"I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way."
Recently I attended a talk on the state of science education in Our Fair City. (My apologies if you choked on something when you saw the link. ;) I live under a pretty big rock sometimes, so I really didn't know what to expect from this talk, save that I thought the emphasis might be on teaching the process of critical thinking, rather than facts about science. And there was a good deal of valuable discussion on that point.
But the main point of discussion was the teaching of evolution in the classroom. Now, Our Fair City is pretty liberal, so I didn't think that this was a problem in our area. But apparently there is a survey out there somewhere that did not give Our Fair State a favorable ranking in science education. And apparently this has a great deal to do with how evolution is taught.
Yours truly was displeased to learn that science education has become synonymous with evolution. [Mini-rant begins.] Science is so much more than that. It is, first and foremost, a process of thinking critically about the evidence in front of you, whether that evidence be a fossil, the light from a star, or the behavior of an individual. Science is not a club you join, or a replacement for spirituality. (The chief doctrine of Buddhism is "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." As in, think critically about what's in front of you, and don't follow along like a sheep. So science does not have a monopoly on critical thinking.) And while science is also a community, it should not be a community that allows its actions to be dominated by an anti-religion agenda. [Mini-rant over.]
During all the back and forth about evolution vs. creation, yours truly was wondering 'Why doesn't the idea of evolution distress me? How did I get to this place?' I didn't get there by simply switching the authority to which I pledged my allegiance. I didn't get there through fear, or peer pressure. I got there by embracing and nurturing the power to ask questions and answer them for myself. I questioned authority, and found it lacking. I also found that authority didn't particularly care if I got hurt when I followed it, and therefore I was often better off thinking for myself.
My next question was 'Why aren't more people doing this?'
"One of the basic human desires is the desire to be dominated. Dictatorships and cults arise from the desire of certain communities to be dominated by some powerful figure. Our primate relatives often live in small packs dominated by one unquestioned leader. Maybe this is how we're programmed to respond. In any case, a dictator doesn't come into power by his personal force alone. He comes into power when people want to be led, when people want to transfer responsibility onto some supposedly greater person.
It's very convenient to be told what to do. You no longer have to think for yourself. You no longer have to make your own decisions. That can be a tremendous relief. It's why some of the smartest people in the world often fall prey to the kookiest cults. They're just tired of being responsible for themselves." - Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate, Brad Warner (2009). (Good book. Worth the read.)
Assuming that it is advantageous to be a critical thinker, how do you go about giving people (especially children) the ability to be independent thinkers? How do you give them the desire to be independent thinkers? What can you do to influence the next generation if you are neither parent nor teacher? And how do you do it without simply becoming another 'authority' to which they transfer their allegiance? (More thoughts on this are forthcoming.)
Friday, October 30, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Free To Be... Neurodiversity vs. Cognitive Liberty
“There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.”
I hereby point you to a recent series of posts on neurodiversity and cognitive liberty, beginning with a post by Casey Rae-Hunter, who identifies himself as an adult with Asperger's, and continuing with his follow-up post, which aims to clarify how neurodiveristy differs from cognitive liberty. The discussion is summarized in a post by George Dvorksy that fed to the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
Rae-Hunter's Principles of Cognitive Liberty... [My comments are bracketed.]
"1. Cognitive liberty is the basic right of an individual to pursue potentially beneficial psychological/neurological trajectories. If the individual is unable to make these choices themselves, than it is the right of their closest family members to make them, provided they are not coerced by the medical establishment or prevailing social strata. [I don't agree that the last sentence is a forgone conclusion. A non-family advocate, such as a case worker, may do more to actually advocate for the individual in many cases.]
2. Cognitive liberty recognizes that information and education are key to making informed choices. In the absence of such information, cognitive libertarians will advocate for the fullest range of data in when considering treatment options or lifestyle planning.
3. Cognitive liberty recognizes the range of psychological profiles in both the neurotypical world and otherwise. Until and unless an individual's psychology can be determined as infringing on another individual's cognitive liberty, they are free to pursue or not pursue strategies for conventional adaptation, possible enhancement or any other cognitive application — actual or postulatory.
