Hi
I'm just going to respond to a couple of Linda's points that I
think are most central here (i.e., in a list devoted to teaching
about psychological science (and for some psychology more broadly
defined than scientific).
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Linda M. Woolf wrote:
> Jim Clark wrote:
> > My list was a mixture of two things: (1) properties that I
> > believe would be true for many religions (e.g., having been
> > passed down from our ancestors, having some sort of holy
> > scripture),
> However, the same sort of statement can be said about science.
> It is passed down through the generations via a mentoring
> system. I've even seen "family trees" of psychology department
> faculty (tracing their mentorship through the generations to
> some of the great figures in the history of psychology).
> Additionally, we do have somewhat of a holy scripture that
> dictates our efforts and work primarily related to methodology.
> Clearly, it is a methodology that we fiercely defend.
But for me there is a world of difference between passing on
knowledge about processes that have been demonstrated to produce
more accurate characterizations of the world (as well as
propositions about the world that have passed these standards)
and passing on propositions about the world that have not passed
_demonstrably_ valid criteria (see also below).
> Most of the research I have seen related to psychology and
> religion is focused on Christian beliefs (such as faith,
> effects of prayer) omitting the religious beliefs of the vast
> majority of the world's population. Thus, you are not alone!
It seems strange to me for Western society to be criticized
because it has chosen to practice science on its own institutions
(obviously the easiest and most relevant to study), while other
cultures, for some reason, have not seen fit to engage in such
science to the same extent. So just as we understood near space
before we understood larger distances, we have gained more
knowledge about our own culture first. This is not to deny the
importance of Linda's point, but simply to point out that it is
not particularly a flaw of the system. Moreover, whether or not
propositions developed through research on Western societies
generalize to non-Western societies is an empirical question.
Not to start another debate, but one of the areas that I think
has the potential to further undermine confidence in science is
some extreme positions in the cross-cultural field which argue
that science itself is a Eurocentric construction and that there
are other indigenous ways of knowing that are just as valid.
Perhaps something Linda would also have more sympathy for than I
would.
> However, one factor that appears omitted from your statement is
> the possibility that there may be a fundamental truth
> underlying a religion or religions. Obviously, with our
> current level of knowledge and technology it is not something
> we can measure. If we can't see or measure something, does
> that mean it does not exist? It is not something that can be
> proved or disproved.
If we cannot see or measure something (or see or measure
predicted indirect effects), then I believe what we should say is
that we have no reason to believe that it exists. That is my
position anyway. Even Linda hedges her bets by qualifying her
statement (i.e., "with our current level of technology"). I
simply do not know what it means to say that one believes in
something that has no manifestation in the real world. Moreover,
it is inappropriate to characterize the problem as one of proving
or disproving that something exists. Explanations are simply
more or less consistent with phenomena (of course, there are no
phenomena in the scenario being presented here), make
differential predictions about new phenomena, and so on.
> > Again I wasn't trying to make universal statements. My
> > impression, based on limited experience of course, is that
> > religions are not the most changeable entities in the world. I'm
> > thinking here not so much of different "interpretations" but of
> > changes in fundamental aspects of the religion.
>
> The same could be said of science. How much have the
> fundamental principles of science such as the belief in
> observation and measurement changed over the millennia?
The systematic use of these methodological principles is
relatively new, probably measured more in terms of centuries
rather than millennia. Although they are relatively stable, the
core beliefs of science are not limited to methodology. We have
had tremendous growth and change in our scientific understanding
of the physical and, increasingly, of the psychological world.
> > I've never heard this argument that science continues some
> > practices, unnecessarily, because of tradition.
> Clearly, we would need to move beyond the traditional Western
> view of science for this broader discussion.
> > It would be
> > interesting to hear what alternatives provide the same security
> > for drawing correct conclusions about the treatments.
> Of course, it would be difficult to define alternatives as your
> question is based in the paradigm ("correct conclusions about
> treatment"). However, even within this context and using the
> scientific method does not guarantee security for correct
> conclusions. One could examine the most dramatic examples of
> failure (for example, thalidomide or DES).
The question seems pretty straightforward to me, allowing for
some diversity in the definition of "success" (e.g., longevity,
quality of life, lack of suffering). Given such a definition,
how does one determine whether treatment X is better than doing
nothing and whether the putative causal agent is responsible
without using traditional scientific controls? And I'm not sure
what the purpose of the negative examples is, especially since
they represent an inadequate use of scientific methods rather
than a failure due to the use of scientific methods.
