Talk:Scientific imperialism

Proposed deletion

I have removed the "prod" tag as it is quite inappropriate for this article. As you can see above it has already been proposed to AfD for deletion and was kept. This article has been around for months, has had several editors and is referenced. It should only be deleted if the discussion at AfD supports deletion. So, if you want it deleted, take it back to AfD. --Bduke 23:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and furthermore at that time (some months back) there was an extensive cleanup of the article by an admin. Peter morrell 07:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, this page just popped up on my watchlist after lying dormant for months. You're thinking of fragmentalism, which was cleaned up by Tim Vickers during its AFD. This page has had very little work done since its AFD, and remains a POV rant. Skinwalker 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Is this article still candidating for deletion or what is the status now here in 2017? Just because an article have had several editors (myself recently included), has been around for a long time and has sources doesn't mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedian article. Some sources out there are nothing more than authors personal opinions, synthesis, fantasies and in some cases insults and hate speech (not applicable in this case I think?). sources needs to be credible and in case of controversial issues, considered consensus among scholars. Wikipedia have rules for theses things. I myself is missing solid information about the sole inventor of this abstract concept, Dr. Ellis T. Powell. There is nothing on him on Wikipedia. Who is he? What is his doctoral skills? And so on. RhinoMind (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

1. There is too much direct quotation, with the final paragraph being almost entirely quoted. Describe what people say, this will also help avoid the article coming across as an argument for the idea.
2. There is no critical assessment in this article, the article should describe what other viewpoints exist - what were the main strands of thought in the reception this idea has received in the media and academic literature? Does everybody agree that "Scientific imperialism" exists?
3. If this point of view is advocated by scientists, and is not simply a strawman description, it would be preferable to quote a few prominent advocates of science holding this position in culture - perhaps Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World is a less extreme example of this?

Tim Vickers 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim I will have another look at this article to see how it can be improved. One point of course is that this view of science is an outsiders view, mostly deriving from sociologists of science who regard it as an elite class of people who try to extend their territory and their empire as much as they can, especially ewhen it tries to annexe territories lying beyond the normally accepted confines of the sciences. Such is regarded as imperialistic behaviour. It is a view of science rather than a critique, although clearly it contains some critical elements. I will see how the tone and language might be improved. regards Peter morrell 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another idea that came to me is that this article might note Stephen Jay Gould's idea of science and religion being "non-overlapping magisteria", put forth in his book Rocks of Ages. A useful scientific viewpoint on the boundaries of science? Tim Vickers 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking some more along these lines I think there is a core problem with this article. This article seems to be about the proper limits of scientific enquiry. This is an important topic and has been extensively discussed by religious groups, philosophers and scientists - back well before Galileo! However, by putting the description of this debate under the heading used by one extreme view of the question causes immediate NPOV problems. The best solution if a page on this topic does not exist is to create one with a neutral title - like Boundaries of scientific enquiry This topic is touched on at Philosophy_of_science#Scientific_Openness, but I can't find any existing pages on this topic. Perhaps asking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy might turn something up? Tim Vickers 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Tim but I don't think you fully grasp this topic. It is NOT an insiders view of science, it is the view of science taken by historians and sociologists and by historians and philosophers of science. In certain ways science has behaved, and continues to behave imperialistically, that is extending its power and authority and its own empire of knowledge. This article, still being revised and extended, discusses this theme in its varied aspects. It is not a POV rant against science or the scientific worldview, merely some observations about the behaviour and attitudes implicit in scientific endeavour now today and in its past. I hope this clarifies. I have some good new citation material soon to add. thanks Peter morrell 06:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter, this article should definitely contain some alternative views, and at the very least some references and information about those contesting the topic. And this may sound cheeky - but do you not think it is patronising to say "I don't think you fully grasp..." - that is also some intellectual imperialism going on right there - as well as statements that lead me to question your neutrality on the subject. This article is unbalanced and should either be balanced or removed. I would advocate mentions of other forms of intellectual imperialism, including the fact that the rise of scientific imperialism could be perceived as taking the flame from many thousands of years of religious imperialism. Thanks 82.153.19.100 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I can't find a page about religious imperialism. Maybe it's so inherent to it that it doesn't merit it's own page?

"It is not a POV rant against science or the scientific worldview, merely some observations about the behaviour and attitudes implicit in scientific endeavour now today and in its past."

Ah so it's a broad generalisation? Or do you mean like feeling cocky about extending human quality of life far beyond the scope of any and all other fields of thought together thoughout history? Compared to say intolerance, persecution etc. I'm not sure I understand.

I guess my issue with this article is that it paints out science as somehow being expansive and that somehow being a bad thing (or alternatively just trying to imply that scientists are smug bastards and we dont like that). Science is an effort to increase understanding. I don't see how this can be inapplicable to any field.

Annoying username (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free of course to add new material backed with citations. All you did before was that golden hammer stuff which is frankly tangential or irrelevant. The main point here is that science has patently become an empire of its own and it dominates and has power these are certainly features of imperialism and so the article is well justified. The article does not seek to judge but to describe. Your final point about religious imperialism is bang on correct. The dominance of science in this age has indeed replaced the dominance by religious imperialism in past ages. I entirely agree with you. Maybe you can add something about that to the article with refs? that would be a useful addition. thanks Peter morrell 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand the premise of the whole idea.

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" or "knowing") is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works"

How can this be imperialistic? Do you mean it extends beyond the understanding how the physical world works? Or that it extends beyond knowledge?

Oh btw, I found this amusing "Devotees of these approaches are inclined to claim that they are in possession not just of one useful perspective on human behavior, but of the key that will open doors to the understanding of ever wider areas of human behavior"

Isn't that EXACTLY what science is all about? Finding the keys to open the doors to gain more understanding about ever wider areas of the physical world (including human behavior). I get the feeling this is just a straw man thing that's meant to be easily twisted somehow. I'd love some input on all of this.

Annoying username (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect/merge not even discussed yet

Merger of this article with Scientism has recently been attempted WITHOUT any prior discussion, which is an act of prejudicial POV vandalism. The two concepts overlap but are quite distinct and different. Therefore, please discuss proposals here first to try and gain consensus rather than just edit war. Cleanup and better citation is probably all that is required. Peter morrell 05:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND and WP:BRD. You should assume good faith and stay civil. There was no vandalism or edit warring. Personally I would support a redirect. Verbal chat 06:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for "scientific imperialism" being a separate topic? The article seems to be formed from unconnected and unrelated references which happen to use the words "scientific" and "imperialism" in that order. Given that "imperialism" is a common invective, it is most probable that the articles use the phrase independently, rather than representing a new concept which is distinct from scientism. If you disagree, then please provide sources which establish the phrase as a distinct and notable concept. Without these, the article is an original synthesis of references. The article also has a strong whiff of the coatrack to it, as it seems more concerned with the shortcomings of science than the etymology of the phrase it covers.

Furthermore, it seems that you have problems playing nice. I've already asked you to read the WP:NOTVAND guidelines, but you simply ignored me and repeated the allegations here. We clearly disagree about this article, but please remain civil.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 09:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Identifying sources in the text

The practice of identifying who made a statement with in-text attribution as well as an in-line citation can help a great deal with the tone of an article. So for this piece, instead of the article saying

It has also been defined as the "pursuit of power through the pursuit of knowledge," and its pejorative use may reflect the frustration felt by some with "the limitations of reductive scientism (scientific imperialism)."

Instead saying:

Writing in the Journal of Fascinating Studies Sonya Potts defined scientific imperialism as the "pursuit of power through the pursuit of knowledge," and speculated that its pejorative use may reflect the frustration felt by some with "the limitations of reductive scientism (scientific imperialism)."

Do you see how differently this reads? In the first example it could be seen as the author of the Wikipedia article making an argument, while in the second it is obvious to anybody reading the text that this is merely a summary of the source material. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, please just rewrite it in that style without making huge unnegoiated deletions like those others keep doing. Peter morrell 16:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Further reading section

Which sources, if any, should be kept from the huge bibliography and moved into a further reading section? Please justify inclusion here. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Its entirely self-explanatory why not read the books? you don't need this list placing here...stop hacking away at the article and dumping garbage on my talkpage. Please. It is clear to me what your true motivation with this article is. Peter morrell 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are they included? Either they should be used as references or it is simply a further reading section, and we should only include good references. My motivation is to turn it from an essay into a decent article, or redirect it to Scientism if some good references aren't produced. I've already directed you to WP:AGF. If you break the 3RR you will be blocked, so the warning was placed in order to stop you from being blocked. At the moment I see no justification for this section, but I assume (good faith) that some may be useful. Verbal chat 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be limited to 3-5; 10 would be the absolute maximum. Any that can be used directly to support the text should, as at the moment it is a bit of an WP:OR mess. Verbal chat 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, thanks, I have no objection whatsoever at renaming it as a "further reading" section. Why didn't you just do that in the first place, instead of deleting it? You just seem very keen on deleting whole swathes of stuff and NOT in making it into a decent article, but am happy if what you say is true and yes I shall also {{AGF]]. Peter morrell 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There has been no deletion, I moved it here for discussion. You really need to work on your civility. Which 3-5 so you think are the most important? Verbal chat 18:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography copied from article

• Adas M., Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology and Ideologies of Western Dominance (New York, 1989)
• Alam A., Imperialism and Science in Race and Class Vol. 19, 1978, pp.239-251
• Arnold D. (ed.), Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Society (Manchester,1989)
• Crosby A., Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 (Cambridge, 1986)
• Drayton R., Science and the European Empires in Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 23, 1995, pp. 503-510.
• Drayton R.H., Nature's Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the 'Improvement' of the World (Yale, 2000)
• Grove R., Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens, and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge, 1995)
• Inkster I., Scientific Enterprise and the Colonial Model, Observations on Australian Experience in Historical Context in Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, 1985, pp.677-704
• Kumar D., Patterns of Colonial Science in India in Indian Journal for History of Science, Vol. 15, 1980, pp.105-119
• Mackenzie J.M., (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World (Manchester, 1990)
• Macleod R., On Visiting the “Moving Metropolis”: Reflections on the Architecture of Imperial Science in Reingold N and Rothenberg M (eds.) Scientific Colonialism (Washington, 1987)
• MacLeod R. and Lewis M. (eds.), Disease, Medicine and Empire (London, 1988)
• Macleod R., Passages in Imperial Science: From Empire to Commonwealth in Journal of World History, Vol. 4, 1993, pp.117-150
• Palladino P. and Worboys M., Science and Imperialism in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993 pp.91-102
• Petitjean P., Jami C., and Moulin A.M. (eds.), Science and Empires: Historical Case Studies about Scientific Development and European Expansion (Netherlands, 1992)
• Pratt M.L., Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London, 1992)
• Pyenson L., Cultural Imperialism and Exact Sciences revisited in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993, pp.10-108
• Pyenson L., Pure Learning and Political Economy: Science and European Expansion in the Age of Imperialism in Visser R.P.W., Bos H.J.M., Palm L.C. and Snelders H. A. M. (eds.) New Trends in the History of Science (Amsterdam, 1989)
• Reingold N. and Rothenberg M., Scientific Colonialism: A Cross Cultural Comparison (Washington, 1987)
• Said E., Culture and Imperialism (London, 1993)
• Secord J., King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial Theme in Nineteenth Century British Geology in Victorian Studies Vol. 25,1982, pp.413-443.
• Sheets-Pyenson S., Cathedrals of Science: The Development of Colonial Natural History Museums During the Late Nineteenth Century (Kingston, 1988)
• Stafford, R.A., Scientist of Empire: Sir Roderick Murchison, Scientific Exploration and Victorian Imperialism (Cambridge, 1989)
• Vaughan M., Curing Their Ills: Colonial Power and African Illness (Cambridge, 1991)

