Conditions Does Hostility Towards Science Arise? According

¶ … conditions does hostility towards science arise? According to Merton in Science and the Social Order, there are two conditions in which general hostility is focused upon the discipline of science. The first is the logical idea that "the results of methods of science are inimical to the satisfaction of important values" (p. 255). Essentially, this view holds that by its very nature scientific views are hostile to prevailing cultural and social values; the theory of evolution being hostile to a Christian approach to creation, the disproving of heliocentrism, etc. The second, rather illogical, says that there is "incompatibility between the sentiments embodied in the scientific ethos and those found in other institutions" (p. 255). This view believes that if one believes in the scientific method, for instance -- observation, hypothesis testing, etc., then one cannot believe in other institutions, be they religious or political. Science becomes god, or is used to justify behaviors that are inherently non-scientific with scientific jargon or pseudo-science (as in racial profiling in Nazi Germany). In essence, though, both of these conditions are based more on fear and ignorance than on fact, and fail to recognize the true nature of science being one of inquiry rather than blind acceptance -- of continual curiosity rather than status quo.

Part 2 -- What is organized skepticism? What does it mean for the scientist to adhere to organized skepticism?" The actual basis for "doing science" or "thinking in a scientific manner," is the belief in the scientific method. The term scientific method refers to a way of investigation or the acquisition of knowledge through the testing of a theory or hypothesis, then working through measurements (observation and empirical notes) to come up with a result, which should prove or disprove the original theory. Thus, the basic method consists of a) formulating a question or hypothesis, b) designing an experiment or means of collecting data, c) observation or experimentation, d) analyzing the results and considering the proof or disproof of the hypotheses, and e) suggestions for future research (Cary, 2003). Organized skepticism "involves a latent questioning of certain bases of established routine, authority, vested procedures, and the real of the 'sacred'" (p.264). In other words, science irritates because it must observe and prove conclusions rather than simply accepting them on the word of someone else; the experiment must be duplicated across platforms, and there must be observable evidence for the conclusions reached. The concept is integral to "science" -- a scientist adheres to this by simply having an attitude of healthy skepticism -- prove it, show me, where is the data, how was this interpreted. This also furthers scientific inquiry by engendering more questions.

Part 3 -- What are some of the priority disputes that have been fought out by scientists? How common are priority disputes? Priority disputes in science can also be termed "paradigm shifts" in that they are new and unique ways of looking at issues and finding data to support new hypothesis. Disputes are common, and actually seem healthy in the overall picture of furthering science.