Scientific Objectivity Louise Anthony Summary

Scientific objectivity, according to Louise Antony and Thomas Kuhn, is fundamentally unattainable because of the human epistemological condition. The open-mindedness, or freedom from existing notions, that pervades almost all definitions of “objectivity” is inherently uncharacteristic of the human mind, and Antony explains that scientific reluctance to entertain new, controversial hypotheses is one manifestation of this innate mental road-block. When scientists view data that contradicts the central principles of their discipline, scientists react by questioning the data, not the principles. Antony argues, however, that adhering to accepted axioms, such as the idea that atoms are the fundamental constituents of all matter, enables scientific progress. Without the basic framework, or paradigm, that views atoms as the basic units of all chemical elements, chemistry would never have developed and, needless to say, advanced. Antony and Kuhn thus make the same argument; scientific
Antony answers no, and to support her negation, the author compares a scientific paradigm to a social “worldview.” Antony contends that paradigms and worldviews truly are analogous; worldviews establish a unifying culture among societies, provide the framework in which difficult social questions are answered, and foster stability and normalcy. Cultures with a common worldview avoid problems, such as internal discord and instability, that cultures without them must face. In fact, the image conjured by the description of the latter culture fits seamlessly with an adjective Antony uses earlier in her paper to describe pre-paradigm science, “anarchic” (132). Therefore, the worldview, in the same way as a paradigm, promotes stability and progress within communities, but what does such uniformity do to those on the proverbial outskirts of the community? Antony’s answer to this question adulterates the apparent harmlessness of these