From author Michael Prescotts online blogg.

Bully for skepticism!
Item: Nineteenth century physicist William Crookes, later knighted for his contributions to science, conducts a series of seances with the young medium Florence Cook and declares her to be genuine. Crookes' detractors not only allege that he has taken leave of his senses, they insinuate that he is having an illicit affair with Florence. Though there is no evidence to support these claims, they continue to this day. Crookes saves his reputation only by retreating from the study of the paranormal.

Item: Richard Sternberg, editor of a small publication associated with the Smithsonian Institute, agrees to publish a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer, an advocate of Intelligent Design. He thinks "that by putting this on the table, there could be some reasoned discourse." Instead, his "colleagues and supervisors at the Smithsonian" are enraged. They take away Sternberg's master key, ostracize and harass him at work, and spread rumors that that the article was not peer reviewed and that Sternberg is not a scientist. (These rumors are false.) An official review of the matter discloses that "officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education -- a group that opposes intelligent design -- and outlined 'a strategy to have [Sternberg] investigated and discredited.' "

Item: After the publishing house Macmillan announces acquisition of Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, which makes unorthodox claims about the origins and history of the solar system, famed astronomer Harlow Shapley lobbies the publisher to prevent the book's publication. He fails. According to philosopher David Stove, Shapley then arranges for "denunciations of the book, still before its appearance, by an astronomer, a geologist, and an archaeologist," none of whom have read it. Other reviews by "professors who boasted of never having read the book" follow, and Velikovsky is "rigorously excluded from access to learned journals for his replies." The anti-Velikovsky forces then compel the firing of the long-time Macmillan senior editor who bought the book, even though it has become a bestseller. They also get the Hayden Planetarium's director fired "because he proposed to take Velikovsky seriously enough to mount a display about the theory." Under intense and continuing pressure, Macmillan eventually transfers the book to rival Doubleday, "which, as it has no textbook division, is not susceptible to professorial blackmail."

Item: Research chemists Fleischman and Pons claim to have discovered cold fusion, a room-temperature nuclear process. They are ridiculed as incompetents, and a research paper put out by MIT savages their work, stating that MIT's physicists have been unable to replicate the pair's results. The prestige of MIT succeeds in destroying the chemists' reputations, and they become objects of public derision. Later experiments, however, indicate that some unknown reaction is indeed taking place. Meanwhile, dissident scientist Eugene Mallove produces evidence that the MIT report was fudged. The MIT researchers actually did detect the anomalous heat reported by Fleischman and Pons, but altered their graphs to conceal this fact.

Item: After Timothy Leary claims that LSD, when used under proper supervision, has mind-expanding properties, he is convicted of marijuana possession and sentenced to thirty years in prison. Though his conviction is eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, Leary is rearrested, this time for possession of two marijuana cigarettes. His sentence is ten years in federal prison. Remarkably, he escapes from prison and goes abroad, only to be recaptured by American agents in Afghanistan. Says Wikipedia, "He was then held on five million dollars bail ($21 mil. in 2006), the highest in U. S. history to that point; President Richard Nixon had earlier labeled him 'the most dangerous man in America.' " Facing an incredible 95 years in prison and housed in solitary confinement, Leary finally agrees to cooperate with authorities in exchange for leniency.

Item: Wilhelm Reich claims to have mastered a new kind of energy called "orgone." The US government finds him guilty of making false claims and sentences him to two years in federal prison. Government agents confiscate his research notes and publications, dumping them wholesale into an incinerator. Reich dies in prison, of heart failure.

Item: In 1981 biologist Rupert Sheldrake publishes his book A New Science of Life. Reviewing the book, Sir John Maddox states, "This infuriating tract... is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years." (Evidently he hasn't heard of Reich, whose works actually were burned.) In a later interview Maddox expands on his opinion: "Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy." (Emphasis added.)

I'm not endorsing the validity of all the unconventional theories mentioned above. In particular, I think Velikosky and Reich are unlikely to have been correct. All that interests me, in citing these instances (and there are many others that could be added to the list), is this question: What are the powers of establishment science so afraid of? Why would people who are genuinely confident that they have reason on their side resort to character assassination, ostracism, threats, and even police action to enforce their opinions?

In other words, why do the self-styled defenders of reason, science, progress, and civilization so often act like bullies and thugs?