> Just a brief reminder: This is not a discussion aimed at
> scrapping science or the scientific method. I think it is the
> best method available currently for addressing certain
> concerns. However, science has been portrayed as primarily
> faultless and unbiased whereas religion is being described
> (albeit unidimensionally defined) as negative and responsible
> for a lot of the world's evils. I'm challenging these
> assumptions.
This is perhaps why we disagree about the value of
science-bashing, which is exactly what I think is going on. It
has been decades since the general public and non-scientists in
academia could be characterized as pro-science. At the best now,
they are science-ignorant. But many commentators believe that
science is under serious assault from a variety of quarters
(e.g., science studies, postmodernism, extreme feminist
epistemologies) and that we are well into that period. I am just
reading Gerald Holton's 1996 book "Einstein, history, and other
passions: The rebellion against science at the end of the
Twentieth Century." The sub-title gives the gist, but here is
what Holton, a distinguished historian of science writes:
"In some of the foremost universities in the United States, the
attention to science and mathematics required from college
students in the total curriculum ranges from zero to a mere 6
percent. Into this vacuum of scientific illiteracy among our
future leaders are rushing bizarre notions about science,
scientists, and their roles in society. These are eloquently
propagatged by ambitious factions with a wide range of
motivations, from the ideological to the supernatural. The
spokespeople for this movement include, for example, well-placed
academics and New Age fanatics; museum curators who were reported
to be intent on showing that science equals "pollution and
death"; a widely read radical who claims that Newton's
_Principles_of_Mechanics_ is merely a 'rape manual'; and a social
scientist who announced, 'There is no nature,' only a
'communication network' among scientists. In the present
climate, such depictions of science have become more and more
prominent in the marketplace of ideas, going far beyond the
reasonable and necessary scrutiny of abuses and limitations of
this, as of any, human enterprise."
I have been reading this extra-science literature now for almost
20 years and I can say that science is not held in high esteem in
many segments of the population and academia. People who think,
perhaps correctly, that scientists themselves would benefit from
some criticism of science must appreciate that outside of
science, they are just throwing gasoline on a raging fire.
Pardon the hyperbole, but I do think there is a serious
misrepresentation of science in many quarters and scientists are
the only ones who can correct that, even if it means seeming to
be arrogant at times.
> > > Of course, some religions would say that only focusing on the
> > > visible and measurable in the perceived world is a distortion
> > > and inaccurate view of the world (both perceivable and what is
> > > currently unperceivable).
> >
> > They might very well say this, but for it to have any sensible
> > meaning would require them to demonstrate the distortions and
> > inaccuracies or otherwise justify their beliefs that such
> > distortions exist. Simply claiming that scientific accounts are
> > inaccurate or incomplete, without providing any observable
> > implications, seems quite empty to me.
>
> It seems quite empty to you but not perhaps to them. They
> might also argue that unless you were to provide them some
> observable data that proves they are wrong, then your arguments
> are also quite empty to them.
I had assumed that most of us here teach students a somewhat
different model of knowledge, one in which the idea of proving
and disproving is not so central. It is obviously possible for
people to postulate all sorts of wild fantasies that would be
extremely difficult or even impossible to disprove, especially if
proponents argue there are no manifestations other than perhaps
some personal knowledge. If I were to assert that I have a
little spirit inside my head that talks to me, it is not obvious
how people could prove me wrong. I take it Linda's position
would be that she would give me the benefit of the doubt until
such proof was available, rather than opting for other
explanations (e.g., I was lying to make a point, I was
hallucinating on some chemical, ...).
> The bottom line for me in this discussion is that religion and
> science are not natural enemies. Perhaps, there is some
> inherent contradictions between fundamental Christian religions
> and science but I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss
> Christian fundamentalism. Anything I would say would be based
> on stereotypes and biases with which I am familiar.
Many people, including some scientists, would agree with you. My
suspicion is, however, that especially in a science like
psychology, it will be difficult to commit to empirically-based
and material explanations of human behavior and experience while
maintaining one's beliefs in such things (nonthings?) as
supernatural and nonmaterial forces, revealed wisdom, and the
like.
> Many of the claims made in favor of science against religion
> can be reversed in favor of religion against science. I'm not
> sure this is a useful discussion as it only serves to denigrate
> both. This does not mean that a reflective evaluation of each
> on its merits is not appropriate. However, perhaps it would be
> best if during these discussions we try to leave our
> "jaundiced" views and stereotypes checked at the door; they
> just seem unscientific ;-)
The only claim about science that I feel strongly about,
especially when it comes to teaching, is that science has
demonstrated itself as the best way to develop explanations for
the phenomena of the real world, including human behavior and
experience. I believe this assertion is scientifically
justifiable on the basis of the dramatic progress in our
scientific understanding of the world.
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
============================================================================
