Hi
On Sun, 13 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
> Jim Clark wrote:
>
> > Obviously Linda and I need to get a life!
> Perhaps, someone can operationally define this for me. I
> clearly am clueless!
I was writing very early in the morning (3am or so) on a weekend
night and I thought from the date stamp on your message that you
had been doing it pretty late as well. Or perhaps that had more
to do with delivery times. Anyway, that is what I was referring
to. Perhaps it is only me who needs to get a life!
> 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.
I'm probably slipping into another topic here, but I think that
psychology already does too much filtering of findings.
Rejection rates in the natural sciences are much lower than in
psychology. Perhaps that just reflects the quality or state of
the disciplines, but I think that perhaps our tendency toward
"super-articles" (i.e., numerous studies, integrative theory,
exhaustive reviews) could be part of the problem. Largely when I
read an article in my area of research I want to know what the
researchers did and what they found. That would apply to the
area under discussion here, as well, and indeed might have
prevented what appears to be some excessive extrapolations,
either by the authors by critics or both.
> > 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.
Exactly right. That is part of the correct characterization.
Individual differences are something to which psychological
theories must attend.
> > 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 agree ... now we're really starting to sound like the Waltons!
Where we might differ is how early in the scientific process and
in what forums our consideration of these issues should exert
their greatest influence and to what extent such considerations
should be allowed to censor scientific findings.
> > > 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.
Several points here. It is difficult to portray and evaluate any
huge enterprise like science in terms of specific cases. We must
pay sufficient attention to the long-term trends, which I would
say have been toward greater and deeper understanding. It is
also _not_ the case that previous theories are always overturned
by later ideas. For example, Newtonian principles are largely if
not entirely intact, but their scope of reference has been
narrowed to near space and time. Thus, it is more correct to say
that the ideas were incorporated into later theories rather than
that they were displaced. Furthermore, although scientists
generally do reject absolutes, it is certainly the case that
scientists can become very strongly convinced about things. I
think that the things that contemporary scientists are confident
about (e.g., evolution, gravitational forces) are very unlikely
to change in any fundamental way.
> > 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.
The presence of political intrusions does not justify the
addition of further intrusions. If we really believe that truth
is better than ignorance (which I do) and that political
intrusions interfere with the attainment of truth (which I do),
then we should be working to free the scientific part of the
process from political intrusions.
...
> 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.
My concern is that people are determining whether or not
information is good in part by what are perceived as the
political or social consequences of that information.
> 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.
And I worry that such efforts will do more harm than good,
because politically-motivated people will see and be concerned
about different ramifications, and this will lead to unnecessary
and inappropriate hurdles being put in the way of our
understanding of controversial and important topics. It would be
ironic if psychology became structured so as to make it easier to
understand trivial (i.e., nonthreatening) topics than important
topics that have serious implications for 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.
I would rather describe my position as being that I am (or would
be) more optimistic about the quality of science and level of
thought when political considerations are minimized and
scientific considerations are maximized. If we take the present
example, again, I would say that inappropriate conclusions or
extrapolations from the review of the consequences of child abuse
might in fact arise from political motivations. I would have
entirely agreed with an APA reaction that emphasized more careful
editorial review for conclusions that go beyond the data, as long
as that principle was applied even-handedly to research on any
side of any issue. The fact that APA targetted this particular
article rather than a random selection of articles indicates that
they are more interested in mollifying the politicians (and the
press) than improving the quality of psychological science.
I am pleased that Linda and I seem closer than earlier (although
my upcoming response to one of her earlier messages on another
topic might indicate otherwise).
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
============================================================================
