science is not bullshit!!

[swankantihero]

I'm a little angry at the way some law students (and, often, the public at large) view scientific research with regard to validity, evidence, etc. We were specifically discussing the sociological research cited in Brown v. Board of Ed regarding the (detrimental) effects of segregation on both black and white children. Our professor was of the

Comments

[crackerman]

Anyone who is involved enough in research to have read through a few papers understands that there is an entire infrastructure built to root out the bullshit scientific articles. Different papers, of course, have different standards, and it's up to the reader to decide who to trust. It's also obvious that the general public does not have the interest or motivation to make this kind of decision. Most people learn about scientific developments through newspapers, which are often staffed with morons in the science department (you don't need to read too much to figure this out).

So while I can understand how this vast lack of understanding can lead to such opinions as that of your classmate, I disagree with them. Science is not bullshit.

[swankantihero]

exactly! and you don't even necessarily need to be a researcher/in academia to tell that a study was done by a hack. you can look at sample sizes, methodology, the studies cited by the researchers - i mean, we're not exactly groping in the dark here.

anyways, this is all pretty frustrating for me. i guess it's kind of a rough transition from 8+ years surrounded by math-and-science types to law school. i feel like there's not enough convergence sometimes, like both groups aren't acclimated to each other and are speaking different languages.

[crackerman]

i feel like there's not enough convergence sometimes, like both groups aren't acclimated to each other and are speaking different languages.

I agree entirely. People would do well to bolster their educations by reaching outside their majors.

[swankantihero]

it's really vulgar, i think. on a micro level, it's agitating that people could be so thick about certain things, or, worse (?) yet pick and choose which parts of science to believe. but on a macro level, we are pouring a shit-ton of money into programs that have been not only disproven, but proven to be INEFFECTIVE, like the anti-drug ads and abstinence education, to give two examples. the former may be idiotic but relatively harmless, but the latter is a huge public health threat! yet we trod on, slashing budgets for family planning services. it's fucking lunacy, is what it is.

[hisswarthiness]

I wouldn't even be so quick to write off anti-drug campaigning as "harmless." One thing I learned when working for a nonprofit is that the second law of thermodynamics applies to government money as much as anything else. Money that goes to ineffective public projects is always money that could and should be going elsewhere, it always means there's some project that's being neglected. As freaky/hilarious as it is to put up big, ominous signs that say BELIEVE all over the place, the drug-addled youth of Baltimore would probably benefit more from, say, a neighborhood counselling service. Don't know the specifics of Baltimore's situation, just an example that came to mind. But yea, assessing what public projects to invest in is just one of many reasons why motherfuckers need to respect the scientific method.

Yr post reminded me - about a year ago, I vented in this post about a similar feeling of disgust and frustration at this country. Respect for science (as a discipline, by no means in every application) is a respect for logic, which

[swankantihero]

no, you're right - i guess i meant direct v. indirect harms.

also, can we make shirts that say "motherfuckers need to respect the scientific method"?

yr post is good, too - i remember reading it but didn't realize we're kind of both looking @ different parts of the elephant, you know?

[dragonladyflame]

Part of it is that people have their beliefs, and if science contradicts them, the science is first candidate for "wrong and bad" above the beliefs. Thus, Galileo goes to jail. "Soft" sciences haven't had as long to build up the faith we have in "hard", or produced the miraculous results (space shuttles, etc) that we expect from "real science". Furthermore, these days all the conclusions in the hard sciences have to do with things we normal people never directly encounter as such: atoms, weird chemicals, etc. We have no instinctive ideals about how atoms work, so we don't care if scientists tell us they're all crazy-like. Whatever, right? However, if someone tries to tell, say, an upper-middle-class white man who's trying to deny his guilt over the patriarchy that, say, studies show women are judged badly for asking for raises, then he has a large emotional investment in denying it.

[swankantihero]

mm, true, never underestimate the power of denial. your post brings back memories of a very indignant paper on Galileo written in high school freshman history class. oh, humanity. le sigh.

[my_sihaya]

Geez, I bet you believe those scientists when they spew those lies about global warming, too. I can't believe you'd be so gullible!

[vinnie_tesla]

While broad mistrust of science is certainly creepy, basing legal decisions on social-science research is a tricky business, since real-world data is so often so noisy. Occasionally, one will see studies of stuff like nutrition producing opposite headlines in different newspapers as editors try to compress complex findings into five 72-pt words.

[swankantihero]

true, but as i said - it's never a decisive, only a contributing factor, though i do appreciate the inherent problem in boiling down a lengthy study into a brief quip. i guess, i'd rather have some science go into the decision-making process than none, and i think that the supreme court's jurisprudence would do well to include disciplines like sociology and psychology. though rational minds may disagree, i think having some prominent, peer-reviewed studies to back up a case not only lands credence to one's cause but also provides a crucial bridge between legal thinking and real-world interactions. sorry i'm so rambly.