4. Cognitive liberty recognizes the right to pharmacological experimentation, within existing legal structures. Where those structures are not beneficial or unnecessarily inhibit potentially useful individual research, cognitive libertarians reserve the right to challenge legal frameworks (and, where appropriate and with full comprehension of the punitive risks, step beyond them).
5. Cognitive liberty recognizes the essential function of the governmental regulatory apparatus, but places others' cognitive liberty ahead of the societal, legal or bureaucratic status quo. Through education, research and advocacy, cognitive libertarians can and should present information to policymakers that will enhance governmental comprehension of current and emerging issues. Where decisions are made, they must be transparent and open to debate.
6. Cognitive liberty is not an outlier of the neurodiversity movement. It is a separate, but complimentary effort to enhance understanding about the range of possibilities in self-directed cognition."
This is definitely a good start to defining the objectives and guiding principles of cognitive libertarians, but I would like to illuminate one point that may have gotten lost in the initial discussions.
The issues of neurodiversity and cognitive liberty are not restricted to autistics and those in the autism spectrum, though you might be forgiven for thinking that. Dvorsky attempts to extend the discussion a bit by referring to forced modification of sociopathic tendencies, though his support for the idea of cognitive liberty dodges a bit here - "I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…" (George, dude! I expect a follow-up post from you on this. Give it plenty of thought.)
Potent threats to cognitive liberty can also come from a variety of social pressures faced by 'normal' people, as discussed in a recent posting here, or from the idea that anything that can be classified as a mental pathology should be treated according to current medical guidelines.
We are constantly redefining what it means to be human. Some of these ideas still distress us 150 years after they first appeared. And we now have it within our grasp to artificially change how we express our humanity. It is up to us to make sure that this technology serves our highest ideals about humanity, not our lowest fears.
"One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that."
I hereby point you to a recent series of posts on neurodiversity and cognitive liberty, beginning with a post by Casey Rae-Hunter, who identifies himself as an adult with Asperger's, and continuing with his follow-up post, which aims to clarify how neurodiveristy differs from cognitive liberty. The discussion is summarized in a post by George Dvorksy that fed to the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.
Rae-Hunter's Principles of Cognitive Liberty... [My comments are bracketed.]
"1. Cognitive liberty is the basic right of an individual to pursue potentially beneficial psychological/neurological trajectories. If the individual is unable to make these choices themselves, than it is the right of their closest family members to make them, provided they are not coerced by the medical establishment or prevailing social strata. [I don't agree that the last sentence is a forgone conclusion. A non-family advocate, such as a case worker, may do more to actually advocate for the individual in many cases.]
2. Cognitive liberty recognizes that information and education are key to making informed choices. In the absence of such information, cognitive libertarians will advocate for the fullest range of data in when considering treatment options or lifestyle planning.
3. Cognitive liberty recognizes the range of psychological profiles in both the neurotypical world and otherwise. Until and unless an individual's psychology can be determined as infringing on another individual's cognitive liberty, they are free to pursue or not pursue strategies for conventional adaptation, possible enhancement or any other cognitive application — actual or postulatory.
4. Cognitive liberty recognizes the right to pharmacological experimentation, within existing legal structures. Where those structures are not beneficial or unnecessarily inhibit potentially useful individual research, cognitive libertarians reserve the right to challenge legal frameworks (and, where appropriate and with full comprehension of the punitive risks, step beyond them).
5. Cognitive liberty recognizes the essential function of the governmental regulatory apparatus, but places others' cognitive liberty ahead of the societal, legal or bureaucratic status quo. Through education, research and advocacy, cognitive libertarians can and should present information to policymakers that will enhance governmental comprehension of current and emerging issues. Where decisions are made, they must be transparent and open to debate.
6. Cognitive liberty is not an outlier of the neurodiversity movement. It is a separate, but complimentary effort to enhance understanding about the range of possibilities in self-directed cognition."
