Holsinger and the Definition of Unscientific

June 16, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Much is being said right now about Dr. James W. Holsinger, Jr., President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, because of the 1991 paper he wrote, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.” I will not address this subject for or against homosexuality, for or against the nomination, but from the use or abuse of science, and what I fear it illustrates about our society. Please consider:

The major article by ABC stimulating the controversy implies that the 1991 work by Holsinger is unscientific, and in the label for the video accompanying the article, ABC calls him “homophobic.” The article cited an objecting professor who said, “I an’t [sic] imagine that any scientific journal would be able to publish this material because of its very narrow views of homosexuality.” The reason it should not be published? It is narrow in its view, not that it is not right or true or well documented. Any academic should also realize that the piece is a position paper–not intended for research journal publication, but to argue a position. (Should not science inform decisions and thereafter be used to argue the position?) The professor and others are further sited as saying the information is “outdated,” “totally faulty,” and that Holsinger “doesn’t know anything about human sexuality.” Holsinger cites 14 noted science journals and reputable science texts in his paper (all but one of which are dated within 5 years of Holsinger’s paper, well within the acceptable range to be call “current” at the time of publication). The opposing views contain no references to articles or books that refute him, yet the term “unscientific” has become a catch word from his opposition. A quick web search with the two words “Hosinger” and “unscientific” will demonstrate how (and with whom) this idea has caught on. Read his paper. See if you think it is unscientific.

My issue here is with the way his accusers argue that he is “unscientific,” and yet I wonder if most people who use the term even think about its definition. Anyone who has observed our society for more than a couple of decades should be able to catch the drift: a person is labeled “homophobic” not because of his emotional expression, but based on his position on an issue. A person is labeled “unscientific” not because of the evidence or logic of the argument, but because of the position one takes. When people move from arguing based on “that’s not right because..” to arguing based on “what right do you have to say that?” we have abandoned our constitutional (human) right of expression, but also logic in general and science in particular.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »