Monday, March 21, 2005
Science and Pseudo-Science
In undergraduate school I was inducted into the Sigma Zi Honorary Fraternity for Science. This is no mean achievement for an undergraduate student and when I was notified I was quite elated. That is until I discovered that I was to be initiated with some psychology students.
In the end it was one of my better lessons in university politics. I protested quite heatedly to the chairman of my department, the chemistry department, that the use of the scientific method did not science make. I prattled on and on about an inability to conduct true experimentation, the lack of serious mathematical modelling, and other quite eloquent arguments. Dear Dr. Quinney listened patiently, told me I was absolutely right and then said, "You had Sally Beck [psych prof] your sophomore year didn't you?" I responded positively, to which he responed, "So you want to tell her no?" Message received.
I could not help but think of that story when I read this post from new friend Matthew Anderson at Mere-Orthodoxy. The story concerns some recent anthropological study into the origins of altruism. Matt makes two great points about the New Scientist story on the study.
His first point is that the data developed really creates a divide between man and other animals, something animal rights activists are loathe to hear. I just love it when scholars figure out what most people already know.
The other point Matt makes is that the study methodology and conclusions in anthropology are subject to great suspicion. This point is true for virtually any "science" in which direct experimentation is either impossible or unethical. Anyway, Matt makes the point by quoting one of my favorites, G.K. Chesterton.
If you have never read Chesterton, some of his books should be mandatory for anyone that wants to claim the label Christian. My strongest recommendation is for Orthodoxy, but the book Matt cites, The Everlasting Man, is pretty good too.
In the end it was one of my better lessons in university politics. I protested quite heatedly to the chairman of my department, the chemistry department, that the use of the scientific method did not science make. I prattled on and on about an inability to conduct true experimentation, the lack of serious mathematical modelling, and other quite eloquent arguments. Dear Dr. Quinney listened patiently, told me I was absolutely right and then said, "You had Sally Beck [psych prof] your sophomore year didn't you?" I responded positively, to which he responed, "So you want to tell her no?" Message received.
I could not help but think of that story when I read this post from new friend Matthew Anderson at Mere-Orthodoxy. The story concerns some recent anthropological study into the origins of altruism. Matt makes two great points about the New Scientist story on the study.
His first point is that the data developed really creates a divide between man and other animals, something animal rights activists are loathe to hear. I just love it when scholars figure out what most people already know.
The other point Matt makes is that the study methodology and conclusions in anthropology are subject to great suspicion. This point is true for virtually any "science" in which direct experimentation is either impossible or unethical. Anyway, Matt makes the point by quoting one of my favorites, G.K. Chesterton.
If you have never read Chesterton, some of his books should be mandatory for anyone that wants to claim the label Christian. My strongest recommendation is for Orthodoxy, but the book Matt cites, The Everlasting Man, is pretty good too.