This is definitely a good start to defining the objectives and guiding principles of cognitive libertarians, but I would like to illuminate one point that may have gotten lost in the initial discussions.
The issues of neurodiversity and cognitive liberty are not restricted to autistics and those in the autism spectrum, though you might be forgiven for thinking that. Dvorsky attempts to extend the discussion a bit by referring to forced modification of sociopathic tendencies, though his support for the idea of cognitive liberty dodges a bit here - "I am admittedly on the fence with this one. My instinct tells me that we should never alter a person’s mind against their will; my common sense tells me that removing sociopathic tendencies is a good thing and ultimately beneficial to that individual. I’m going to have to ruminate over this one a bit further…" (George, dude! I expect a follow-up post from you on this. Give it plenty of thought.)
Potent threats to cognitive liberty can also come from a variety of social pressures faced by 'normal' people, as discussed in a recent posting here, or from the idea that anything that can be classified as a mental pathology should be treated according to current medical guidelines.
We are constantly redefining what it means to be human. Some of these ideas still distress us 150 years after they first appeared. And we now have it within our grasp to artificially change how we express our humanity. It is up to us to make sure that this technology serves our highest ideals about humanity, not our lowest fears.
"One way or another, we all have to find what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life, and dedicate ourselves to that."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
By Heresies Distressed (Pt II)
"Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood."
Some days ago I asked the questions - "Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used?"
After watching the NOVA special on Darwin, I got to thinking about the impact of Darwin's work. Darwin was portrayed as being worried about a very specific implication of his work. His work brought man and animal into the same sphere (those creatures subject to certain types of natural law), and struck a blow to the idea that Man was created in God's image and therefore fundamentally superior to animals. And while the NOVA special didn't portray this aspect of Darwin's thinking in great detail, it did convey that this was an important concern for Darwin. Perhaps his concerns were more for himself - as he undoubtedly knew that he would be vilified for suggesting something so abhorrent - or perhaps he did spend some time thinking about how the broader social consequences that would come with a wider acceptance of this idea.
Perhaps Darwin was also motivated to share the beauty he found in understand new laws of the universe - "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (q) Perhaps he keenly felt the obligation of a scientist - to measure and report. And he was pressured by the need to publish for priority.
The purpose of this post isn't to pass judgment on Darwin, but rather to get at answers to the questions I was asking. Darwin simply provides a compelling case study with which to attempt to answer those questions. After a week of ruminating on what I had watched, I find myself stuck on this thought... While Darwin gave the world valuable evidence for a valid new scientific perspective, what he (arguably) didn't do was to give man anything that alleviated any form of suffering. (One could even argue (although I won't attempt to) that Darwin's ideas have thus far proved to be a cause of additional suffering.) 'That is not the purpose of science,' you exclaim, and of course you're right. But where does the scientist's responsibility to add to the common knowledge of mankind meet his/her responsibility to enhance the collective good of mankind?
Do scientists simply have an obligation to discover and report? Or should they be asking themselves critical questions, such as... Are people suffering needlessly for lack of this knowledge? Would I want my children to have this knowledge, and why?
Assuming Darwin were free from any perceived need to publish for priority, how would he have argued the answers to these questions with respect to his ideas?
We cannot say that there are no other fundamental challenges awaiting us with respect to what it means to be human. The science journalist quoted in the previous post recently posted about free will. He chooses to reject a common scientific perspective - the idea that free will is an illusion - for the following reasons... "Free will works better than any other single criterion for gauging the vitality of a life, or a society. To me, choices, freely made, are what make life meaningful. Moreover, our faith in free will has social value. It provides us with the metaphysical justification for ethics and morality. It forces us to take responsibility for ourselves rather than consigning our fate to our genes or God." I'm sympathetic to the last point, as I've found acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions to be an important criterion for happiness. Does this mean I think that scientists should not persist in challenging the notion of 'free will'?
It's more accurate to say that I hope that scientists who are working with ideas that challenge fundamental notions about what it means to be human will stop to consider the broader social implications of their research, and perhaps even to answer the questions posed above, before proceeding to publish for a lay audience. Not because they are not correct to enhance our collective knowledge, but because we have collectively done such a poor job of receiving that knowledge. (More on that point in a future post.)
Some days ago I asked the questions - "Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used?"
After watching the NOVA special on Darwin, I got to thinking about the impact of Darwin's work. Darwin was portrayed as being worried about a very specific implication of his work. His work brought man and animal into the same sphere (those creatures subject to certain types of natural law), and struck a blow to the idea that Man was created in God's image and therefore fundamentally superior to animals. And while the NOVA special didn't portray this aspect of Darwin's thinking in great detail, it did convey that this was an important concern for Darwin. Perhaps his concerns were more for himself - as he undoubtedly knew that he would be vilified for suggesting something so abhorrent - or perhaps he did spend some time thinking about how the broader social consequences that would come with a wider acceptance of this idea.
Perhaps Darwin was also motivated to share the beauty he found in understand new laws of the universe - "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (q) Perhaps he keenly felt the obligation of a scientist - to measure and report. And he was pressured by the need to publish for priority.
The purpose of this post isn't to pass judgment on Darwin, but rather to get at answers to the questions I was asking. Darwin simply provides a compelling case study with which to attempt to answer those questions. After a week of ruminating on what I had watched, I find myself stuck on this thought... While Darwin gave the world valuable evidence for a valid new scientific perspective, what he (arguably) didn't do was to give man anything that alleviated any form of suffering. (One could even argue (although I won't attempt to) that Darwin's ideas have thus far proved to be a cause of additional suffering.) 'That is not the purpose of science,' you exclaim, and of course you're right. But where does the scientist's responsibility to add to the common knowledge of mankind meet his/her responsibility to enhance the collective good of mankind?
Do scientists simply have an obligation to discover and report? Or should they be asking themselves critical questions, such as... Are people suffering needlessly for lack of this knowledge? Would I want my children to have this knowledge, and why?
Assuming Darwin were free from any perceived need to publish for priority, how would he have argued the answers to these questions with respect to his ideas?
We cannot say that there are no other fundamental challenges awaiting us with respect to what it means to be human. The science journalist quoted in the previous post recently posted about free will. He chooses to reject a common scientific perspective - the idea that free will is an illusion - for the following reasons... "Free will works better than any other single criterion for gauging the vitality of a life, or a society. To me, choices, freely made, are what make life meaningful. Moreover, our faith in free will has social value. It provides us with the metaphysical justification for ethics and morality. It forces us to take responsibility for ourselves rather than consigning our fate to our genes or God." I'm sympathetic to the last point, as I've found acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions to be an important criterion for happiness. Does this mean I think that scientists should not persist in challenging the notion of 'free will'?
It's more accurate to say that I hope that scientists who are working with ideas that challenge fundamental notions about what it means to be human will stop to consider the broader social implications of their research, and perhaps even to answer the questions posed above, before proceeding to publish for a lay audience. Not because they are not correct to enhance our collective knowledge, but because we have collectively done such a poor job of receiving that knowledge. (More on that point in a future post.)
Friday, October 9, 2009
Free To Be... Cosmetic Neurology
(This one's for the 'friend' who recently offered me some of her prescription drugs.)
"We live in a culture that believes medication can solve almost any problem."
"The last thing a person concerned with brain power should do is gamble with using chemicals that influence her brain in ways that we do not understand."
- From a November 2009 Glamour article on 'sharing' prescription drugs.
Ignore the really large cup of coffee on my desk. I don't need it to write well, but it helps. This is the extent of my sympathy with chemically-tailored cognition.
The irony is that I will argue long and hard for cognitive liberty - your right to "the absolute sovereignty of [your] own consciousness." But the current trends towards accepting the expanded use of 'smart drugs' make me nervous.
Maybe it's because I was inundated with anti-drug messages during my formative years. There was a war on drugs that included some fairly-effective propaganda aimed at teenagers and young people. Apparently that message doesn't apply to these drugs.