January 27, 2007 in Science | Permalink | Comments (34)

Human nature. Precisely the reason why Skepticism and Peer Review was instituted in the first place; To assist in overcoming natural human bias and prejudice.

Exactly!
I think it can be construed as "bullying", relative to how versed one's ego is, to accepting constructive criticism.

Well I wouldn't call the above examples, if true, constructive criticism, so maybe we should call it contructive relative to how well practiced one is in handling challenges to the consensus world view.

No, few of the above examples can be considered constructive criticism. That being said, one must look at the arena where the arguments are being presented.

When one publishes a paper, it is too late for constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is for the students who are still learning their way around. Once they sit at the poker table and pick up their cards, they will not be given any quarter. They will be expected to handle themselves as knowledgable members of their field, and produce work of a professional level. They are no longer given the leniency of students.

If one makes a claim, you had better be able to support it. In all of the above examples, this was not the case. Had it been the case, the bullying would not have been successful. No amount of bullying can overcome a successful demonstration. If one publishes a study, one had better make sure that ones ducks are in a row. If there is a credibility problem, it will come out. If there is an inconsistency in the procedure, it will be exposed. If there is a flaw in the data, it will be glaringly evident. Make absolutely no mistake about it, the scientific establishment does not take challenges lightly, and unless you are fully prepared to defend your point, you will be bullied.

Where one has to be careful, though, is in deciding when bullying is due to a failure of skepticism, or a failure on the part of the scientist. If the failure is on the part of the scientist submitting the study, then he has no recourse to whine about being bullied. If his research was faulty, his conclusions lacked support, his data meaningless, then he has no one to blame but himself. No one wants an incompetent carrying around the scientist title, when scientists who do things correctly have a reputation to protect. It is only when a persons work is valid, the research credible, the conclusions logical, that bullying becomes a failure of skepticism. At that point, the bullies can reasonably be called close-minded, because they are doing what they do without reason.

Well said. I agree, my referencing constructive criticism would not have been applicable to published works. I appreciate your sharing the insight, it means a lot.

Some of the examples stated above were treated in such a manner because they did lack proper evidence to support some of the claims made.

Maybe some people reacted the way they did as an attempt to protect the very process that spawned those theories. For if the scientific community was to make habit the publishing of works that were not backed with solid evidence, or originated with evidence then quickly topped off with opinion and conjecture, the whole of the scientific community would lose face and credibility.

Richard Sternberg I feel was mistreated, maybe because intelligent design may reek of emotional attachment to a desired outcome.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
Stephen Meyer is an accomplished scientist, I like this statement: "The debate over how best to teach evolution has devolved into an either-or argument that threatens science education in our schools. Both views reflect poor science, and if either side wins, students will lose.

But there is another approach - teach the controversy."
http://www.darwinanddesign.com/

This here is actually a prime example of where we would see bullying in a, for lack of a better word, justified sense.

The "Teach the Controversy" tactic is specifically designed with certain goals in mind. It implies that there is disagreement about the validity of evolution among scientist. It assumes that the proper method of science is process of elimination. It implies that if there is one error to a theory, then the theory must be considered invalid. There are, of course, other points, but these tend to be the big three.

So, why would this merit bullying? The first reason is because it is misleading. Now, every theory has a little bit of inherent bias in it, and the purpose of skepticism and peer review is to make sure that personal bias is kept to a bare minimum. Any time that you have deception in science, you have committed the sin of sins. If you manipulate your data, if you lie about the results, if you mislead about the conclusions, you have just torpedoed your credibility, and to a scientist, one's credibility is their lifeblood. So, if you have someone who's position it is that evolution did not occur, and that person implies that there is a controversy about evolution among scientists, but does not clarify that the controversy is not about the existance of evolution, but rather the process of evolution, what you have is a person who has mislead people in order to advance their viewpoint. At that point, bullying will occur.

Another reason would be because it is bad science. A theory can be perfectly valid and credible, and still be incorrect. The thing of it is, however, that no matter how incorrect a given theory is, that theory does not, in any way shape or form, affect a different theory's correctness. When the "Teach the Controversy" card is played, the entire argument consist of examples of how evolution is incorrect. It actually does not matter how incorrect evolution is. Even if evolution were 100% incorrect, this would still not mean that any other theory (creationism in this case) is correct. It is an attempt to win a victory by foul means. A theory must stand on its own merits. Because advocates of Teach the Controversy ignore this point of science, that tactic opens itself to bullying.