Core material

OK I would say the following are pretty core material

• Adas M., Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology and Ideologies of Western Dominance (New York, 1989)
• Alam A., Imperialism and Science in Race and Class Vol. 19, 1978, pp.239-251
• Arnold D. (ed.), Imperial Medicine and Indigenous Society (Manchester,1989)
• Drayton R., Science and the European Empires in Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 23, 1995, pp. 503-510.
• Inkster I., Scientific Enterprise and the Colonial Model, Observations on Australian Experience in Historical Context in Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, 1985, pp.677-704
• Mackenzie J.M., (ed.), Imperialism and the Natural World (Manchester, 1990)
• Macleod R., On Visiting the “Moving Metropolis”: Reflections on the Architecture of Imperial Science in Reingold N and Rothenberg M (eds.) Scientific Colonialism (Washington, 1987)
• Macleod R., Passages in Imperial Science: From Empire to Commonwealth in Journal of World History, Vol. 4, 1993, pp.117-150
• Palladino P. and Worboys M., Science and Imperialism in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993 pp.91-102
• Petitjean P., Jami C., and Moulin A.M. (eds.), Science and Empires: Historical Case Studies about Scientific Development and European Expansion (Netherlands, 1992)
• Pyenson L., Cultural Imperialism and Exact Sciences revisited in ISIS, Vol.84, 1993, pp.10-108
• Reingold N. and Rothenberg M., Scientific Colonialism: A Cross Cultural Comparison (Washington, 1987)
• Secord J., King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial Theme in Nineteenth Century British Geology in Victorian Studies Vol. 25,1982, pp.413-443.

...and would be hard pushed to reduce the list further. Hope this helps. Peter morrell 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on this, there seems to me to be a split in usage between "imperial science" - related to colonialism and the 19th century, and more recent usage focusing on the role of science within western liberal democratic societies. The article presently does a poor job of distinguishing between these two, although that may be due to this distinction not really existing! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the distinction is blurred forsure, that's true, but imperialism is a fact of life and any culture, paradigm, nation, religion even, can and does manifest this dominating tendency whereby it subordinates other lesser, ancillary and competing paradigms, cultures, nation states, etc. This is a fact of life, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. It can be cultural, epistemological or economic imperialism and does not have to be political imperialism. It means the domination of lesser or less-favoured, ancillary and often competing things. In medicine, for example, it is very clear that the allopathic medicine of today annexed pharmacy, use of X rays, midwifery, and a host of lesser trades and professions. It is documented fact. The same has been true in religions. In science, then yes here too the dominant theories of modern science act imperialistically towards alternative and ancient theories about the world and make scathing comments about them; so to say there is no such thing as imperialism in science is really a pretty lame comment. In any case it is principally a sociological term about the way science appears to behave at times. Hope this clarifies. All those books reflect these various aspects of this phenomenon and that is why they seem to give an ambiguous impression of the phenomenon. Peter morrell 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for your beliefs and WP:OR (WP:TALK), nor