What is it we really know?
I’ve been reading Rewriting the Soul: Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. It was recommended to me by one of my professors. I picked it up more for the “sciences of memory” part than the “multiple personality” part. I confess I am a skeptic of multiple personalities (officially Dissociative Identity Disorder or DID now). It’s been a very interesting read. His commentary on how we acquire knowledge in the social sciences was particularly intriguing.
[Binet's] measures of “intelligence” had to agree, generally, with preexisting judgments and then be adapted at the margins. Had he declared that many children who could not cope with French elementary education were intelligent, he would have been mocked. Had he said that the better students at the lycées where stupid, he would have been reviled. … Binet’s great innovation, the testing of intelligence, made sense only against a background of shared judgments about intelligence, and it had to agree with them by and large, and also to explain when it disagreed. Who shared the judgments? Those who matter, namely the educators, other civil servants, and Binet’s peers in the middle classes of society.
…One result of calibration is that prior judgments became both sharpened and objectified. What were once discrimination made by suitably educated or trained individuals were turned into impartial, distant, nonsubjective measures of intelligence. Intelligence became and object, independent of any human opinions (my emphasis).
Now, I was aware that IQ tests are under fire for being culturally (white, middle class) biased, but it wasn’t until I read those words that I understood the why and wherefore.
Many sociologists of science, and a few philosophers, have recently welcomed the idea that scientific knowledge is a social construction. They contend that science does not discover facts, but constructs them (Hacking, 1995).
Makes you stop and think doesn’t it?
Leave a Reply