In her Glamour article on the (apparently) common practice of sharing prescription drugs, the author includes statements like this - "While most experts agree that unsupervised pill popping is always risky, some have actually suggested that stimulants such as Adderall, Ritalin and Provigil should eventually become more available to people as study and work aids. In an editorial published last year in the scientific journal Nature, seven leading experts in medicine, science and law argued that using these drugs to boost mental performance was the way of the future. 'Cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society,' they said." While the article continues on to describe the potential downfall of this type of drug use, we are left with the feeling that the scientific 'stamp of approval' has already been given via the quote from Nature. (That Nature article gets around.)
And the cover story of the current issue of Scientific American tackles the same issue. (Boo! for not making the whole article available online.)
On principle, I object to the fact that the average reader has no access to the actual science that is being used to support various arguments for or against cosmetic neurology, and must rely on secondhand reports and media coverage for information.
But my stronger objection is this... The current practices of cosmetic neurology and cognitive enhancement include plenty of unregulated activity, as illustrated by the Glamour article. The danger is that this activity will/has become so prevalent that it establishes new norms to which others are then obliged and/or pressured to conform.
And therein lies a paradox - How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a decrease in liberty for those who follow? Should my children by obligated to take 'smart drugs' to stay competitive in school? Should I be obligated to take antidepressants to maintain a new standard of 'normal' behavior in my workplace?
And while there may currently be no explicit policies in place to mandate this type of drug use, our ideas about what is 'normal' are slowly and surely being altered to conform to new ideas about what is possible. "Our boss has started getting on my case for not being as productive... [as the guy] using unprescribed modafinil to work crazy hours..." (q) Hidden in every article referenced in this post are warnings about the unknown consequences of long-term, unprescribed, or unapproved use of prescription drugs for cosmetic (non-disease treating) purposes. Yet who will have the patience to wait for definitive scientific findings? And who will want to accept that s/he does not have the right to 'dope' his/her brain, especially if the practice is prevalent among peers?
"If we can improve cognitive systems in disease, can we also do so in health? Should we?" - Cosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Anjan Chatterjee, MD (2004).
I like my current state of cognition. I'd like the freedom to keep it as it is. If your freedom to change your state of mind interferes with my freedom to not change my state of mind, then we'll have to throw down. In the meantime, let's all make informed choices.
"We live in a culture that believes medication can solve almost any problem."
"The last thing a person concerned with brain power should do is gamble with using chemicals that influence her brain in ways that we do not understand."
- From a November 2009 Glamour article on 'sharing' prescription drugs.
Ignore the really large cup of coffee on my desk. I don't need it to write well, but it helps. This is the extent of my sympathy with chemically-tailored cognition.
The irony is that I will argue long and hard for cognitive liberty - your right to "the absolute sovereignty of [your] own consciousness." But the current trends towards accepting the expanded use of 'smart drugs' make me nervous.
Maybe it's because I was inundated with anti-drug messages during my formative years. There was a war on drugs that included some fairly-effective propaganda aimed at teenagers and young people. Apparently that message doesn't apply to these drugs.
In her Glamour article on the (apparently) common practice of sharing prescription drugs, the author includes statements like this - "While most experts agree that unsupervised pill popping is always risky, some have actually suggested that stimulants such as Adderall, Ritalin and Provigil should eventually become more available to people as study and work aids. In an editorial published last year in the scientific journal Nature, seven leading experts in medicine, science and law argued that using these drugs to boost mental performance was the way of the future. 'Cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society,' they said." While the article continues on to describe the potential downfall of this type of drug use, we are left with the feeling that the scientific 'stamp of approval' has already been given via the quote from Nature. (That Nature article gets around.)
And the cover story of the current issue of Scientific American tackles the same issue. (Boo! for not making the whole article available online.)
On principle, I object to the fact that the average reader has no access to the actual science that is being used to support various arguments for or against cosmetic neurology, and must rely on secondhand reports and media coverage for information.
