One of the claims that I hear leveled at scientists and science-minded people most often is that of scientism. Now, most people don’t use that word. Fair enough. Scientism can be one of two things, one is a legitimate belief, and the other is not. The first is that science is the best and most powerful way to discover things about the world. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Science is a very powerful tool to understand the wonder of the universe and I think the best thing that we have to do so. However, on the other side of the coin is the elitist notion that science is the most important thing and that scientists are above others (so we don’t have to explain things to non-experts or even care about them). This is very false, and damaging to everyone, expert and non-expert alike. It is easy, locked up in a lab with your knowledge and expertise and research, to forget how important the average person is. Even if you are not a scientist, but a scientific person, it is simple to devalue the other person through knowledge that the other person does not happen to possess. This elitism means that we can look down on people who are suffering for not being as knowledgeable as us. Nowhere is this more prevalent or problematic than when Americans look at other countries. It is simple to write off those in other parts of the world who do not have access to the same scientific knowledge as us, or to write off cultures who do not place the same importance on scientific discovery. We must be watchful to remember that intellectual or not, learned or not, people are people and we must help them. Not just educate them. Help them. Compassion rather than condescension must be the order of the day. Science must be used to help everyone on this planet, not be used as a tool to create an in-group and an out-group. This is our duty, as scientific citizens and as people.
0 Comments
If I had to pick someone to write the preface to the first printed edition of the Qur’an, Martin Luther, father of the protestant Christian movement would not be first on the list. However, in 1543 that is exactly what he did, penning a short introduction (below) to a Latin translation published by Theodore Bibliander and Johannes Oporinus in Basel, Switzerland. It was the first translation of the Qur’an into a Western language. Luther found a translation of the earlier work from 1160 Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete (The Laws of the False-Prophet Muhammed). Luther hoped that a published Qur’an (along with other Muslim texts) would help Christians understand the continuing power of the other religion. Of course, this was not to nurture a relationship of understanding and compassion between them, the press of the Sultan was very present, but to better argue and refute the words of Muhammad. It is worth saying that in this preface, as well as other writings he did about “the Turks” in previous years, he takes a less aggressive position than many of his contemporaries. His focus, overall, is more about convincing Christians to repent of their sins (for which he believed the Muslims were a punishment from God) than advocating the continued fight against the enemies. Martin Luther represents a continuation of a trend that sets Christianity and Islam up as enemies. Certainly there is a political aspect to this position, with a long history of conquest and fighting since they first came into contact, however Luther put this into a moral context. While one can argue that this is to make the fight against the Muslims more palatable, but whatever the original reason this moral war of faiths continues. Political conflicts in the Middle East and beyond are translated into a moral battle with Christians viewing Muslims as misguided, or, even worse, tools of the devil. It is this view that is engrained within the broader Christian consciousness. It is not the intention to learn and grow from Islam, but rather to “defeat” Islam (while other faiths are spared this specific ire). To help to mend issues that plague much of modern human history we must consider this belief and evaluate the issues and conflict inherent within it. While Islam is a rapidly growing religion (possibly threatening the power that Christianity possesses) there is still much to learn and much peace to be made despite the legacy that Martin Luther propagated.
The placebo effect is a wonderful and fascinating effect of our minds. It gives us insight into the complexity of human powers of healing and the effect of our perceptions on our experience. That is not to suggest, however, that the placebo effect has no side effects. Some of the results are nothing if not dire.
