>It is also possible of course that scientist inescapably engage in
>theorizing, that science is not a value-free activity, and that
>objective science is some ideal (or idol?!)
>Peter Bowler's many books, and also Bloor, suggest that very strongly!
I think it's important to remember that no human being is perfect. If you
read talk.origins for a while you will get the impression that scientists
are pretty objective. But I remember well that in my graduate school days,
a good deal of the mealtime conversation was about the antics of quite a
number of professors who were petty, mean, small, unfair and biased. In
other words, they were human beings. At their best, scientists do strive
for objectivity, and I believe that enough people strive for objectivity
enough of the time that sound science triumphs over bad science in the end.
But it's not productive to either idolize or demonize scientists.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)