Science "going too far"?

There has been some discussion in the previous post about whether or not science can 'go too far'. My take on this has been that science is the collection (verb) of knowledge and thus cannot be unethical, and that the problem lies in the application of that knowledge (technology). Kristen and Dave wondered whether cloning research itself (i.e., studying stem cells) can be considered questionably ethical because we don't know how that research can be applied. To which I said bah![1]

Now, how about this guy?

J.P. Rushton has been causing a stir in the scientific community and generally making me grumpy for years.

Part of Rushton's impressive vitae is a questionable (and questioned) line of research examining differences in intelligence[2] between Asian, Caucasian, and Black people. His conclusions boil down to: Asians are smart, Blacks are dumb, and White folks are in the middle (juuuuust right, perhaps?).

Is this an example of 'science going too far'?

I have claimed that science cannot go too far as it is simply the collection of knowledge, and that the application of this knowledge is where things can potentially go kablooie. However, this is a case where:

a) I can't see the benefit of this research (though maybe someone can explain it to me).

b) I CAN see a HUGE potential for abuse, both by people who understand this research AND by those who don't understand it.

c) I can't see what the motivation is for this research. What questions are we answering in this line of research?

On the one hand, Rushton's research is probably the most thorough examination of the relationship between race[3] and intelligence. And I would argue that we don't always need to have a practical application in mind when we do research. Basic research is often conducted for the sole (and important) purpose of furthering our knowledge in an area, with the hope of linking that information with other information in the future. And that is worthwhile research. Sometimes we don't know where a line of research will take us, or who will do what with the results. Kudos to Rushton if he understands that concept.

However, in this case, I can only think of negative applications of these results. I am not sure what would drive someone to invest SO MUCH ENERGY into demonstrating intelligence differences between races. Rushton has spent decades (and presumably a lot of research money) working to show racial differences in intelligence, and sexual and criminal behaviour.

But wait, there's more!

When I was in Illinois, studying Psychology at a very well-respected school, every couple of years a miniature version of Rushton's book[4] would mysteriously show up in the mailboxes of all the grad students. I'm not sure who put them there, whether Rushton himself mailed them out or some eager local brought them by, but what could possibly be the point of mailing out unsolicited collections of research claiming to prove that blacks are inferior? This is not a common practice. Every time these showed up, there were piles of them in the garbage can.

So, you decide!

Ruston: A man of science or a man obsessed with carefully examining the precise correlation between the vague concept of intelligence and the vague concept of race?


Notes:
[1] This is the Ebenezer Scrooge 'bah' not to be confused with the Dolly the sheep 'baah'.
[2] Whatever that is.
[3] Whatever that is.
[4] Rushton's mini-book was like a little bible, except with even more potential to make people hate eachother.

Evolution and Intelligent Design

Here is the first in what I expect will be a series of posts relating to the topic of ... well, thinking.

My friend Jeff just sent me a link to this article on Intelligent Design in Kansas schools. Here's my politically correct (if quickly written) reply to Jeff:

Solution: Two courses.

Course #1: Science. Principles of science, scientific method, experimental design, etc.

Course #2: Big Questions. How did we get here? What's the deal with Trump's hair?, etc.

Course #1 prepares students to use the scientific method to explore the world. There is absolutely no place for intelligent design in this course except of course as an example of how scientific examination can refute a theory.

Course #2 gives students some perspective on how we can take different perspectives on larger, unsolvable questions of life. Evolution is not THE answer to our questions, it's just the best SCIENTIFIC theory we have. The best non-scientific or FAITH-BASED theory is intelligent design. These are two ways of answering a question. Neither one is inherently better than the other, it's just that one is scientific (and therefore a better theory within the domain of science) and the other is faith-based (and therefore a better theory within the domain of religion or other non-scientific areas).

I don't object to the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution. These are both valid theories of how we got here. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory and should never be taught as part of a science course. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that teaching intelligent design in a science class would give students a confused and conflicted concept of what science is.

I will go even one step further to claim that the high school science teachers who want to include intelligent design in their curriculum don't have a deep understanding of what science is themselves, and probably should not be teaching science.

Welcome!

Welcome to this blog. I set this up a couple of months ago, and I've been meaning to write in it ever since. I seem to be suffering from a combination of what-to-write-about first syndrome and when-to-grade-all-these-damned-midterm-tests disease (non-contagious, but brain-degenerative). So, why not warm up the fingers with a little welcome message.

When I lived in Illinois, I got a chance to write a weekly mass-email inviting people to the Psychology grad student Happy Hour. It had been a 4 or 5 year tradition at that point (I took over for my last year there) and the emails were typically 10% invitation and 90% some kind of goofy story or fun take on some news item. Every Wednesday I would sit down and try to figure out what the heck I could write about. Some weeks nothing came out, but most of the time I was able to put together something that would amuse myself and at least a couple of my friends.

When I left Illinois and traveled for a while, there was always something to write about, and I had so much fun sending back ridiculous (but true) stories of ... well mostly ridiculous stories about how I injured myself in various countries.

Anyway, the two things I loved most about these projects were the feedback I got from friends, and the practice of regularly writing things. The emails were a great way to keep in touch with people, and I loved being forced (in the Happy Hour case) to sit down and come up with something creative every week.

Since moving back to my home town, I've landed a great job teaching at the college, bought a duplex to fix up, fallen in love with a wonderful person, and now Simon, Kristen, and I basically just roll around in big piles of happiness all day (alas, there's no money in teaching). But I'm missing three things in my life: travel, writing, and you! I can travel (to you) in the summer, but I'm writing now.

I hope you are doing well and appreciating the ridiculous and wonderful things in your life!

jay