should the article be a coatrack for synthesis and OR. Can you provide some solid RS that this term is notable, and that this page shouldn't be redirected? At the moment the article seems to entirely consist of synthesis. Why are those references "core"? What is so important about them? Why aren't they referenced in the text? Verbal chat 21:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the term allopathic is considered insulting and should be avoided. Verbal chat 21:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs? OR? What are you talking about? Thanks for showing us your total ignorance of a subject you claim to be capable of editing rationally. You are clearly a scientific imperialist. QED. You have no right to edit this article because of your total ignorance of this subject and your strong prejudicial POV. I woul not dream of editing a physics article, for example. And it would be blatantly arrogant to do so. But just because this article offends YOUR beliefs, you feel that somehow gives you the right to muscle into its editing. Peter morrell 21:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can edit any page, please remain civil. All pages have to follow wikipedia policy. I was talking about your description of "scientific imperialism" being an established fact. If this is the case then there should be many solid WP:RS from prestigious philosophy and sociology journals, etc. Can you provide them? You might want to have a look at the Q.E.D. article to see how you've misused the term here. Verbal chat 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just carry on baiting. That's fine. Peter morrell 21:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My intention is not to bait, but to improve the project. I have not made any accusations against you, and I'm sorry if your feel attacked. This is not your article, and anyone can edit it - including removing unjustified or unsupported text (WP:OWN). Verbal chat 07:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no baiting here. It seems to me that there is a great deal of synthesis going on here and original research. The stuff about imperialism in the 1800s would have little to do with today. Presently this reads like an essay, not an article about the topic. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I have started a merge discussion on the Scientism talk page: Talk:Scientism#Scientific imperialism merger. Please contribute there. Thanks, Verbal chat 11:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Despite some of the apparent synthesis, "scientific imperialism" is a phrase used in the scholarly literature. See: [1]. Some of this is in the context of disparaging science as scientism, i.e. scientific materialism and scientific imperialism, but some of it is in the context of work done by Western scientists in the developing world, for instance ecological studies, or recruiting people into medical studies. I am going through the sources now, and I'll list those that seem pertinent and reliable here. Fences and windows (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazing work, F&W! Thank you for all of your efforts here - past, present and future! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting use of the term in another reliable source: [2]. I don't think you've yet incorporated this one below. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those. However, I think these references would be better employed in improving the scientism article rather than salvaging this one, as per the discussion on the scientism talk page. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As a monopoly on knowledge: (i.e. scientism?)

