I'm sure you can think of some example of what the title describes. There was that Yale (or was it Princeton? I can't recall) President who was ousted after suggesting that differences in academic aptitude might be based in gender. Or, how about any research which suggests that global warming is non-existent, inconsequential, or not anthropogenic? What about that researcher who did studies on the brains of "gay" sheep?
I bring it up because of an article in the New York Times regarding Dr. Bailey, a Northwestern scientist who was nearly driven from his field for a book suggesting that transgendered people are driven by pyschological, not biological, imperatives.
You can get all the details yourself from the article. I find it an interesting if unsurprising look, yet again, about what goes wrong when politics and science cross paths. Some people are so committed to their pet theories and ideas that when someone even attempts to examine it, they're prone to acts of lunacy and derangement. It gets worse if the examination finds the pet theory to be in error.
Of course, sometimes it can go in another direction. Sometimes you can get "science" that is so blatantly political that you can't help but wonder what kind of mental gymnastics those researchers had to do to get the data to fit their conclusion. I recall, not too long ago, a study by some group in California purportedly showing that people become Republicans (or conservatives) because they suffered inferiority complexes as children, or something to that effect. I may have written about it at the time, but I just don't feel like dredging the archives for that now.
This is significant to me, because I'm currently taking a course on plant biotechnology, and my own career goals involve research of a similarly controversial nature. If politics is allowed to derail science in such a manner, then what hope do we have of conducting legitimate inquiry into the questions we have? We must be bold enough to ask those questions, regardless of consequence, and we must support our colleagues when they're challenged on political grounds. Where the science contradicts our ideas, as long as it is sound, we must be brave enough to change our thinking to correlate to reality, and not hope that reality will mold itself around our ideas.
Hat tip: Ace
9 comments:
Regarding your reference to the studies on Gay Sheep - you should read the NYT article on that topic as there was much incorrect info floating about on the subject:
Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html?ex=1187841600&en=bfe23cebb4f7b72e&ei=5070
Where the science contradicts our ideas, as long as it is sound, we must be brave enough to change our thinking to correlate to reality, and not hope that reality will mold itself around our ideas.
if this post was about religious beliefs getting in the way of scientific inquiry as opposed to politics, would you still feel the same way?
meera
Of course. If science were to contradict religious belief in a significant way, then something has to change.
However, let's be clear that one person's "evidence that trumps religion" isn't always so for another.
Some people get too excited and purport science to be proving more than it does. In other cases, reinterpretation of the religious basis for the disputed idea must be made. Galileo is a perfect example; when people could no longer deny the truth of his findings, re-examination of the evidence for an Earth centered universe had to be made. However, the entirety of Christianity wasn't thrown out the window based on that.
I don't believe Meera said anything about Christianity. Or about tossing it out entirely because of any one piece of evidence that contradicts doctrine.
Her question was simply whether we should permit scientific inquiry into subjects that might be considered to conflict with religious doctrine? Would you agree that science as an institution must be protected from interference from those who object to it because certain observations it may threaten their theology? How is this different than suggesting that "we must be brave enough to change our thinking to correlate to reality, and not hope that reality will mold itself around our ideas."?
You appear to demand a high evidence threshold (something on the order of "the earth isn't at the center of the universe") before you will consider reassessing religious concepts, but you seem to accept the non-peer reviewed book (while it does reference some Canadian studies from ten to twenty years ago, it appears to rely heavily on anecdotes of transgendered women whom he met) that Dr. Bailey published recently as solid truth, and while I'm sure that some of the criticism of his book is politically motivated, you appear to be ignoring the very real scientific concerns that have been voiced about his research. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints?
Also, Harvard.
Murphy
Ah, I interpreted her question as regarding religious beliefs, whether I would be so bold as to alter them when science contradicts or corrects them. It seems I was mistaken.
But I think the answer to the actual question will be determined by how you approach it. If you were talking about evolutionary biology, I would still be offended by religious attempts to stall scientific progress (short of any legitimate concerns about any research).