Take homeopathy, for example. Besides one much disproved article in the scientific journal Nature[1] there is little credible research supporting the ideas of “like cures like” and water has memory, which are the central tenants of the system. These ideas lead to the practices of diluting something past the dilution limit (so that not even one molecule of the diluted substance remains in the solution) that in normal concentrations would provoke the symptoms the homoeopathist is attempting to cure. Blinded studies into homeopathy have determined that the benefits ascribed to the practice are indistinguishable from the placebo effect[2] (when patients see a benefit to a medicine with being unknowingly given an inert substitute). Homeopathy represents the most well-established brand of “natural” medicines, which purport to come from an earthy knowledge that has somehow been lost in our urban society. In the truest sense of the word pseudoscience, these claims borrow the trappings of science to promote a claim that has no backing in science that can as of yet be proven[3]. However, millions of people around the world turn to homeopathy to sooth their ailments, everything from aches to viruses to genetic disease. Many find relief from the practice, and stories about the miracles of homeopathy are not difficult to find. It is tempting, then, in the face of all this benefit, to write homeopathy off as something that might not be good science, but at least makes people feel better. However, this thinking suggests that there are no consequences to using a system that has no scientific backing. Besides the tendency to stretch the powers of homeopathy past the limits of the placebo effect (a sugar pill might cure a back ache, but it won’t cure sickle-cell anemia), there is a real danger of confusing science with pseudoscience. In a very apropos way for homeopathy, it dilutes the power of real scientific findings, while at the same time promoting a fear of science by billing itself as privy to a secret science is unable to grasp. This together makes people more vulnerable as they view medicine with suspicion and turn their backs on the breakthrough that, though far from perfect in many cases, might provide a solution to their problem. Permeating through our culture, this idea of scientific paranoia can lead to damning consequences such as the current movement towards anti-vaccination [1] Dayenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, Oberbaum M, Robinzon B, Miadonna A, Tedeschit A, Pomeranz B, Fortner P, Belon P, Sainte-Laudy J, Poitevin B, Benveniste J (30 June 1988). "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE"(PDF). Nature. 333 (6176): 816–818. [2] Linde, K; Scholz, M; Ramirez, G; Clausius, N; Melchart, D; Jonas, WB (1999), "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy", Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52 (7): 631–6, [3] Khuda-Bukhsh, AR. (2003). “Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview”. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 253(1-2):339-45. Have you ever felt sad because something is disappearing around you? Know you will miss something before it is gone? Feel pain as your environment is pulled out from under your feet? Glenn Albrecht defines this feeling as Solastalgia. As an environmental philosopher he uses this term to understand the impact of the destruction of nature by focusing on how humans both affect and are affected by the changing natural landscape. His theory can be easily applied to the purely human that each of us live in – culture. The same loss and pain we feel when we lose a natural part of our environment can also be felt as the cultural environment we grew up with fade or change. We may cling to stands of that culture long after they stop being integrated within the broader scene, or we may decide to cling to something new, but that stands in direct opposition to the newest knowledge. In a word, pseudoscience. Of course, it is not that simple. Many factors go into someone’s choice in believing something over something else. However, the seductively simple answers for complex questions of life that pseudoscience provides are suggestive. One historical (now defunct) example of this is the belief in phrenology, which posits that areas of the skull can be used to determine the size of different areas of the brain (such as critical thinking or spite or religiosity). It was primarily created in support of Eugenics, it in itself a way of pushing against the social movements that advocated rights for marginalized groups. While Albrecht used this theory to advocate conservation, in the realm of pseudoscience there is no going back. However, an understanding of while believers cling to these disproved notions allows those on the outside work in reasonable ways to change incorrect perceptions. I am fascinated by interesting beliefs. Everything from a cult that says aliens made this planet last week and we have been living in an illusion ever since to whether Elvis is living in Maine as a McDonalds cashier. Not just the beliefs themselves, either, but the people who hold them. I am interested in what makes a person believe something outside the norm when everything from evidence to societal pressures try to convince them otherwise. Not that I would necessarily like them to give up their beliefs. If you want to believe that god is a blue raccoon, that is really fine by me. But I really do want to hear about what shade of blue she is and her opinions about how humans treat raccoons in our society. That being said there are some beliefs that hurt people. There are beliefs that kill and damage and make life worse for the world. And these are ideas that I cannot accept. Pseudoscience and bad science have repercussions far beyond just the practitioners, and have the ability to hurt both innocent people and society at large. This is not acceptable. We as a community must work to stop these things from happening. First the gap between “science people” and “holistic people” has to be bridged, rather than widened. We must find a dialogue to understand not just why people believe things, but how to communicate with them about their beliefs in a meaningful way. |
AuthorI am a student at the University of New Mexico working on a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.A. in Professional Writing. I am fascinated by why people believe weird things and how that impacts broader society. ArchivesCategories
All
|