Of Baramins and Baloney 3

[This is the continued posting of an email conversation begun with a blog comment to my
Oct 19, 2008 post.]
Mark,
I see that you are a biologist, while I am only a sociologist. I would not call it a “conspiracy theory,” because by that I would mean something intentional and organized. As a sociologist I see humans as having a natural tendency to not collect information contrary to what they already want to believe. I do that. All humans do (cognitive dissonance). Collectively it is even more powerful (social identity theory). My (truly unsupported) hope is that scientists can allow others to pursue research based on assumptions contrary to their own without condescension. Perhaps, just perhaps, there may be a discovery that otherwise would not have been made. Then each has the option to abandon his or her conceptual frame or work the new fact into their own. In either case, science is the winner. Can we agree on that?
Don Mc
 
Hi, Don

Condescension is bad, but it can happen when individuals pursue investigational paths that have been proven fruitless in the past, and/or when those paths are championed by folks who honestly don’t know the field of science in which they are allegedly pursuing those investigations.. A chemist might be condescending toward someone who wanted to investigate the hypothesis of phlogiston. An epidemiologist might be condescending toward someone who wanted to investigate the hypothesis that witchcraft or demons caused outbreaks of disease. Those approaches have been tried, and found lacking in the past. Better approaches exist, and are productive today. So why go down those paths again?  In the hope that there will be a “discovery that otherwise would not have been made”? Perhaps, but the odds are extremely high that it is a waste of time and resources. Substitute “creationism” or “intelligent design” for “phlogiston” or “witchcraft” in those examples above, and you will get a clue why biologists find discussion of creationism and ID so tiresome.

Scientists are pragmatic, if nothing else. Wasting time and resources is not going to appeal to a pragmatist. If condescension is the outcome of telling someone that you are pursuing an avenue that has been proven to be a dead end, that is unfortunate. But the best answer to that is not to tut-tut and moan about the attitude of others, but to get the EVIDENCE that will convince the others. There are numerous examples of scientists whose work was dismissed out of hand at the beginning, but who continued to work and gather evidence to convince the nay-sayers. Some of them (Peyton Rous, Peter Mitchell, Stan Prusiner, for example) got the Nobel Prize eventually. How did that happen? By continuing to gather data in support of their hypotheses, and by publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. That’s the difference between science and pseudoscience; scientists don’t just throw up their hands and whine when somebody is condescending to them.

But that could all be just “opinion”. I notice that you ignore the major point of my comment, highlighting the obvious natural variations in organisms, and the consequent problems with taxonomical systems. But those were not just rhetorical questions in my comment. Is that variation nonexistent in your opinion?  Do you have evidence for “clear and defined” boundaries between taxonomic units at the species level? Let’s hear it.

regards
Mark