When I was young, one of the favorite arguments against Christians was to argue that Christianity was simply a psychological crutch to help one deal with life. Of course, there was an obvious counter-answer. One simply responds to the critic that he/she rejects Jesus because they have psychological hang-ups that prevent them from being able to trust an authority figure. Can you see the circular nature of the argument? When one begins ascribing psychological (or cultural) motives to someone else, there is no guarantee that you yourself are not the one who is having either psychological (or cultural) motives for using that charge on someone else.
This is the reason why one of the rock-bottom attitudes in scientific research is that any data is to be taken as is, and that any bias that may be in the data is considered to be unwitting unless overtly shown to be otherwise. Theories are simply taken as is, and tested by various scientists and various venues. No prior assumption is made as to whether the theory is the result of bias or not, since the methodology already assumes that there is a danger of bias and already assumes that there is a possibility of Murphy’s Law having been at work in the experimentation and formulation of the original researcher(s).
In an earlier post, one blogger wrote:
. . . if you think big money is not a part of the global warming scare on both sides, and if you think there are not political elements using this on both side as well to advance their own political and/or business agendas then you are a bit naive. Pretending like those opposing interests are not there and not working hard to bring their own point of view to the forefront of public consciousness does not make it go away.
The blogger is right, but the blogger is wrong. Of course there are competing interests trying to both present and prevent certain viewpoints. But, scientific research cannot let itself get caught up in that type of judgment. If researchers begin to pre-judge data and theories based simply on who has collected the data or who has advocated that theory, then one enters an Alice-in-Wonderland world in which science itself becomes subject to the psychobabble that is prevalent already in so much of our modern American discourse. Scientific research would simply enter into the same type of argument as the one which I quoted at the beginning of this post.
For scientific research the proof or rejection of a theory is based simply on its repetitiveness by various people in various venues. No judgment is made on the attitudes, culture, politics, etc., of other researchers. This is because one can never be sure that one’s own judgments are not themselves the result of attitudes, culture, politics, etc. One only wishes that the same standards could be applied to other fields, such as politics, etc. Unfortunately, that type of rule can only be applied to limited areas, which are either repeatable or for which multiple data sets can be collected. Thus, the rules of scientific research cannot be applied to historical events, for instance.
And, here is the problem in today’s America. Since the early 1970’s, getting stronger every year, scientific results are being debated on the basis of who hired whom, or who belongs to which party, or whether someone is a Christian or not, rather than on the validity and repeatability of the research. In fact, one can read articles by conservative Christian scientists on the problems they have with their own churches because of research they may be doing (NO NO NO I am not talking about stem cell research or similar types of research). Christian scientists doing research in biology or astronomy or physics are constantly pressured to add caveats to their research that would pre-judge their findings, simply to prove their conservative credentials. It is the evangelical version of Galileo’s trial for heresy because he said that the Solar System rotates around the sun.
When I said in the earlier post that I wanted us to begin debating science on the basis of data, I worded it unclearly. I meant what I have just said above. We cannot debate science based on who proposes it, or who employs whom, etc. As I said earlier, to do so is to enter an Alice in Wonderland world in which we cherry-pick our data to prove our presuppositions. At that point, modern science goes out the window.
Since the early 1970’s, getting stronger every year, scientific results are being debated on the basis of who hired whom, or who belongs to which party, or whether someone is a Christian or not, rather than on the validity and repeatability of the research. In fact, one can read articles by conservative Christian scientists on the problems they have with their own churches because of research they may be doing … constantly pressured to add caveats to their research that would pre-judge their findings, simply to prove their conservative credentials.
I think this is called the Lysenkoization of American Science.
And it cuts both ways. The first examples I can think of (where pro or con broke cleanly along Party lines) were Nuclear Winter and SDI.
you know ernesto that has always been the case as far as i can remember…science and christianity have been twisted and deformed to fit or suit someone’s agenda…personal experience as a person that moved away from the world to christianity can tell you that people process and view life different once that change is made….I cannot list all the beliefs that i used to have about science versus christianity bc they were too many to list and now “I born again”
Like a child I view the world different but only bc of Christ. So my oppinion is that the only way christianity can have any part in science is if the scientist himself/herself has been born in Christ…open their mind about what they consired it can only be proven by science, the data, the variables, the parallels of what is known to men.
There are just a whole bunch of things that we do not know and new discoveries are being made all the time. While it is true that every scientist has bias whether they realize it or not, experimental data has to be able to be reproduced. When enough research has been done by enough people with whatever their particular biases are, and it can be reproduced with relatively few deviations, there is just a chance that–given the particular research protocol is sound–science is on the right track. At least on the right track until someone comes along with an instrument that measures whatever it is just a little bit better and then the apple cart is upset again and a new set of data must be collected. It does not astonish me that pressure is put on scientists to come out with “the RIGHT DATA” according to whoever is doing the ordering. It also does not astonish me that there are scientists for whom their paycheck/grant/tenure/etc causes them to be swayed to a particular viewpoint. It is inevitable when no one does pure science for pure science’s sake. We live in a drastically flawed world. I do not think that one must be a Christian however you define that to do valid research. I think that to do research that is ethical, one must have some kind of moral/ethical code or standard, but I know folks that do not meet my particular definition of Christianity who do valid, ethical research with at least an attempt to limit bias. Having been involved in various research protocols in the past, I have a bit of knowledge as to what I want to look for in a valid research study. I can tell you, it is not what religion/sex/politicalparty/eye color/heritage/culture or what have you a person who does the study may be a part of. I look at 1-how was the research set up, 2-how was the data collected 3-how was it analyzed, 4-who has replicated it or tried and failed to replicate it, 5-what kind of peer review was done, and what I call the PU factor. (If it seems to stink, there is a reason why.) I also keep in mind the pundit who explained that there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
“If researchers begin to pre-judge data and theories based simply on who has collected the data or who has advocated that theory, then one enters an Alice-in-Wonderland world in which science itself becomes subject to the psychobabble that is prevalent already in so much of our modern American discourse. Scientific research would simply enter into the same type of argument as the one which I quoted at the beginning of this post.”
Sure, trivializing science because of inherent bias can devolve into circular psychobabble. But demonstrating bias highlights other problems in modern American discourse – i.e., the false conclusiveness we give to science, and the false distinction we ascribe to it. Science demands repeatable observation to correct bias, but it can’t correct these problems beyond itself.
If/When we determine that certain actions affect certain environments, what then do we do? If we discover that dumping my used hops and wheat grains into my garden increases the acidity of the neighborhood soil, what do my neighbors and I do about it? If no-one else gardens, then maybe nothing. If someone else gardens, I may ignore my actions’ effects, or I may reach out to them to research how acidity affects their plant species, or I may decide to dump my junk somewhere else, or look for non-acidic ingredients, or give up homebrewing altogether. Notice that the extra-scientific factors affect the science – our ethical, political, social, or even religious convictions affect what we will seek to observe scientifically.
More than just elaborating on bias, let’s recognize that science is not the end; ethics, politics, sociology, religion – all SHOULD operate with science to guide our lives and relationships.
You make some good points. In one of the posts I mentioned in passing that science is only good for certain matters, but not for others. You have well pointed out the other side of the problem. Science is very good only within certain parameters. It is completely unsuited outside the limited parameters within which is functions.