"People have been forced to admit that methods can't command universal assent, and the grounds on which it tries to do so are shaky," Cartwright said. "The problem is that the procedures remain as controversial as the values themselves."
Cartwright drew from examples in physics, economics, medicine, philosophy and political science to illustrate her point.
Any agreement on the results of experiments relies on the ability of different groups to independently interpret the results, according to Cartwright. "In one study, it was found that teams of scientists accepted the results only when they could arrive at them using their own procedures," said Cartwright.
This evidence undermines the argument for a universal procedure. "In justice, there are self-standing principles, and in science, there are canons of method," explained Cartwright. "Both are being questioned now, and the focus is turning from universal to specific principles."
According to Cartwright, the theory of particularism is regaining prominence in the world of philosophy. Particularists focus on what is special and unique in their object of study, which can range from the scientific to the political.
Universalism, which concentrates on a more general understanding of phenomena, has historically dominated the scientific field, according to Cartwright. "Our preference for a universalist view stems from medieval times, when scientists started trying to distinguish genuine knowledge from opinion," said Cartwright.
Cartwright also presented a general overview of the work of Karl Popper, also a philosopher of science, whose insistence on hard data and strict method for experimenting exemplified the universalist view. Popper claimed that what makes an idea scientific is that it can be verified or falsified by an experiment. "He tried to apply rational, objective labels to science because he believed scientific results had too much fluidity," said Cartwright.
Cartwright then discussed universalism in politics, citing John Rawls' "Theory of Justice" as an example. Rawls believed that a set of fixed principles could determine a fair distribution of goods. These principles included the right to human freedom and the concept that no inequality is good unless it benefits the member of society who is worst off.
Rawls' "Theory of Justice" is similar to Popper's insistence on the scientific method. "There is a method for choosing scientific theories and a method for choosing principles of justice," said Cartwright.
Cartwright also explained how this universalist approach has lost ground over the last decade. Cartwright said that, as the body of knowledge available to scientists and political theorists became more complex, the hope faded that a universal method for establishing valid results could ever be established. This preference for a universal method has slowly been replaced by particularism, with its emphasis on similarities and specifics. "The universal scientific method is no longer applicable," said Cartwright. "Experiments and procedures have become too complex and controversial."
Cartwright concluded the lecture by saying that the clash between universalism and particularism is unlikely to be resolved in the near future.
Many students found the lecture informative and engaging. "I'm a philosophy major, so I have a general interest in this topic," said Megan Pirigyi '03. "I thought it was interesting. It's something I'm not sure how I feel about, so this was a good introduction to the topic."
Cartwright, whose work is read in Professor Alexander George's course of philosophy of science, has written numerous books, including "How the Laws of Physics Lie" and "Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement." She is a fellow of the British Academy and received a MacArthur Fellowship in 1993. Her most recent book, "A Dappled World," focused on the theory of particularism.
The lecture was sponsored by the Forry Fund in Philosophy and Science and the philosophy department as part of a lecture series on "Science and Value."