• "In the history of human knowledge we see now one, now another of these intellectual virtues, now one, now another of these types of knowledge, trying with a sort of imperialism, to seize, at the expense of the others, the whole universe of knowledge. Thus, at the time of Plato and Aristotle, there was a period of philosophical and metaphysical imperialism; in the Middle Ages, at least before Thomas Aquinas, a period of theological imperialism, since Descartes, Kant and August Comte, a period of scientific imperialism which has progressively lowered the level of reason while at the same time securing a splendid technical domination of material nature". Jacques Maritain. [3]
• In relation to theology, and apparently distinct from scientism (I don't have full text access):[4]
• Also in relation to theology and distinct from scientism but related to it, scientific imperialism is presented as a trojan horse to usurp religion: "The second model on our list is scientific imperialism, a close ally of scientism. Scientific imperialism does not outrightly dismiss religion. Rather, it uses materialist reductionism to explain religious experience and reassess theological claims. Scientific imperialists grant value to religion and religious contributions to society. They may even grant the existence of God. Yet, scientific imperialists claim that science provides a method for discerning religious truth that is superior to that of traditional theology. In contemporary discussion this approach is taken by some physical cosmologists such as Paul Davies or Frank Tipler when explaining creation or eschatology, and by sociobiologis ts such as E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins by proffering a biological explanation for cultural evolution including religion and ethics. Here religion is defeated in the war by conquering and colonizing it."[5]
• Muscling in on the "why" of human existence as opposed to just the "how", using Skinner's behaviourism as the example:[6]
• And in SCIENTIFIC IMPERIALISM AND BEHAVIORIST EPISTEMOLOGY: "E.O. Wilson and B.F. Skinner have argued for an evolutionary ethics that allows what ought to be to be derived from what is — ethics from science." [7]
• Blaming Descartes: "When the modern picture of the universe as an aetherial machine was developed by Descartes, his scientific imperialism - which left nothing for the humanities to do - was severely attacked by Giambattista Vico."[8]
• With reference to naturalism: "Radical naturalists are now frequently challenged by advocates of a more gentle and tolerant naturalism, however. More tolerant naturalists have an inclusive vision of a scientific understanding of the natural world. They argue that the self-sufficiency of natural science within its own domain does not support a scientific imperialism that reconstructs other disciplines in natural scientific terms. The sciences are not a unified domain, and do not require the reduction or elimination of all concepts apart from a single austere scientific vocabulary. If appeals to folk psychology, conscious awareness, or rational insight offer improvements in prediction or explanation, and do not openly conflict with established scientific results, they are compatible with a naturalistic stance in philosophy. Perhaps a tolerant naturalism could even accommodate an appropriately modest theology and religious life." [9]
• Equating to scientism: [10]
• Noel Gough at La Trobe seems to be a common commentator on this topic. An example: "Scepticism about the universality of Western science provokes a variety of responses from scientists and science educators. Aggressive (and well-publicised) defenders of an imperialist position include scientists such as Paul Gross and Norman Levitt (1994) who heap scorn and derision on any sociologists, feminists, postcolonialists, and poststructuralists who have the temerity to question the androcentric, Eurocentric, and capitalist determinants of scientific knowledge production. Although I am sure that many Western science educators take a similar position to Gross and Levitt, I prefer to attend to the more subtle and insidious forms of imperialism manifested by science and environmental educators whose ideological standpoints appear to be much closer to my own. That is why I focus much of my critical attention here on Yencken, Fien and Sykes’s (2000a) work, whose respect for non-Western cultures is, I believe, sincere. Nevertheless, I will argue that for all of their undeniably good intentions, these authors maintain a culturally imperialistic view of science through the use of rhetorical strategies that privilege Western scientists’ representations of ‘reality’ and reproduce the conceit that the knowledge Western science produces is universal."[11] Also [12]
• Advocating a balance between scientific imperialism and relativism:"A major challenge for the articulation of knowledges is how to avoid scientific imperialism (i.e. only scientific knowledge is true and objective) without falling into epistemological relativism (i.e. all knowledges are culturally determined, equally valid and they all need to be included). A consequence of the first is than when the alternative knowledge conflicts with the 'modern scientific world view', it has tended to be discarded as little more than superstition. Its lack of an apparently rational basis is itself seen as a reason for ignoring it, without adequate awareness that the rationality test being applied is itself a cultural product of Western societies. On the other hand, a relativist position would lead to attempts to include all forms of knowledge, with equal weight, which may result into incoherent mixtures and inconsistent problem characterization and misleading solutions."[13]
• John Dupre presents his case in an essay:[14]
• Review of a book by John Dupre: "This book is especially important in that it identifies the danger of “scientific imperialism” and the tendency to believe that all questions in nature are susceptible to standard scientific analysis. Even if you are not much concerned with economic rationality or evolutionary psychology, this rather short book has much useful to say about the relevance of the scientific method for the study of human decision-making."[15]

