Hi
Obviously Linda and I need to get a life!
On Sat, 12 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
> Jim Clark wrote:
> > I agree that these are the issues that scientists, as well as
> > politicians and citizens have had to wrestle with. But these
> > debates are completely independent of the question of the
> > correctness of the underlying scientific ideas. The problem with
> > putting the political considerations too early in the process
> > (i.e., intruding them into science) is that they interfere with
> > determining what is the correct characterization of the domain
> > under study.
> But this is exactly the point where some issues surrounding
> topics such as genetic engineering and use of fetal tissue are
> currently being discussed. Science does not operate
> independently of political, economic, human welfare, etc.
> concerns. This is why it must be examined carefully at *all*
> points in the scientific process.
I think that Linda has given a good example of where the science
necessarily entails ethical and political considerations. That
is, the science cannot proceed without the use of fetal tissue.
But is that in fact a representative case? The present debate,
for example, came out of a study that simply reviewed existing
literature on the consequences of child abuse. It did not
involve subjecting children to child abuse or require ignoring
such abuse, and, judging by a recent posting, was not even that
original in its conclusions. I just do not see why such a report
should be subjected to anything but the typical (hopefully
rigorous) scientific scrutiny, allowing for a number of the other
extra-scientific actions that were suggested, perhaps in other,
more appropriate, forums (e.g., critical commentary).
> Additionally, one's perceptions shape the determination of what
> is considered the "correct characterization of the domain".
> There certainly does not seem to be a consensus within
> psychology as to what is its "correct characterization". I
> don't even think there is consensus on TIPS!
By "correct characterization" I meant to convey the true or
accurate or valid description and explanation for the
consequences of child abuse. No there is not consensus. That is
why we need objective, unfettered scientific research. Not
selectively filtered reports or overly politicized diatribes that
interfere with our arriving at an accurate conceptualization of
the problem. The reality is that in many cases with respect to
human behavior, we simply do not know enough and, if we truly
want to know the truth, we need further open investigation that
is guided as much as possible by criteria that are relevant to
arriving at that truth, not at some politically acceptable
answer.
> > For example, it would have been extremely
> > disadvantageous for a conscientious democratic scientific
> > community to have been hampered in the proper understanding of
> > atomic power because of moral objections, while a less
> > humanitarian collection of Axis nations pursued the use of atomic
> > weapons.
> If this had occurred, then clearly the Allied nations would
> have been ignoring the political in relation to the scientific.
> How many advances are made in the entire realm of weapons of
> mass destruction with the idea of deterrence and potential
> retribution in mind? And what is the responsibility of the
> scientists involved if they are used or misused? These are not
> easy ethical questions.
I probably did not make myself clear. I said the "understanding
of atomic power" (although my later reference was to atomic
weapons). That is, I meant to refer to the scientific enterprise
that provided the scientific foundations upon which later
military projects built (I see the military aspects more as
engineering than as science, although my expertise does not allow
a full evaluation of what was involved in the development of the
bomb). I just worry that one could imagine all kinds of
nefarious uses to which knowledge could be used (e.g.,
unscrupulous people using knowledge about attitude change, how to
make things memorable, why people find other people attractive,
and so on endlessly). Trying to filter out such knowledge to
prevent possible misuse is just more likely in my view to be
damaging than to be prophilactic.
> > As I stated earlier, the relation between knowledge and
> > policy is not at all simple (i.e., it is extremely complex) and
> > it should not be allowed to interfere with the development of
> > correct knowledge in the first place. I believe that people who
> > think otherwise are deluding themselves about the benefits of
> > ignorance.
> I'm not sure how one defines "correct knowledge" or who decides
> what is "correct is part of what makes the issue so complex.
It isn't complex to me, although the process to arrive at that
knowledge is a challenging one. Basically, there is a true state
of affairs (i.e., descriptive facts, theoretical explanation)
that scientists are trying to uncover. Anything that interferes
with that enterprise, no matter how well intentioned, is, by
definition, harmful to the furthering of our scientific
understanding.
> I do however, get the sense that anyone who disagrees with the
> idea that all research and science should be developed without
> any interference (political, ethical, etc.) is being described
> as "deluded" and tangentially being called ignorant. This is
> not beneficial to the debate.
First, my allusion to ignorance was to the state we would be in
if science were sidetracked, not to the people who advocated that
sidetracking. Second, I think these issues are in fact
fundamental to the debate. Implicit in the idea that these
political intrusions into science are beneficial is the notion
that somehow not studying or not reporting certain findings and
theories, no matter how correct, is in the service of the people
affected and society in general. I just do not buy this. I
believe that social policies will generally be better (i.e., more
likely to lead to the desired outcome) if they are based on sound
theories than not. But admittedly, much of that conviction rests
on the belief that we can and should have a clear separation
between what science tells us is the case and how we choose to
act on that conclusion.
Perhaps I can illustrate with the example that provoked this
debate (despite my ignorance of the actual article!). Suppose
that the apparent claim is correct that many children subjected
to child abuse do not experience marked distress. We could then
try to identify factors that would allow us to predict the
children or the circumstances that lead to extreme distress. We
could find out what factors insulate some children from what we
all agree should be devastating consequences. We could use the
children who do not experience distress to identify cues other
than distress that might reveal that abuse was occurring. We
could study whether or not abuse revealed itself in other ways
beside self-reported distress. We could try and develop
effective arguments and messages directed at potential abusers
that do not hinge so much on the harm to the child. And so on.
These are off the top of my head (and late at night), so I do not
pretend that there are not difficulties. But it seems to me that
our course of investigation (and political action) might be quite
different depending on which is thought scientifically to be the
more accurate state of affairs. And, for me at least, none of
those actions would entail watering down our concerns about the
abuse of children. Even if no child experienced distress at
transgenerational sex (or whatever the current euphemism might
be), our society quite correctly affords children certain
securities because of their vulnerability.
Night Linda! .... Linda replies "Night Jim-boy!:
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
