インテリジェントデザインを支援するSTS学者Steve Fuller

STS学者Steve Fullerは2001年に、「科学についての認められた見方の正当性について疑問を呈する」ために「創造論者がSTSの概念を使っている」と書いている。
To be sure, Creationism and Nazism provide interesting cases in which scholars in neighboring fields have appealed to STS concepts to question the legitimacy of our accepted views about science. For example, American rhetoricians have appealed to STS concepts to rehabilitate the public status of Creationism as an implicit criticism of the scientific community for its ham-fisted treatment of opponents (Taylor 1996, 135-74). Nevertheless, this work has been largely ignored by mainstream STS practitioners who share the same religion-bashing tendencies of philosophers of science and practicing scientists. Indeed Cross (1997) has remarked on this peculiar convergence of opinion, where he would have expected STS to back the Creationists' "struggle for identity".


[Steve Fuller: "Thomas Kuhn: a philosophical history for our times" (2001) p.360]
そして、これから4年後の2005年のKitzmiller v. Dover裁判で、Prof. Steve Fullerは自ら創造論者の支援へと動いた。

==>STS学者Steve Fullerは方法論的自然主義を拒否する (2012/02/24)

そして、Prof. Steve Fullerはインテリジェントデザインの政治的アジェンダWedge Documentに沿った記述を行うようになった。
First, stripped of its current scientific scaffolding, Darwinism is a 19th century social theory that has been turned into a ‘general unified theory of everything’, and as such belongs in the same category as Marxism and Freudianism. The big difference is that Marxism and Freudianism – throughout their existence – have been contested (many would say decisively) by several alternative ways of organizing and interpreting the same body of data. In the case of Darwinism, this largely ended by 1950. However, it doesn’t mean that Darwinism has somehow turned into something other than a 19th century social theory. No, it’s simply a 19th century social theory with unusual clout. Indeed, Darwinism is really no different from Marxism and Freudianism in using its concepts as rhetorical devices for associating intuitively clear phenomena with rather deep and mysterious causes.


[Steve Fuller: "Resolution for Darwin Year" (2008/12/29) on Uncommon Descent]

そして、ダーウィニズムが「人間が神の形に似せて創られたという命題」への挑戦であることが露わになったことによって、ダーウィニズムへの懐疑が増大したとProf. Steve Fullerは主張する。
The people originally behind the Neo-Darwinian synthesis in the 1930s, whatever their (typically pro-) views about eugenics, downplayed, if not outright denied, Darwinism’s significance for explaining human behaviour. In fact, this strategy worked well for about 40 years – until E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology and Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene. Not surprisingly, Darwinism has come to attract an increasing amount suspicion and scepticism, once its implications for the human condition have become clearer. In contrast, Freud could never hide that his theory was about the human condition, and so accordingly it has always been under a cloud.

当初1930年代のネオダーウィニズ総合説を支持する人々は、一般に優生支持だが、その見方がどうであれ、人間の行動の説明についてのダーウィニズムの重要性を否定しないにせよ、重視しなかった。実際、この戦略は約40年間うまくいった。そして、EO Wilsonが社会生物学を発表した。そして、Richard DawkinsがSelfish Geneを出版した。もっともなことだが、ダーウィニズムの人間に対する意味が明らかになると、ダーウィニズムへの疑いと懐疑が増大した。これに対してFreudは、その理論が人間の状態についてのものだったために隠れるところがなく、常に疑いを持たれていた。

[Steve Fuller: "Freud and Darwin II" (2009/10/16) on Uncommon Descent ]
まさしく、インテリジェントデザインの政治的アジェンダWedge Documentに沿って、インテリジェントデザインを支援するSTS学者である。

なお、Prof. Steve Fuller自身の立場はインテリジェントデザインとは少し違っている。Guardianとのインタビューで...
When pushed, he labels himself a "secular humanist", admitting he does so partly to provoke a response. "Typically, people who call themselves secular humanists think of themselves as Darwinists," he says. His own version puts "human beings at the centre of reality, creating God in their image and likeness" and "taking control of evolution".


[Zoë Corbyn: "Steve Fuller : Designer trouble" (2008/01/31) on The Guardian]

posted by Kumicit at 2012/02/26 00:33 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | ID: General | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]