Imposing values in education:

• "Science education's goal of cultural transmission runs into ethical problems in a non-Western culture where Western thought (science) is forced upon students who do not share its system of meaning and symbols ... the result is not enculturation, but assimilation or "cultural imperialism" -- forcing people to abandon their traditional ways of knowing and reconstruct in its place a new (scientific) way of knowing".[16] Cites this article: Jegede, O. (1995). Collateral learning and the eco-cultural paradigm in science and mathematics education in Africa. Studies in Science Education, 25, 97-137
• Science as a form of cultural imperialism in "Internationalisation and Globalisation in Mathematics and Science Education".[17]

Research in developing countries:

• "Local groups' consent to and collaboration in the research under challenge creates a far more complicated picture than is suggested by the image of Western scientific imperialism imposing its will on hapless neocolonial societies". [18]
• "Public-Private Partnerships and Scientific Imperialism. Developed industrial nations are not taking their research and development colleagues of the developing world as equal partners in fighting infectious disease... the current PPPO paradigm is fundamentally neocolonial in structure and operation, and this needs to be revisited and addressed." [19][20]
• "Scientific imperialism. If they won't benefit from the findings, poor people in the developing world shouldn't be used in research... Attempts to prevent unethical trials being conducted on subjects in developing countries will face opposition from those profiting from the research. Paradoxically, developing countries which are former colonies of an overseas power may resent a return to imposition of external controls."[21]
• In medicinal plant research: "Most research projects involve more than one country (e.g., field work in a remote part of an underdeveloped country). Frequently host country scientists, visiting scientists, and informants disagree about these dilemmas. As a result, such research efforts are perceived as scientific imperialism; scientists are accused of stealing plant materials and appropriating traditional plant knowledge for financial profit and/or professional advancement".[22]
• "Scientists from developed countries descend upon developing countries to collect, "protect" or capture and take home flora, fauna and professional prestige. They often succeed only in making problems for themselves and their local scientific colleagues. What ought to be recognized is that every country has the right to utilize and present to the world its own scientific resources. The word "imperialism" has a subjective connotation and in general is used to describe the exploitation of one group by another. Scientific imperialism originates from the fact that more often than not a country that possesses certain resources, valuable for scientific reasons, does not have the means to use or conserve them properly, and receives little benefit from their exploitation by others. Scientific imperialism is a widespread phenomenon today and takes many different forms. Because it is "carried out in the name of science" it may seem to be justified automatically, and any protest may be stifled by strong criticism."[23]
• Not a developing country, but a similar situation in the Arctic. Early researchers disregarded the need for local permission, consultation, avoidance of damage, the need to inform, which the author describes as "scientific imperialism":[24]
• In earthquake monitoring: "Capacity building in science and technology is viewed skeptically in a few quarters. Cooperation has improved recently in some cases—such as Malaysia’s joining the ranks of national networks using the IRIS Data Management Center to freely exchange data—but the unfortunate stereotype of firs tworld scientific imperialism has some basis in past reality."[25]
• How to deal with issues of authorship when collaborating in the developing world: "There may be many situations where an international collaborative study arises from a design that was prepared in a developed country, and where the analysis and writing are also largely if not completely under the control of the developed country researchers. The role of the developing country researchers is then mainly a technical role—that of specimen and data collection—rather than an intellectual role. According to ICMJE criteria, and most other guidelines, inclusion of the developing country researchers as authors goes against publication ethics and including them as gofer authors may be described as “scientific paternalism”. But others may argue that not including at least one of the developing country researchers may be construed as “scientific imperialism”—using the resources of the developing country for the benefit only of the developed country, and there is a sense that this is morally unacceptable".[26]

As part of the attitudes of colonialism:

• "scientific imperialism was accompanied by actual irrational and genocidal violence towards other species, evidenced early on by the burning of Mexican aviaries by Cortez and his men". "North America was the victim of a scientific “anti-conquest” in which the native environment was “written as uninhabited, unpossessed, unhistoricized, [and] unoccupied” – a tabula rasa, then, for both socio-economic and Linnaean imperialism. That is, in addition to guns and a racist political ideology, the Europeans brought their own “nature” with them, including a full-blown avian nomenclature, along with predictable attitudes towards the bird. Pratt finds it not coincidental, then, that such a scientific “systematization of nature coincides with the height of the slave trade and the plantation system, colonial genocide in North America and South Africa, [and] slave rebellions". Indeed, colonialism’s will-to-power and science’s will-to-knowledge were two sides of the same coin."[27]
• The spread of the French Pasteur institutes abroad: "The growth of the Pasteur Institute into its overseas branches offers an intriguing case: a scientific imperialism which although supported by colonialist lobbies and strongly flavoured by French chauvinism, was not a mere by-product of 19th century expansion in Africa and Asia".[28]
• An author from India describes "colonial science", how the priorities of the British Empire set the agenda for science in India:[29]