But my stronger objection is this... The current practices of cosmetic neurology and cognitive enhancement include plenty of unregulated activity, as illustrated by the Glamour article. The danger is that this activity will/has become so prevalent that it establishes new norms to which others are then obliged and/or pressured to conform.
And therein lies a paradox - How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a decrease in liberty for those who follow? Should my children by obligated to take 'smart drugs' to stay competitive in school? Should I be obligated to take antidepressants to maintain a new standard of 'normal' behavior in my workplace?
And while there may currently be no explicit policies in place to mandate this type of drug use, our ideas about what is 'normal' are slowly and surely being altered to conform to new ideas about what is possible. "Our boss has started getting on my case for not being as productive... [as the guy] using unprescribed modafinil to work crazy hours..." (q) Hidden in every article referenced in this post are warnings about the unknown consequences of long-term, unprescribed, or unapproved use of prescription drugs for cosmetic (non-disease treating) purposes. Yet who will have the patience to wait for definitive scientific findings? And who will want to accept that s/he does not have the right to 'dope' his/her brain, especially if the practice is prevalent among peers?
"If we can improve cognitive systems in disease, can we also do so in health? Should we?" - Cosmetic neurology: The controversy over enhancing movement, mentation, and mood. Anjan Chatterjee, MD (2004).
I like my current state of cognition. I'd like the freedom to keep it as it is. If your freedom to change your state of mind interferes with my freedom to not change my state of mind, then we'll have to throw down. In the meantime, let's all make informed choices.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Six-Word Memoirs
"What is better than telling stories?"
The human condition in six words.
"Six-Word Memoirs: The Legend
Legend has it that Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in only six words. His response? “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” Starting in 2006, SMITH Magazine re-ignited the recountre by asking our readers for their own six-word memoirs. They sent in short life stories in droves, from the bittersweet (“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”) and poignant (“I still make coffee for two”) to the inspirational (“Business school? Bah! Pop music? Hurrah”) and hilarious (“I like big butts, can’t lie”)."
Ooh, a challenge. Must write some.
Yours as comment; I dare you.
The human condition in six words.
"Six-Word Memoirs: The Legend
Legend has it that Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in only six words. His response? “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” Starting in 2006, SMITH Magazine re-ignited the recountre by asking our readers for their own six-word memoirs. They sent in short life stories in droves, from the bittersweet (“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”) and poignant (“I still make coffee for two”) to the inspirational (“Business school? Bah! Pop music? Hurrah”) and hilarious (“I like big butts, can’t lie”)."
Ooh, a challenge. Must write some.
- Sought knowledge. Bought college. Still searching.
- The word 'normal' no longer applies.
- Randomness refined. No equations. Pure mind.
- Honesty in anonymity. Scattered specificity. Hidden.
- This couldn't have been an accident.
Yours as comment; I dare you.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
By Heresies Distressed (Pt I)
"Censorship is the height of vanity."
Yet yours truly has actually spent a great deal of time considering the idea that there are some things which perhaps should remain, let's say, 'out of sight' of the general public. I've been having this debate with myself for years with respect to certain ideas/areas in science. Not because I want to see science censored, but because the dissemination of scientific work doesn't always result in (immediate) progress in bettering the human condition. And if it has the potential to make social conditions worse, does the scientist bear a responsibility to censor his/her work?
The immediate impetus for this post was the realization that NOVA was airing a two-hour program tonight called Darwin's Darkest Hour, with the teaser "Charles Darwin must decide whether to make the theory of evolution public." And that reignited my internal debate about the responsibilities of science and the scientist.
Given the respect accorded to science in our society, the generally high inability to think critically about science possessed by a majority of people, and the tendency to apply scientific results inappropriately when creating public programs/policy, one can reasonably ask - Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used? (If you are a scientist, chances are that you found that last question offensive. Read on.)
A science journalist recently stated: "First, I think at least one topic is beyond the pale. Claims that certain races are innately less intelligent than others are so noxious—with so much potential to exacerbate racism–that I disapprove of their dissemination; in fact I’d like to see research on race and intelligence discontinued, because it has less than zero social value."
