Abstract
After a brief review of the relationship between science and value, this paper introduces the value of ‘traditionality’ as a value in the pure and applied sciences. Along with other recognized values, this value can also contribute to formulating hypotheses and determining theories. There are three reasons for legitimizing the internal role of this value in science: first, this value can contribute to scientific progress by presenting more diverse hypotheses; second, the value of external consistency in science entails this value; and third, this value helps to eliminate some of the adverse social and cultural effects of Western science in non-Western societies. ‘Traditionality’ is an extrinsic epistemic value, according to the first two reasons, and at the same time, is an ethical value, according to the last reason. Also, the ethics of belief is adopted to further confirm the ethical role of this value. Finally, this paper discusses three potential criticisms that can be levelled against this idea and responds to each of them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Chinese or Iranian natural philosophy holds that every body (physical being) is comprised of five (fire, air, water, metal, and wood) or four (fire, air, water, and earth) basic elements, respectively. It should be noted that these concepts have terminological meanings. Since both Chinese and Iranian medicine have origins in Chinese and Iranian philosophy, therefore Chinese medicine is based on ‘five element theory’ and Iranian medicine is based on ‘four element theory’ (Behmanesh et al. 2015). It should be noted that a tradition may have clusters or branches. In general, the branches of a tradition might differ in some problems, but they have common roots. A proposition or belief might not be recognized in all branches of a tradition. On the other hand, a statement in one tradition might also be acceptable in some other traditions.
For example, Western medical science has a materialist worldview (Loudon 2001, p. 250), while Iranian medicine, for example, has a monotheistic worldview (Behmanesh et al. 2015). On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that worldviews can affect diagnosis and case formulation, and can have therapeutic implications (Josephson and Peteet 2008). As a case in point, there is a theoretical reciprocal interaction between Avicenna’s medicine and Islamic philosophy (Zahabi 2019). Therefore, there are some differences between these two medicines. For example, Iranian medicine has a holistic approach to both diagnosis and treatment. In the monotheistic medicine, the esoteric intent of the therapist and his relation to God have an influence on treatment (Zeinalian et al. 2015). Also, prayer plays a role in this medicine whereas modern Western medicine does not have a clear understanding of the health benefits of prayer (see, e.g., Rezaei et. al. 2008; Jantos and Kiat 2007).
Although the concepts of traditional knowledge and indigenous science have similarities with the idea of scientific tradition or to the scientific component of tradition in this article, they mostly refer to a kind of tacit knowledge or folklore, not to an exclusive framework that includes theoretical and explicit knowledge (ICSU 2002; Snively and Corsiglia 2001).
For example, some scholars maintain that “sound social values as well as sound epistemic values must control every aspect of the scientific research process, from the choice of research questions to the communication and application of results” (Kourany 2013).
This paper mainly focuses on the theoretical or philosophical presuppositions of theories or sciences but practical or normative presuppositions can also be considered. For example, Iran’s demographic predicament, between the 1910’s and 1940’s, differed from that of most Western countries. Nonetheless, Iranian modernists’ perceptions of the problem were influenced by contemporary Western debates about demography, hygiene, genetics, and eugenics (Schayegh 2004).
As a case in point, over-prescribing antibiotics might be beneficial to the patients of a doctor but can create drug resistance in the community as a whole (Porco et al. 2012).
For example, ancient Greek astronomy was limited to the circle in modeling the motion of celestial bodies due not only to observations but also to certain metaphysical assumptions (Aristotle 1939); Lysenkoism as a Marxist view rejects mendelian genetics (Lewontin 1976; Stanchevici 2017; Huxley 1949); modern Western medicine ignored or rejected traditional medicines for a long period of time, and continues to do so in some cases (WHO 2001; Zakersalehi 2017); some Western approaches were initially skeptical or hostile to fuzzy logic as a many-valued logic due to their cultural backgrounds while Japan as an eastern country accepted it earlier and made significant strides in control engineering as a result (Kosko and Toms 1993). Also, the ethical constraints imposed by tradition can affect scientific development. For example, Islamic and Christian traditions have decided restrictions on human cloning and believe that scientific progress should be moral (Larijani and Zahedi 2004; Cole-Turner 1999).
References
Albert, D. Z. (1994). Bohm’s alternative to quantum mechanics. Scientific American, 270(5), 58–67.
Aristotle. (1939). On the Heavens (W. K. C. Guthrie, Trans.). Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Ayati, M. H., Pourabbasi, A., Namazi, N., Zargaran, A., Kheiry, Z., Kazemi, A. H., & Larijani, B. (2019). The necessity for integrating traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine into medical education curricula in Iran. Journal of Integrative Medicine, 17(4), 296–301.
