• DOI:10.1086/286907
• Corpus ID: 121235067

Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science

@article{Maslow1946ProblemCenteringVM,
  title={Problem-Centering vs. Means-Centering in Science},
  author={Abraham H. Maslow},
  journal={Philosophy of Science},
  year={1946},
  volume={13},
  pages={326 - 331}
}

• A. Maslow
• Published 1 October 1946
• Education
• Philosophy of Science

Through the last decade or two, more and more attention has been given to the shortcomings and sins of "official" science. Discussion of thie sources of these failings has, however, been neglected. This paper attempts to show that many of the weaknesses of orthodox science are consequences of a means or techniquecentered approach to the defining of science. By means-centering, I refer to the tendency to consider that the essence of science lies in its instruments, techniques, procedures, apparatus and its methods rather than in its problems, questions, functions or goals. In its unsophisticated form, means-centering confuses scientists with engineers, physicians, dentists, laboratory technicians, glass blowers, urinanalysts, machine tenders, etc. Means-centering at the highest intellectuial levels most usually takes the form of making synonyms of "science" and "scientific method".' 1) Inevitable stress on elegance, polish, "technique", and apparatus, has as a frequent consequence a playing down of meaningfulness, vitality, and significance of the problem and of creativeness in general. Almost any candidate for the Ph.D. in science will understand what this means in practice. A methodologically satisfactory experiment, whether trivial or not, is rarely criticized. A bold, groundbreaking problem, because it often involves crudeness in conception and prosecution, and also because it may be a "failure", is too often criticized to death before it is ever begun. Indeed, the word "criticism" in the scientific literature seems usually to mean only criticism of method, technique, logic, etc. I do not recall seeing, in the literature with which I am familiar, any paper which criticized another paper for being unimportant, trivial or inconsequential. The tendency is growing therefore to say that the dissertation problem itself doesn't matter-only so it be well done. In a word, it need no longer be a "contribution to knowledge". The Ph.D. candidate is required to know the techniques of his field and the already accumulated data in it. It is not usually stressed that good research ideas are also desirable. As a consequence it is possible for completely and obviously uncreative people to become "scientists" in spite of the fact that an "uncreative scientist" is as self-contradictory as a mute orator. At a lower level-in the teaching of science in the high school and collegesimilar results can be seen. The student is encouraged to identify science with directed manipulations of apparatus, and with rote procedures learned out of a cook book,-in a word, following other people's leads and repeating what other people have already discovered. Nowhere is he taught that a scientist is different from a technician or a historian of science.