Even Science Is Primarily Political

One of the things that I have come to a reluctant conclusion on is the fact that hard science is not really hard at all. It is subject to the same vagaries that all things human are, which is a fancy way of saying politics. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is just the latest of many unsubstantiated theories touted as fact for political gain. This is nothing new with recent examples including ice age hysteria in the 1970’s and about anything to do with the Leakey’s in Africa.

For me, learning the reality of this has gored some of my sacred oxen held from childhood. I was always ready to believe my teachers and Walter Cronkite (aka Voice of God to generations) when they breathlessly talked about the latest discovery. Somewhere in my late teens I began to look harder at things as my love of things scientific blossomed further. I admit a twinge of desire that I had not done so, for ignorance truly is bliss.

So when my father forwarded the link to a story on child psychologist Arnold Gessell, I recognized the timeless aspect of politically motivated but accepted theories that had been flushed down the toilet once exposed to the sunlight of reality.  Eugenics is one of the nastier branches of science that has long since been discredited, but one hundred years ago it was at the cutting edge of left wing politics. Of course it took decades for it to fall out of favor, yet it spawned an organization, Planned Parenthood, which is still very active today. This quote sums up the problem:

How, Harris wondered, did someone such as Gesell become so enamored of eugenics that he would actually manipulate research? Harris said it is important to place Gesell in the context of the times. Social scientists were as much crusaders for the improvement of the human lot as they were researchers.

Things are no different today.

This behavior is not uncommon, despite what researchers would have you believe. There is another influence that does damage and that is simple greed. Far too much money flows into science supporting causes, though I admit quite a bit of data doctoring is also to keep one’s position in a “publish or perish” academic climate.

Beware do-gooders in science is what I say since it usually ends up skewing all the results . Science needs to be cold and ruthless. More Spock’s and fewer Dr. McCoy’s are needed. It may not be exciting to the masses, but I prefer accuracy over popularity. I imagine the residents of Alma back in 1913 would agree.

To wit, science should no longer be put upon a pedestal. Perhaps it never should have been in the first place. I can only hope time filters out all the corrupted data rather than accumulating it or we are in real trouble.