Howdy Y'all!
Jim Clark wrote:
> > 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.
Good point!
One could also address the whole "publish or perish" dilemma that also creates a
lot of worthless submissions and leads to attempts to get perhaps flawed research
published. Obviously, science is influenced by political factors unrelated to the
topic being researched. This is also a different topic separate from the one
under discussion.
> 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.
For most topics, I think we would be in agreement. For others, I'm not so sure.
A friend of mine was once offered a job with the military doing physiological
psych research on the effects of various gases on neural functioning (with a very
nice salary offer). For political reasons, she turned down the job before even
beginning the scientific process.
> > 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 too believe that "truth is better than ignorance". However, I think I am less
sure about the nature of truth than you are. I also tend to believe that many
scientists approach their work with a set of biases and perhaps, a political
motivation already in place. This shapes the character of the truth as they find
it.
> > 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.
And I think this has been a concern of other branches of science. This dilemma
has also been the foundation of sci-fi episodes for some time.
>
>
> > 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.
I sometimes wonder if we already know more about the trivial than the important
topics.
Excuse my cynicism - I found out today that a paper proposal I submitted to an
important yearly conference examining the psychological, sociological, political
etc. dimensions of genocide in the Twentieth Century was not accepted today.
Why? Because they had to cancel the conference due to lack of submitted
proposals. With over 210 million (170 million civilians) dead this century due to
genocide (over 5 times larger than those killed by combat), this would seem to be
an important topic that has serious implications for people and society. And yet,
not enough folks from a vast array of disciplines were interested in contributing
to this year's genocide conference.
>
> 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.
Me too . . . but only if this includes the political motivations and other biases
of the individuals doing the research.
> 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.
Good point.
> 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.
Well, APA is a political organization and lobby. I don't think it is a
coincidence that its address is Washington, D.C.
Good 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]