On the other hand, people interpret objections to stem cell research as being entirely religious. While there is certainly a religious component, it is more of an "assist" rather than a fallback. There are plenty of reasons, none of them religious, to object to ESCR. Religious objections will only be meaningful if you already subscribe to said religious beliefs.
I didn't intend to give the impression that I'm fully on-board with Dr. Bailey. Having not read his book, I can't make any judgments about his work. However, the appearance of things is that politics drove his opposition, and it is that which I lament. That may end up not being the case, but the overall point of political interference in science still stands.
Ah, I interpreted her question as regarding religious beliefs, whether I would be so bold as to alter them when science contradicts or corrects them. It seems I was mistaken.
Sure. That's what the question was. Would you?
More than that, I believe she was asking for your position on whether religious beliefs should override science when something comes up that suggests that the religious beliefs are wrong. I think she was getting more at your first example (the attempts by creationists to damage the public understanding of science) rather than your second (which is an ethical concern, not strictly in the realm of challenging religious beliefs as an analogy to your concerns about scientific findings challenging political beliefs).
Okay, what's the issue, then? I answered her question and you said, "no, that's not what she asked." So I say, "oh, I thought she meant this." Now you tell me, "yes, that's what she meant all along." I'm confused.
But I think answering your question leads to the very delicate interplay between religion and science. If there's a contradiction, a very careful analysis has to be done to determine which one is being misinterpreted. In many cases, the only reason two things are seen as contradicting is because they are misunderstood in relation to each other.
Such situations are not terribly common, though. A large part of religious belief deals with issues that science simply isn't equipped to deal with.
Okay, what's the issue, then? I answered her question and you said, "no, that's not what she asked." So I say, "oh, I thought she meant this." Now you tell me, "yes, that's what she meant all along." I'm confused.
I think we were confused because you answered her question (would you still hold the position that we should be bold enough to change our views to conform to the data, rather than presuming the data is wrong because we don't like it if the data contradicts a religious belief?) by saying that one piece of evidence doesn't destroy a religion and that current evidence is, in your opinion,insufficient to prove something about religion.
She was asking a hypothetical (if we had evidence which definitively contradicted religion, should we reassess our religious belief), while you answered more specifically, and appeared to contradict your initial statement (by suggesting that something must be wrong, but that it might be the science, which is not allowed by her hypothetical and is contradictory to the position you held earlier, that we should accept science).
If there's a contradiction, a very careful analysis has to be done to determine which one is being misinterpreted.
Isn't that what Dr. Bailey's critics might be doing? Why is it at all different if someone has proof, say, that evolution best explains the diversity of life, which appears on its surface to contradict the position of several major religions?
But I think answering your question leads to the very delicate interplay between religion and science. If there's a contradiction, a very careful analysis has to be done to determine which one is being misinterpreted.
That's not this.
Where the science contradicts our ideas, as long as it is sound, we must be brave enough to change our thinking to correlate to reality, and not hope that reality will mold itself around our ideas.
In what you posted earlier, you suggest that if the science is sound, we should recognize that reality doesn't conform to what we want it to be politically. When she suggests that you apply that to religious views, she's asking if you feel the same way, that we must be brave enough to recognize that reality might not mold itself to our theological ideas.
A large part of religious belief deals with issues that science simply isn't equipped to deal with.
I'm not entirely convinced on this issue, but am currently personally running with Dr. Steven Novella's outlook, that science can (and should only attempt) to cross over into the magisterium of religion if and only if religion is making testable claims.
Well Murphy, that's what I tried to answer in the first place. I think the nature of the contradiction will determine the thoughtful evaluation.
As I said, some scientific evidences may simply require that the religious beliefs be reevaluated and reinterpreted. That was why I used Galileo as an example.
There may come a time when evidence of faith-shattering proportions is found. The bones of Jesus, perhaps? Those would require one to abandon their faith in the face of the science. I'm not so stubborn that I could ignore scientific evidence. So, yes, I would change my mind regarding religious thoughts should science necessitate such.
However, as I said, that's an issue for careful reflection. Richard Dawkins considers the science to have closed the book on religion. I disagree. But you're right that testable claims ought to be examined.
Post a Comment