by Jeroen Bouterse
Steven Pinker’s 2018 book Enlightenment Now is a reasoned defense of the values of the Enlightenment: of reason, science, humanism and progress. Pinker uses most of his space to demonstrate, positively, how the attitudes and institutions associated with Enlightenment thought have done good in the world. However, he has also woven through his book a clear motif of defense against ‘counter-Enlightenments’: the opponents of Enlightenment values.
These opponents are, among others, religious faith and some radical kinds of environmentalism. The anti-Enlightenment sentiments that Pinker deals with most extensively, however, are those of the so-called ‘Second Culture’: “the world-view of many literary intellectuals and cultural critics”, who have been criticizing the Enlightenment specifically for its devotion to the sciences. Pinker devotes an entire chapter to this Second Culture and its “high-brow war on science” (mostly overlapping with this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education). Treatment of science in liberal-arts curricula is
“pernicious […]. Students can graduate with only a trifling exposure to science, and what they do learn is often designed to poison them against it.” (395)
Pinker complains that science gets blamed for all kinds of crimes, such as 19th-century racism – which, if anything, is “the brainchild not of science but of the humanities” (398). Also, students are made to read Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn famously coined the notion of ‘paradigms’ in order to make the case that the assessment of progress in science depends on a shared set of assumptions. This way of thinking leads to the cynical conclusion that science does not converge upon the truth at all, says Pinker.
Intellectually, this is far from the best part of Enlightenment Now: Pinker’s definition of the other side is imprecise, his supporting data uncharacteristically anecdotal and one-sided. (Kuhn had a PhD in physics, and it is hard to find in his work any hostile remarks about science.) The reason Pinker can get away with this is that he seems to be stating the obvious: the existence of a divide between the sciences and the humanities that is not institutional but cultural has been accepted wisdom in Western culture for decades. Read more »