Rehg admirably takes the science wars to
a new level
Thomas J. Farrell
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to discuss certain key issues involved in the
science wars; second, to review William Rehg’s Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars,
Argumentation Theory, and Habermas (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge,
2009).
Design/methodology/approach – In accord with the genre of a review paper, the author sets the larger
intellectual context of Rehg’s book, and then highlights Rehg’s book.
Findings – The findings suggest that Rehg has done an excellent job of explaining and expanding
Habermas’s argumentation theory, thereby working out a nonrelativist and nonskeptical framework for
science studies (e.g. science and technology studies, studies in the sociology of scientific knowledge,
and ethnomethodological studies of scientific work). However, the present author’s findings also
suggest that Rehg has not addressed the concerns of Protestant fundamentalists in the science wars as
strongly as those concerns can be addressed. In addition, the present author’s findings show that Rehg
is silent about those academic critics in the science wars who criticize scientism in the pejorative sense
of the term.
Originality/value – In the final analysis, Rehg’s use of Habermas’s argumentation theory is credited with
offering rich implications for taking the science wars to a new level of sophistication.
Keywords Literary criticism, Sociology
Paper type General review
Rehg, William. Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation
Theory, and Habermas, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,
2009, 360 pp., 4 illus., $40
In his fine new book Rehg (2009) has dared to go where angels might fear to tred – into the
science wars. The so-called science wars involve three distinct fronts:
1. Certain academics who criticize science on various grounds (e.g. Kuhn, 1970; Gross,
1990).
2. Protestant fundamentalists in the United States who criticize evolutionary theory
(e.g. Campbell and Meyer, 2003; Ruse, 2005; Fetzer, 2007).
3. Other academics who criticize some scientists for espousing scientism, a term such
critics use pejoratively to refer to the vaunting of science and a materialist (or naturalist)
philosophic position accompanied by the denigration of any nonmaterialist philosophic
(or religious) position (e.g. Postman, 1992; Smith, 2001).
Of these three groups of critics of science, Rehg centers his attention on the academic
critics of science who are engaged in science studies. He uses the term ‘‘science studies’’ to
refer collectively to science and technology studies, studies in the sociology of scientific
knowledge, and ethnomethodological studies of scientific work. He discusses various
DOI 10.1108/10748121011082635 VOL. 18 NO. 4 2010, pp. 337-345, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1074-8121
j
ON THE HORIZON
j
PAGE 337
Thomas J. Farrell is
Professor Emeritus based
at the Department of Writing
Studies, University of
Minnesota Dulith, Dulith,
Minnesota, USA.