#8217;s status as a right-thinking individual unbeholden to\u00a0powerful (if ultimately untenable) ideological interests that hope to enshrine science, technology, what-have-you as unaccountable sociopolitical forces.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Those who reject the aphorism are confirmed as\u00a0beholden to just such an ideology. Methodologically, they\u00a0are marked as <span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/2015\/04\/15\/scientists-and-the-history-of-science-the-shapin-view\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">inherently unreliable<\/a><\/span>, because, to uphold their ideology, they must construct and defend <span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/2013\/01\/21\/kuhns-demon-or-the-iconoclastic-tradition-in-science-criticism\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">false imagery<\/a><\/span>\u00a0of science, of technology, of what-have-you. Moreover, because the likelihood of\u00a0ideologically rooted objection is actually built into the aphorism, the manifestation of objection becomes compelling evidence of the aphorism&#8217;s truth. <em>And<\/em>,\u00a0because the opposing ideology is regarded as a sociopolitical pathology, firmly refuting the opposition becomes an important task.\u00a0This is the stuff the so-called <span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Science_wars\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">science wars<\/a><\/span> were made of.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:center;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">&#8212;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">What I find striking in\u00a0such conversations is how historians will act as if the aphorisms are self-evidently correct&#8212;as if it is altogether inconceivable that anyone <em>could<\/em> object to them. \u00a0This attitude, of course, enhances the sense that anyone who objects to the aphorism simply must be beholden to an ideology because there is otherwise just\u00a0no way to explain their objection.\u00a0In my opinion, even if you do think the aphorisms constitute sound methodological guidance, it should not really be that hard to imagine a legitimate contrary position, and to empathize with it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">In these situations, I think it is important that we understand the crypticness of the aphorism as a feature rather than a bug. That is, it is actually in historians&#8217; interests\u00a0that they be misunderstood, and this makes it congenial to them\u00a0to return again and again to an aphoristic state of debate in which\u00a0it is difficult to discern what anybody actually thinks.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:center;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">&#8212;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">We might attribute this situation to a phenomenon familiar from other instances of abuse of expertise: the use of\u00a0obscurantism to delimit who can and cannot participate in a debate, thereby pushing away\u00a0possible challenges to the experts&#8217; authority.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">We might also attribute it to the fact that, if the aphorisms are revealed to describe positions that are actually banal and unobjectionable, it would significantly\u00a0detract from the cogency of historians&#8217; work.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">My own preferred explanation is that there is a conflict of interest at play. Historians will claim that it is <span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=U0WYRhODPLAC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=leviathan%20and%20the%20air%20pump&amp;pg=PA344#v=onepage&amp;q=%22The%20form%20of%20life%20in%20which%20we%20make%20our%20scientific%20knowledge%20will%20stand%20or%20fall%20with%20the%20way%20we%20order%20our%20affairs%20in%20the%20state.%22&amp;f=false\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">essential for our intellectual, social and political future<\/a><\/span> that the lessons of their work (<span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=U0WYRhODPLAC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=leviathan%20and%20the%20air%20pump&amp;pg=PA344#v=snippet&amp;q=%22Knowledge,%20as%20much%20as%20the%20state,%20is%20the%20product%20of%20human%20actions.%22&amp;f=false\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">as summarized\u00a0in the aphorisms<\/a><\/span>) be widely understood and absorbed, resulting\u00a0in a redemptive transformation in sociopolitical ideas. Yet, if those aphorisms ever <em>were<\/em> understood, historians would be forced to contend with the fact that their professional project had progressed beyond its formative stages, necessitating them to develop their ideas and\u00a0professional strategies beyond the rudimentary state in which they currently exist. Things\u00a0get a lot\u00a0more complex\u00a0once you step outside the seminar room.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color:#000000;\">But beyond that, I think that if the aphorisms ceased to draw objection, historians would also\u00a0have\u00a0to contend with the fact that broad acceptance of the aphorisms&#8217; wisdom\u00a0can&#8217;t\u00a0actually produce the\u00a0transformational effect they anticipate. \u00a0So long as one can demonstrate that understanding remains stuck at square one, one can always maintain the hope&#8212;and the promise&#8212;that the anticipated transformation in ideas and social order can yet be realized. That is, it allows historians to maintain the claim that they are activist\u00a0intellectuals rather than <span style=\"color:#003366;\"><a style=\"color:#003366;\" href=\"https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=i_-bdQjbAZ8C&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=jonathan%20strange%20and%20mr%20norrell&amp;pg=PT11#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">members of a bourgeois club.<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:center;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">&#8212;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:left;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">The idea behind presenting debate about these aphorisms as methodological is that a proper understanding of their wisdom enables historians to select and interpret source material and assemble narratives in legitimate ways.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:left;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">In fact,\u00a0it is questionable whether the aphorisms have much to do with methodology at all. We have little discussion, for example, about the range of sources available to us, and the manner in which they were produced, and what they can and cannot tell us about the individuals, organizations, social structures, and cultures that produced them. We have little discussion about how events and cases can and cannot be related to larger pictures. And so on.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:left;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">Methodology by aphorism is not without its virtues, but I believe it is, on balance, a substitute\u00a0more advanced methodological discussion. Worse, it is a wedge that drives academic historians apart from others who have much to contribute and may not be prepared to accede to our aphoristic declarations.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align:left;\"><span style=\"color:#000000;\">So, yes, I think methodology by cryptic aphorism is a bad thing.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Although this blog roams freely across the history of science and technology, it is first and foremost a methodology blog. One early conclusion reached here was that historians&#8217; interest in methodology is largely limited to consideration of certain\u00a0quasi-philosophical problems. By quasi-philosophical, I mean that ostensibly fundamental and thorny conceptual issues are not actually treated with<\/p>\n<p class=\"text-right\"><span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Continue Reading&#8230; Against Methodology by Cryptic Aphorism<\/span><a class=\"btn btn-secondary continue-reading\" href=\"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/2015\/12\/13\/methodology-by-cryptic-aphorism\/\">Continue Reading&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13947","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-methods"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13947","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rational-action.com\/etherwave\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}