Bala, A., & Joseph, G. G. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and western science: The possibility of dialogue. Race and Class, 49(1), 39–61.
Behmanesh, E., Mojahedi, M., Saghebi, R., Ayati, M. H., Bahrami Taghanaki, H. R., Allameh, H., et al. (2015). Comparison between the “Theory of Arkan” (four elements) in traditional Persian medicine and the “theory of five elements” in traditional Chinese medicine. Journal of Research on History of Medicine, 4(2), 73–86.
Biddle, J. (2013). State of the field: Transient underdetermination and values in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(1), 124–133.
Biddle, J. B., & Kukla, R. (2017). The geography of epistemic risk. In K. C. Elliott & T. Richards (Eds.), Exploring inductive risk: Case studies of values in science (pp. 215–238). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. London: MIT press.
Boisselle, L. N. (2016). Decolonizing science and science education in a postcolonial space (Trinidad, a developing Caribbean nation, illustrates). Sage Open, 6(1), 2158244016635257.
Born, M., Born, H., Born, I., & Einstein, A. (1971). The Born–Einstein letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Max and Hedwig Born from 1916 to 1955. Somerville: Walker.
Børsen, T., Antia, A. N., & Glessmer, M. S. (2013). A case study of teaching social responsibility to doctoral students in the climate sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(4), 1491–1504.
Brown, M. J. (2013). Values in science beyond underdetermination and inductive risk. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 829–839.
Burtt, E. A. (1925). The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science; A historical and critical essay. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Chalmers, A. F. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chignell, A. (2007). Belief in Kant. The Philosophical Review, 116(3), 323–360.
Chin-Yee, B. H. (2014). Underdetermination in evidence-based medicine. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20(6), 921–927.
Clifford, W. (1879). The ethics of belief. In: Lectures and Essays. London: Macmillan.
Cole-Turner, R. (1999). Cloning humans from the perspective of the Christian churches. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 33–46.
Copernicus, N. (154 [1978]). On the revolutions (E. Rosen, Trans. and Commentary). In J. Dobrzycki, et al., (Eds.), Idem, Complete works (Vol. 2) Cracow & London: Polish Scientific Publishers–The Macmillan Press.
Cushing, J. T. (2019). Bohmian mechanics and its ontological commitments. In A. Cordero (Ed.), Philosophers look at quantum mechanics (pp. 107–118). Berlin: Springer, Cham.
Davis, M. (1995). A Preface to accountability in the professions. Accountability in Research, 4(2), 81–90.
Diekmann, S., & Peterson, M. (2013). The role of non-epistemic values in engineering models. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 207–218.
Dougherty, T. (Ed.). (2011). Evidentialism and its Discontents. Oxford University Press.
Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.
Douglas, H. (2013). The value of cognitive values. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 796–806.
Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 46, 55–63.
Douglas, H. (2016). Values in science. In P. Humphreys (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science (pp. 609–632). New York: Oxford University Press.
Douglas, H. (2017). Why inductive risk requires values in science. In K. C. Elliott & D. Steel (Eds.), Current controversies in values and science (pp. 81–93). London: Routledge.
Douglas, H. E. (2003). The moral responsibilities of scientists (tensions between autonomy and responsibility). American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(1), 59–68.
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Elliott, K. C. (2020). A taxonomy of transparency in science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.21.
Elliott, K. C., & McKaughan, D. J. (2014). Nonepistemic values and the multiple goals of science. Philosophy of Science, 81(1), 1–21.
Elliott, K. C., & Steel, D. (Eds.). (2017). Current controversies in values and science. London: Routledge.
Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1998). The religion-health connection: Evidence, theory, and future directions. Health Education and Behavior, 25(6), 700–720.
Feenberg, A. (1995). Alternative modernity: The technical turn in philosophy and social theory. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Feenberg, A. (2008). From critical theory of technology to the rational critique of rationality. Social Epistemology, 22(1), 5–28.
Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. New York: The MIT Press.
Feragen, A. R. R. (2017). Encouraging professional scepticism in medical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 23(5), 1051–1054.
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561.
Ferngren, G. B. (Ed.). (2017). Science and religion: A historical introduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fischer, P., Frey, D., Peus, C., & Kastenmüller, A. (2008). The theory of cognitive dissonance: State of the science and directions for future research. In P. Meusburger, M. Welker, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion (pp. 189–198). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilles, D. (1993). Philosophy of science in the twentieth century. Four Central Themes: Blackwell.
Golshani, M. (2000). How to make sense of Islamic science. American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, 17(3), 1.
Gordon, D. R. (1988). Tenacious assumptions in Western medicine. In M. Lock & D. Gordon (Eds.), Biomedicine examined (pp. 19–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
Granada, M. A., & Tessicini, D. (2005). Copernicus and Fracastoro: The dedicatory letters to Pope Paul III, the history of astronomy, and the quest for patronage. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 36(3), 431–476.
