Hi Tipsters,
Jim Clark wrote:
> Obviously Linda and I need to get a life!
Perhaps, someone can operationally define this for me. I clearly am clueless!
>
> The present debate,
> for example, came out of a study that simply reviewed existing
> literature on the consequences of child abuse. <snipped> 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).
I think you raise a good point. What I worry about is the level of rigor used
in the typical scientific scrutiny. Thus, I would argue that for such
politically charged topics, we might want to go beyond the typical.
>
> 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.
Of course, taking into account the variability of effects on individuals.
> 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.
I agree. I think, however, that we should not be unmindful of the potential
misuses or remain uninvolved if misuses occur.
>
> > 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.
But if we look back historically, haven't previous generations thought they
uncovered the "true state of affairs" only for those later to prove them
wrong. Perhaps, our science is flawed due to our own limitations or the
limitations of our technology and thus will be perceived as cute and humorous
by succeeding generations.
> 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 think the political intrusions are already there. It is thus a matter of
whether we choose to ignore them or attend to them. This can have
ramifications that may be beneficial or not beneficial to people or society.
> 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. <snipped lots of
> good stuff>
I certainly agree. The use of good information can only benefit science,
people, society, etc. This presumes good information. Part of the problem
with the Rind article is that it may not be all that good (see previous post).
Then the misuses of the article become very problematic.
There is no such thing as perfect research. Thus, we need to use some extra
caution when dealing with research that may have serious ramifications to
people and society.
Thus, the bottom line is that we probably agree (at least a lot more than we
disagree). You, however, are just more optimistic about the quality of science
being produced and the level of thought behind it.
>
> Night Linda! .... Linda replies "Night Jim-boy!:
Night Jim-boy!
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