At first blush, I find the idea that any scientific knowledge should be censored to be offensive. I don't want anything to be kept or hidden from me because you think I can't handle it. I find it offensive when someone tells me that I shouldn't read The Bell Curve or The God Delusion. (Full disclosure: These are the only books that I have been actively hassled for reading. Hassled by well-educated friends, whose spontaneous reaction upon seeing me reading these books was 'I can't believe you're reading that', followed by an extensive rant on why that was unacceptable, and (in one case) a recommendation that I read something more 'normal', like Nora Roberts.)
But you don't truly understand a point of view until you can sympathize with it. An infamous hacker chick once vented about how the next 'Darwin' might be put off from going public with any similar ideological/scientific leap, because the social consequences might be a net negative. (If you are wondering how this has any relevance now, consider this essay about one area of science that is waiting to 'find its Darwin'.)
In a weird twist of irony, much of the fiction I've been reading lately also deals with the battle between knowledge and ignorance, and various rationales for failing to disseminate knowledge. I have resolved nothing new in my ongoing debate, save that I'll be watching NOVA tonight with this quote in mind...
"We wander through our lives and then we die. But for all of us there is one moment, one crucial point, where we have to make a decision between what's right and what's wrong, between different visions of who we might be."
Yet yours truly has actually spent a great deal of time considering the idea that there are some things which perhaps should remain, let's say, 'out of sight' of the general public. I've been having this debate with myself for years with respect to certain ideas/areas in science. Not because I want to see science censored, but because the dissemination of scientific work doesn't always result in (immediate) progress in bettering the human condition. And if it has the potential to make social conditions worse, does the scientist bear a responsibility to censor his/her work?
The immediate impetus for this post was the realization that NOVA was airing a two-hour program tonight called Darwin's Darkest Hour, with the teaser "Charles Darwin must decide whether to make the theory of evolution public." And that reignited my internal debate about the responsibilities of science and the scientist.
Given the respect accorded to science in our society, the generally high inability to think critically about science possessed by a majority of people, and the tendency to apply scientific results inappropriately when creating public programs/policy, one can reasonably ask - Is there any area of the human condition which science should not explore and report upon with complete impartiality? Should social considerations have a role in determining what areas science is allowed to investigate, and how the results should be disseminated/used? (If you are a scientist, chances are that you found that last question offensive. Read on.)
A science journalist recently stated: "First, I think at least one topic is beyond the pale. Claims that certain races are innately less intelligent than others are so noxious—with so much potential to exacerbate racism–that I disapprove of their dissemination; in fact I’d like to see research on race and intelligence discontinued, because it has less than zero social value."
At first blush, I find the idea that any scientific knowledge should be censored to be offensive. I don't want anything to be kept or hidden from me because you think I can't handle it. I find it offensive when someone tells me that I shouldn't read The Bell Curve or The God Delusion. (Full disclosure: These are the only books that I have been actively hassled for reading. Hassled by well-educated friends, whose spontaneous reaction upon seeing me reading these books was 'I can't believe you're reading that', followed by an extensive rant on why that was unacceptable, and (in one case) a recommendation that I read something more 'normal', like Nora Roberts.)
But you don't truly understand a point of view until you can sympathize with it. An infamous hacker chick once vented about how the next 'Darwin' might be put off from going public with any similar ideological/scientific leap, because the social consequences might be a net negative. (If you are wondering how this has any relevance now, consider this essay about one area of science that is waiting to 'find its Darwin'.)
In a weird twist of irony, much of the fiction I've been reading lately also deals with the battle between knowledge and ignorance, and various rationales for failing to disseminate knowledge. I have resolved nothing new in my ongoing debate, save that I'll be watching NOVA tonight with this quote in mind...
"We wander through our lives and then we die. But for all of us there is one moment, one crucial point, where we have to make a decision between what's right and what's wrong, between different visions of who we might be."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