Hamzehnejad, M., & Servati, Z. (2018). Environment vernacular designing components to provide health for human based on Islamic and traditional medicine. Journal of Research in Islamic Architecture, 5(4), 55–77.
Hansson, S. O. (2007). Values in pure and applied science. Foundations of science, 12(3), 257–268.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (2011). The postcolonial science and technology studies reader. Durham: Duke University Press.
Harrison, P. (2015). The territories of science and religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Helman, C. (2007). Culture, health and illness. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Heyadri, M., Hashempur, M. H., Ayati, M. H., Quintern, D., Nimrouzi, M., & Mosavat, S. H. (2015). The use of Chinese herbal drugs in Islamic medicine. Journal of Integrative Medicine, 13(6), 363–367.
Hicks, D. J. (2014). A new direction for science and values. Synthese, 191(14), 3271–3295.
Huxley, J. (1949). Soviet genetics: The real issue. Nature, 163(4156), 974–982.
ICSU, UNESCO. (2002). Science and traditional knowledge: Report from the ICSU Study Group on Science and Traditional Knowledge. Paris: International Council of Scientific Unions. Retrieved from May 14, 2020 https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Science-traditional-knowledge.pdf.
Iqbal, M. (2009). The making of Islamic science. Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust.
Jameson, J. L., Dennis, A. S. F., Kasper, L., Hauser, S. L., Longo, D. L., & Loscalzo, J. (2018). Complementary, alternative and integrative health approaches. In J. L. Jameson, A. S. Fauci, D. L. Kasper, S. L. Hauser, D. L. Longo, & J. Loscalzo (Eds.), Harrison’s principles of internal medicine 20e. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
James, W. (1979). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy (Vol. 6). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jantos, M., & Kiat, H. (2007). Prayer as medicine: How much have we learned? Medical Journal of Australia, 186, S51–S53.
Jiang, S. (2014). Therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens: A review of Chinese literature in relation to the studies in western countries. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(2), 141–153.
Josephson, A. M., & Peteet, J. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of spirituality and worldview in clinical practice. New York: American Psychiatric Pub.
Kawagley, A., & Norris-Tull, D. (1995). Incorporation of the world views of indigenous cultures: A dilemma in the practice and teaching of western science. In Paper presented to the third international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference, Minneapolis.
Kingma, E. (2017). Health, disease and naturalism: Hausman on the public value of health. Public Health Ethics, 10(2), 109–121.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, democracy and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kosko, B., & Toms, M. (1993). Fuzzy thinking: The new science of fuzzy logic (pp. 183–187). New York: Hyperion.
Kourany, J. A. (2013). Meeting the challenges to socially responsible science: Reply to Brown, Lacey, and Potter. Philosophical Studies, 163(1), 93–103.
Krige, J. (2008). American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe. New York: MIT Press.
Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment and theory choice. In The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Volume 4: proceedings of the international colloquium in the philosophy of science, London, 1965 (Vol. 4, p. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value-free? Values and scientific understanding. New York: Routledge.
Lacey, H. (2017). Distinguishing between cognitive and social values. In K. C. Elliott & D. Steel (Eds.), Current controversies in values and science (pp. 15–30). London: Routledge.
Larijani, B., & Zahedi, F. (2004). Islamic perspective on human cloning and stem cell research. In Transplantation proceedings (Vol. 36, No. 10, pp. 3188–3189). London: Elsevier.
Laudan, L. (2004). The epistemic, the cognitive, and the social. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Science, Values, and Objectivity (pp. 14–23). Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Lewontin, R., & Levins, R. (1976). The problem of Lysenkoism. In H. Rose & S. P. R. Rose (Eds.), The radicalisation of science (pp. 32–64). London: Palgrave.
Longino, H. (1996). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Loudon, I. (Ed.). (2001). Western medicine: an illustrated history. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maclntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1994). Three rival versions of moral enquiry: Encyclopaedia, genealogy, and tradition. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Pess.
MacIntyre, A. (2006). The tasks of philosophy: Selected essays, (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMullin, E. (1983). Values in science. In P. D. Asquith, T. Nickles (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1982 Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, Volume 1, east Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 2 (pp. 3–28).
Mitcham, C. (1985). What is the philosophy of technology? International Philosophical Quarterly, 25(1), 73–88.
Nasr, S. H., & Iqbal, M. (2007). Islam, science, Muslims, and technology. Petaling Jaya: Islamic Book Trust.
Nasr, S. H. (1993). The need for a sacred science. New York: SUNY Press.
