Social Construction of an `Attack on Science'

Abstract

undermine their views, since Gross and Levitt's basic approach is to attack constructivists for not being positivists, adding the spice of a one-sided commentary on intellectuals. For science studies scholars, the interest in the book lies not in the content but the way the argument is constructed, noting its resonance in wider circles.1 For those who are used to studying the political uses of science, Higher Superstition provides an object lesson in the political uses of (a critique of) science studies. Gross and Levitt's attack on what they consider to be 'critics of science' can be understood as a sophisticated form of 'antiantiscience'. Attacks on 'antiscience' have popped up now and again for decades.2 Before looking in detail at Gross and Levitt's book, it is worth spelling out the standard techniques used in 'antiantiscience'. First, science is presented as a unitary object, usually identified with scientific knowledge. It is portrayed as neutral and objective. Second, science is claimed to be under attack by 'antiscience', which is composed essentially of ideologues who are threats to the