Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
there may be various scientific theories concern-
ing any number of scientific questions (the impacts
of passive smoking on human health; or the
role of the Higgs Boson Particle in the fabric of
existence, for example). In this context, scientific
research progresses through the development
of consensuses, in and through which particu-
lar ways of understanding the world become
accepted wisdoms, while other theories are rejected
or ignored. In 2004, for example, the science
historian Naomi Oreskes proclaimed that despite
the ongoing debate, there was a consensus within
science that observed levels of climate change
were a result of human activities (Oreskes, 2004).
But, of course, history has consistently shown that
often the scientists and theories that are rejected
within scientific consensus turn out to be right
all along.
In order to explain the changing nature of
scientific knowledge, the American physicist
Thomas Kuhn put forward the notion of
paradigm
shifts
. According to Kuhn, a paradigm is a scientific
model that explains how a certain process works.
Paradigm shifts occur when two, incompatible,
theories of scientific knowledge vie with each other
to be the accepted way of explaining how the
world works (see Kuhn, 1962) (see
Figure 3.2).
So
a paradigm shift could be observed in geography,
when theories of a flat Earth were finally rejected,
or in astrophysics when Einstein's work challenged
Newtonian theories of the universe. It is important
to realize that Kuhn did not suggest that paradigm
shifts are quick and easy transitions between
different scientific models of the world. It is,
perhaps, best to think of paradigm shifts as periods
of crisis when competing scientific theories and
scientists struggle to establish new scientific
consensuses.
These discussions about the nature of science
and scientific knowledge are important to our
broader discussion of the Anthropocene for two
reasons. First, because the modern scientific
method, and the sense of human mastery over
the environment it has often promoted, has been
a central driving force in the production of a
geological era defined by humans. Second, the
The French philosopher Bruno Latour provides an interesting example of scientific consensus
building in his book The Pasteurization of France (Latour, 1993). In this topic, Latour describes how
Pasteur's breakthroughs in how we understand microbiology, the spread of diseases and
immunization were not generally accepted and implemented on the basis of the truth of his scientific
studies. The pasteurization of France, and the new germ theories on which it was based, were the
product of a long process of consensus building, which spanned microbiological laboratories, the
offices of urban planners, the recommendations of doctors and a broader public hygiene movement.
None of this is to say that the theories of Pasteur, and countless other prominent scientists, where
not accurate or effective. But in recognizing the changing nature of scientific knowledge and the
practices of consensus building, we can hopefully begin to understand the role that social
circumstances and political forces can have in shaping what we know about the environment and
how we act on that knowledge.
Key reading
Latour, B. (1993) The Pasteurization of France, Harvard University Press, London
