Does Science Belong Here?

Scientists continue to insert their particular methods and viewpoints into every aspect of life, but questions might be raised about the validity of their findings and the propriety of scientists acting as advisors on moral and political questions.

1. Happiness science:  Advice found online: “the best way to increase your happiness is to stop worrying about being happy and instead divert your energy to nurturing the social bonds you have with other people.”  Did that come from a religious counselor or family member?  No, it was on Science Daily, touting what “psychological science” has concluded.  Live Science added material on “why were’re not happy” and “how to be happy” based on research by psychologists at the University of Denver.
2. Gossip science:  Live Science presumed to explain “Why we love juicy gossip mags”.  While some might respond “Speak for yourself,” Joseph Brownstein entertained the antics of a primatologist from UC Davis, Eliza Bliss-Moreau, who speculated about why unobserved ancestors may have found gossip titillating.  Whether experiments on human subjects presented with visual stimuli say anything about unobserved ancestors, the article was confident in its ignorance: “While the reasons negative gossip draws attention are still unknown, researchers noted that it matches up with evolutionary findings in people and in animals.”
       Medical Xpress then said that gossip can actually serve a useful purpose.  According to Lisa Feldman Barrett of the Northeastern University, gossip helps us see potential threats: “The researchers said gossip gives people information about whether a person might be a friend or foe, and suggest that being able to spot the face of a person about whom they have heard negative stories could provide some social protection by focusing on people who could be a threat.”  The article appeared to be completely mechanistic and amoral.  It omitted discussing the downside of gossip that is untrue.
3. Love science:  A photo of a happy couple accompanies an article on Science Daily that announced, “Want Lasting Love?  It’s Not More Commitment, but Equal Commitment That Matters.”  But did they get their material from Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council?  No – the article relied on the work of six researchers from academia, who “used the rich mine of data in the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (MLSRA), coupled with a lab procedure, to look for the answers” of lasting relationships.  Can science go beyond correlations and statistics to present advice? 
4. Abortion science:  An article on Medical Xpress claims that Poland’s law making abortions illegal has reduced hospital abortions by 99% but led to a flourishing private abortion industry.  While gathering statistics may be valid for researchers, the article stated, “Women have been the biggest losers during this push of abortion provision into the clandestine private sector,” tainting the findings with suggestions of policy advice throughout the article.
5. Global politics:  Ever heard of the Anthropocene Era?  That is a name some scientists are giving to the period of earth history showing influence by humans.  PhysOrg said that humans are giving the earth an “extreme makeover,” leading scientists to become geopolitical advisors.  The Anthropocene concept “forces us to ponder whether humanity’s outsized impact on the planet could lead to undesired, possibly uncontrollable, outcomes, and what, if anything, humanity should do about it,” the article said.  “That leaves scientists who may be more comfortable classifying rocks than rocking the boat in a tricky position.”
6. IQ and criminal justice:  New Scientist posted a story with unpleasant throwbacks to eugenics and impacts on criminal law.  “Some people in the US may have been wrongly executed because of inaccuracies in the IQ tests used to assess them,” the article by Jessica Griggs began.  “But the inaccuracies may also have seen some escape execution if they scored lower on the tests than their real IQ.”  That reference to “real IQ” presumes that IQ is a valid concept that could, in principle be measured with accurate IQ tests (04/27/2011, bullet 1).

These articles in the “science” media raise questions about whether researchers should just state their findings, and leave policy to the government and culture.  Laws against drug abuse, for instance, contribute to many unsavory consequences in crime and drug trafficking, but is it the job of scientists or “researchers” to present legal advice?
    The same questions could be asked about laws regarding anything: monopolies, energy policy, vice and prostitution, alcoholism, and much more.  Additionally, science appears to continue usurping roles traditionally given to counselors outside the science department.  Whether that advice is more valid than those of non-scientists is bound to raise questions about the presumptive authority of scientists and the so-called scientific method, if there is such a thing.

The word researcher sounds so authoritative.  It’s much more satisfying that speculator or storyteller or divination artist.  “I’m not making this up; I’m researching.”  But research as a concept is so broad it could include anything.  The reader of a gossip mag is “researching” whether Elvis really landed in a spaceship with the ultimate diet.  Take off the re- prefix; it should be just searching.  We should all be searching for the truth.  Truth is not the sole domain of scientists.
    What are the standards for research, and is research limited to the science department?  Don’t all academics do research, even theologians, historians and students writing term papers?  The quality and validity of research are prime concerns for the claims above.  Calling the proponents researchers or scientists (seekers of “knowledge”) assumes what they need to demonstrate.  Critical analysis is needed, not regurgitation by toady reporters enraptured like groupies with the aura of science.  Such criticism is sadly lacking in the science media.
    Science in its idealized state should stick to observations and seek to link causes to effects.  Whether that is even possible is subject to much philosophical debate.  But when scientists step out of observations and try to give advice, like telling us how to be happy, or that we need to be global citizens, they are out of line.  Their opinions deserve only one man, one vote.  They need to keep their greedy hands out of the humanities.
    You can help reduce the fallacy of scientism in our culture by taking a scientist to church.  Let the researcher learn something about his or her fallibility.  Let the scientist learn about the beginning of wisdom, the fear of God.  But remind them it is only the beginning of wisdom.  It takes years of research in the Operations Manual to achieve maturity.  We all need to be wise, mature searchers and researchers.
    Here’s a better use of science: helping people.  Read this Science Daily story and rejoice!