Polanyi, M. (1946). Science, faith and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Plantinga, A. (1996). Science: Augustinian or Duhemian. Faith and Philosophy, 13(3), 368–394.
Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge. (Original work published 1963).
Pollio, V. (1914). Vitruvius: The ten books on architecture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1971). The moral responsibility of the scientist. Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 2(3), 279–283.
Porco, T. C., Gao, D., Scott, J. C., Shim, E., Enanoria, W. T., Galvani, A. P., & Lietman, T. M. (2012). When does overuse of antibiotics become a tragedy of the commons? PLoS ONE, 7(12), e46505.
Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion and spirituality: Linkages to physical health. American psychologist, 58(1), 36.
Racine, L. (2003). Implementing a postcolonial feminist perspective in nursing research related to non-Western populations. Nursing Inquiry, 10(2), 91–102.
Reich, H. (1989). Between religion and science: Complementarity in the religious thinking of young people. British Journal of Religious Education, 11(2), 62–69.
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2016). The ethical challenges of socially responsible science. Accountability in Research, 23(1), 31–46.
Resnik, D. B. (2007). The price of truth: How money affects the norms of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rezadoost, H., Karimi, M., & Jafari, M. (2016). Proteomics of hot-wet and cold-dry temperaments proposed in Iranian traditional medicine: a Network-based Study. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–8.
Rezaei, M., Adib-Hajbaghery, M., Seyedfatemi, N., & Hoseini, F. (2008). Prayer in Iranian cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 14(2), 90–97.
Rooney, P. (2017). The borderlands between epistemic and non-epistemic values. In K. C. Elliott & D. Steel (Eds.), Current controversies in values and science (pp. 31–45). London: Routledge.
Scheck, F. (2010). Mechanics: From Newton’s laws to deterministic chaos. Berlin: Springer.
Seybold, K. S., & Hill, P. C. (2001). The role of religion and spirituality in mental and physical health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(1), 21–24.
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible conduct of research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schayegh, C. (2004). Hygiene, eugenics, genetics, and the perception of demographic crisis in Iran, 1910s–1940s. Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 13(3), 335–361.
Shayegan, D. (1997). Cultural schizophrenia: Islamic societies confronting the west. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Smith, W. (2005). The quantum enigma: Finding the hidden key. New York: Sophia Perennis.
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 6–34.
Stanchevici, D. (Ed.). (2017). Stalinist genetics: The constitutional rhetoric of TD Lysenko. London: Taylor & Francis.
Stecher, J., Janssen, F., & Fürnkranz, J. (2016). Shorter rules are better, aren’t they? In International conference on discovery science (pp. 279–294). Cham: Springer.
Steel, D. (2010). Epistemic values and the argument from inductive risk. Philosophy of Science, 77(1), 14–34.
Stephan, P. E. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Van de Poel, I. (2013). Why new technologies should be conceived as social experiments. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 16(3), 352–355.
Van de Poel, I. (2016). An ethical framework for evaluating experimental technology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 667–686.
Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2016). What happened to Popperian falsification? Publishing neutral and negative findings. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 23(3), 481–508.
Van de Poel, I., & Royakkers, L. (2011). Ethics, technology, and engineering: An introduction. London: Wiley.
Vlahakis, G., Malaquias, I. M. C. O., Brooks, N. M., Wright, D., Gunergun, F., & Regourd, M. F. (2006). Imperialism and science: Social impact and interaction. Santa Barbara: Abc-Clio.
Webb, G. I. (1996). Further experimental evidence against the utility of Occam’s razor. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4, 397–417.
WHO. (2001). Legal status of traditional medicine and complementary/alternative medicine: A worldwide review. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from May 14, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42452/WHO_EDM_TRM_2001.2_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
WHO. (2013). WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014–2023. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from May 14, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/92455/9789241506090_eng.pdf?sequence=1.
Zahabi, S. A. (2019). Avicenna’s approach to health: A reciprocal interaction between medicine and Islamic philosophy. Journal of Religion and Health, 58(5), 1698–1712.
Zakersalehi, G. (2017). Study on the legal status of traditional and complementary medicine and the challenges ahead in Iran. Iranian Journal of Medical Law, 10(39), 101–120.
Zeinalian, M., Eshaghi, M., Naji, H., Marandi, S. M. M., Sharbafchi, M. R., & Asgary, S. (2015). Iranian–Islamic traditional medicine: An ancient comprehensive personalized medicine. Advanced Biomedical Research, 4, 191. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9175.166151.
Ziman, J. (1984). Introduction to science studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kafaee, M., Taqavi, M. The Value of ‘Traditionality’: The Epistemological and Ethical Significance of Non-western Alternatives in Science. Sci Eng Ethics 27, 6 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00279-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00279-9