In the context of Latin America and the US:

• About reports from US sociologists about Latin America: "Many believe that it has, in fact, resulted in cultural and scientific imperialism" [30]
• A PhD thesis discusses American scientific imperialism in Brazil, in the context of educational institutions and students going to the US to study: [31], p85.
• Scientific imperialism discussed in the context of UNESCO setting up institutions in Brazil post-WWII, meaning a parochialism in only believing in work done in your own country, and not work done elsewhere: "One of the Brazilian delegates at that first UNESCO meeting, Miguel Osório de Almeida, commented that it was important, in this comparison between more, and less illustrious sciences, to take the economic and social conditions in which they were produced into account. They were produced in countries previously colonized by Europeans; those that had been enlightened for a certain time, and later remained in darkness. Osório de Almeida suggested that —a kind of ”scientific imperialism‘ was practiced by countries that only believe in what has been done in their own country, and sometimes belittled work done elsewhere.“ " [32]

Chinese science, national science:

• In relation to Western and Japanese scientific imperialism and colonialism, and the idea of scientific nationalism. [33] & a review of this work:[34]
• Victorian naturalists in China: science and informal empire. [35]

Ignoring global views in science:

• English-speaking authors ignoring non-English sources: "it may be taken as a symptom of English scientific imperialism in itself that … most authors from English speaking countries and their former colonies who write about the world as a whole do so without quoting a single non-English language text in their vast bibliographies".[36]
• In information science: "In the spirit of recent work by the social theorist Ulrich Beck, this research note argues against such parochialism and for a more global stance to our research and publications. In the age of globalization (the “second modernity”), Beck argues that we should no longer base our analysis on assumptions that may have held true in the “first modernity” where we “live and act in the self-enclosed spaces of national states and their respective national societies”. Beck argues that by taking a localized stance, perhaps unwittingly, our actions may well result in unintended consequences in the wider, international community. Assumptions that localized thinking or results hold true in different cultures and communities smacks of the kind of scientific imperialism that would appear to be inappropriate in an increasingly global society".[37]
• "Global English - an Imperialist agenda" quoting Phillipson, R.H.L. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press: "imperialism theory provides a conceptual framework within which English linguistic imperialism, the dominance of English worldwide, and efforts to promote the language can be understood. Scientific imperialism, media imperialism, and educational imperialism are all sub-types of cultural imperialism."[38]
• Regarding cross-cultural studies: "one has to be aware of the threat of an “instrumentalisation” of “the other” which can also be called a scientific “imperialism” (HAUPT, KOCKA 1996, pp. 15–16; NISSEN 1998, p. 414). This means that it can also happen that a researcher does not do justice to the “other” culture or even systematically misunderstands and presents a distorted picture of it."[39]

Regarding data sharing:

• "It could be argued that members of a data monitoring committee would be less likely to over-react to interim data than would the media, which might overinterpret the data. Our view is that this argument derives from a culture of secrecy and scientific imperialism and is self fulfilling: keeping clinicians, patients, and the media in the dark allows naive views to flourish." [40].

Opposing views?

I note no mention whatsoever of opposing viewpoints. I am somewhat biased on this subject, so would have problems editing the article appropriately, but suggest to anyone who can keep neutral a couple of references for the modern-day clashes:

• Taverne, Dick (2005). The March of Unreason: Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280485-5.
• Hughes, James P (2004). Citizen Cyborg. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-4198-1.
• As above, The Demon-Haunted World.

Not being a historian of science, I'm afraid I am not particularly able to bring forward opposing viewpoints on that aspect of things; looking into praise of "imperialism" and critiques of anti-imperialism would be helpful, not only in this article but for the imperialism article. I've also added a "See also" link for Experimental political science, which appears to be something being critiqued by the proponents of this viewpoint. (Given the lack of balance, I've labeled this as Start class; I am tempted to label it a Stub.) Allens (talk | contribs) 13:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)