Abstract
This book explores the question to what extent science is Western, whether in origin or by character. It aims to contribute to the debate regarding the relative status of local forms of knowledge (such as those found among indigenous peoples) and modern science. Advocates of local ways of knowing often contrast them with what they call Western science. Their opponents, on the other hand, insist that modern science is not merely Western, but universal. But there has been little discussion about what it would mean for science to be Western, let alone what evidence there is in support of the idea. The present book fills this gap, offering a middle path between what have become polarized views.
The chapters in this book are free to read via Springer Nature SharedIt Initiative using the chapter links below:
What Is the Question? pp. 1-17 - https://rdcu.be/e0i7e
The word 'science' has three possible uses: a first in which it is synonymous with 'knowledge', a second in which it means any systematized body of knowledge, and a third referring to a particular set of knowledge-related practices those arose in early modern Europe. What could it mean to describe the last of these—modern science—as 'Western'? A first possible meaning is geographical, suggesting that science is practised in 'Western' countries. A second is historical, holding that modern science is Western insofar as it began in Europe. A third is cultural, holding that modern science has features not shared by knowledge-related practices elsewhere. A fourth possible meaning of the phrase is a 'genus and species' one: distinguishing differing forms of science from one another.
What Do We Mean by 'Science'? pp. 19-34 - https://rdcu.be/e0i7q
What are the characteristics of the modern sciences? Efforts to define 'science'—to find necessary and sufficient conditions for the use of the word—are generally thought to have failed. But the word can still be used as a 'family-resemblance' term. Even if there is no characteristic shared by all the sciences, there are features found among them by which they resemble one another. Within each science, we can distinguish between individual and social practices, the former being those that can be engaged in (at least in principle) by individuals. We can also distinguish four levels of scientific practice: the operational, the phenomenal, the theoretical, and the metatheoretical. The question 'Is science Western?' has different answers, depending on which of these levels one focuses on.
The Roots of Scientific Practice pp. 35-65 - https://rdcu.be/e0i6D
On its operational level, modern science is not uniquely Western, for its founders picked up and developed two practices found in the ancient Mediterranean world and transmitted by Muslim scholars: the use of mathematics and the practice of experimentation. But scientific practices have still more ancient roots. They are refined versions of activities that give rise to everyday practical knowledge in all societies. These include observation-based reasoning, counting and measurement, and reliance on the core cognitive categories that all humans share. Modern science transforms these everyday activities. It extends and makes precise the scope of observation by the use of instruments, it standardizes the practice of measurement, and it transforms our core cognitive categories while also guarding against the errors to which they are prone.
A Very Particular History pp. 67-93 - https://rdcu.be/e0i7B
Despite the commonalities between scientific practice and epistemic practices found everywhere, modern science does have distinctively Western features, the products of a very particular history. A first feature of this history was a legal revolution that allowed for the creation of semi-autonomous corporate entities, including universities and scientific societies. A second was a passion for quantification, which emerged from the commercial revolution in late medieval Europe. A third was the growth of philosophical scepticism, which was (in part) a response to challenges to religious authority. As a result of these developments, early modern science was characterized by an emphasis on mechanism, the practice of organized scepticism, and a separation between fact and value, the scope of science being thought of as merely 'matters of fact'.
Conclusion pp. 95-97 - https://rdcu.be/e0i7F
What, then, is my answer to the question, 'Is science Western'? The thinkers I have called 'relativizers' are not entirely mistaken. Despite its ancient roots, modern science employs metatheoretical assumptions that have been influenced by the history of early modern Europe. These include a preference for mechanical metaphors, the practice of organized scepticism, and a clear distinction between facts and values. But these assumptions are open to revision in the light of new discoveries. On the operational level of scientific practice – the level at which discoveries are made – the sciences employ refined versions of epistemic practices that all humans share. Taking this fact into account, it seems the 'universalists' are correct: science is not merely Western; it is a set of practices without cultural boundaries.