Uncommon sense Book

What is science, how did it come about, how is it done, and how should it be taught?

Answering these questions, Alan Cromer has written a book that should certainly be read by every science educator. It should also be read by most people interested in the history and philosophy of science as all of these topics are covered.

Edward O. Wilson, in "On Human Nature" writes that "No intellectual vice is more crippling that defiantly self-indulgent anthropocentrism." It seems Cromer would enthusiastically agree since a central argument in this book is that human thought is mired in unscientific egocentrism and that it took the specific circumstances of ancient Greece and later Europe to give us science.

This stands in contrast to the idea that science inevitably and naturally arises as knowledge progresses. I tend to agree with Cromer that this is incorrect and that it took a specific intellectual climate and historical circumstance for science to develop. Marshalling evidence from the cultures of China, India, and the Middle East where nearly all the ingredients to produce science were present -- such as literacy and mathematics -- Cromer argues that there was nevertheless something vital missing because science did not develop in those cultures. This vital missing element is the rejection of private knowledge or intuition as valid sources of knowledge. This would only come later with the independent European merchant class rediscovering Greek ideas and epitomized by Galileo.

My area of scholarly interest is in the cognitive science of religion and so abuts this topic closely. I would say that Cromer's conclusions are fairly sound. Scientific explanations are often counterintuitive while religious and supernatural explanations are often intuitive. It takes conscious effort to master logical and rational thought while nonscientific explanations are often breezily efficient (and just as airy). This is why science doesn't arise "naturally."

The main thrust of Cromer's book (published in 1993) seems to bear out under scrutiny. Many of the essays, especially "Knowledge Change in Response to Data" in the book Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children agree with his conclusions. Mentioning that book of collected papers by psychologists brings me to my one serious criticism of "Uncommon Sense": its sparse use of psychological sources to back up its claims. Cromer mainly uses Piaget to support his claims of mental development and egocentrism. While I think he is largely correct, this makes for a weak argumentative case.

I'll conclude by quoting a paragraph in the author's own conclusion:

"Science is a new factor in human existence that goes against the grain of our egocentric mind. It originated in the democratic practices of ancient Greece, which replaced private dogma with public debate. Based on the heretical belief in an external world that can't be known intuitively, science replaced speculation and faith with reason and observation. Much of our progress, both political and technological, has come from accepting that truth can arise only from the competition of free and informed minds. It cannot be imposed by cannon or canon" (p. 205).

On Human Nature: Revised Edition

Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children