When all is said and done, "Teach the Controversy" is bullied for the exact same reason that the other theories are bullied. Because it pretends to be something that it is not. A young child who demands to play with the big kids because he knows all the rules, and then quickly shows that he hasn't the faintest idea what he is doing, will open himself up to the same sort of rejection. People don't like posers in their groups.

Excellently Stated Aquatus.

In Australia the Evolution Vs ID debate is not overly strong.

And in fact before joining this site I wasn't really aware of the huge controversy over it in the USA. However I must agree with you. Not because I have a mjor knowledge of Evolution but because the "Teach the Controversy" technique is used in Australian History when talking of Aboriginal History.

In an attempt to discredit PreEuropean Civilization in Australia we are taught of the Aboriginal Dreaming stories and the like but in a way that seems to show the discrepancies between those stories and the way that the Settlers viewed the Aboriginals.

It is attempted to show the Aboriginal as undignified and uncultured when this is certainly not true. They dwell on the Aboriginal lack of great architecture and the like as proof of this. Though it is done in an underhand way what the teaching is designexd to do is demonstrate that by taking control of Australia the Colonists in fact did the Indigenous people a great service... Something that I feel is greatly mistaken.

In this circuitious way I must say that I to agree that "Teach the Controversy" strategy is a poor way to teach children and that there is no true reason to do so.

AtlantisRises

As always, Aquatus, a beautifully patient and reasoned post. Also, a good analogy, Atlantis, that unfortunately has been used in US with our own native populations as well. The term noble savage always comes to mind, as though this is somehow complimentary.

AR a very interesting and articulate post, i enjoyed reading this you have been missed.....

My Thanks Sherri.

Indeed I have missed you as well.

That's a very balanced and honest veiwpoint Aquatus, thank you.

My concern in the above instances, and I'm not speaking up for the validity of any of the theories mentioned, is that critical response seemed to take second place to co-ercion in some instances and outright persecution in others. This smacks of scientism and dogma. Many theories after all are speculative and calling merely for discussion pending any further scientific application, should fellow scientists have a responsibility to balance critical thinking while avoiding prohibitive knee jerk reactions?

Excellent point. Knee-jerk reactions are the bane of anyone trying to present a new point of view. Still, though, some things to consider: The first is that no theory is speculative. The second is that if critical thinking has already been applied, it cannot be called a knee-jerk reaction.

Now, when one is publishing, one is either making a claim or presenting research. The differences are very subtle, yet quite distinct, and the process of preparing a paper for publication is a long, drawn-out affair, that can only be completed by those truly dedicated to scientific research (there is a reason why the unspoken rule of research is "Publish or Die"). When a paper is submitted for publication (and, by extension, presentation), there is no speculation and no asumptions. Every single quote, line, and source must be referenced in the proper format. The purpose of this is simple. Everyone looking at this paper, in particular, the team of doctorates who are going to be doing the peer review, are going to be duplicating your methods and validating your research. That means unless everything is done exactly right, according to A.P.A. format, it won't even be considered. These are extremely busy people, and hundreds of other papers are awaiting peer review. The place for speculation is after your theory has been approved and published and you are giving talks about it, not before it has been established as valid.

But what of the times that an idea is simply dismissed without even a glance? What if merely the mention of the topic gets you banned? Well, one has to be careful. Credibility is a scientist's lifeblood, and if you are wandering into incredible territory (bet you never really thought that word through all the way ) you are taking your reputation into your own hands. The simple fact of the matter is that there are virtually no original ideas ever presented. Those who do manage an original idea tend to become scientific immortals. There is nothing inherently wrong with presenting an idea that has been presented before, perhaps with a new angle, but one must realize that if the basic idea has not changed, and the new explanation contributes little to nothing, then once again you are going to hit a wall of scientists who have already seen this data, already seen these conclusion, who have already come to a conclusion on the matter from long ago, and if you, as the reasearcher, have failed to take that conclusion into account, then the blame falls squarely on you. "Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence" is a cliche for a reason. What this sentence is saying is that all the ordinary claims have already been seen, been judged, and been found wanting. If you want to present something new, it had better be extraordinary, or not only will you have wasted the time of the other scientists, you will also made them look silly by presenting them with something that has been presented so many times before.

I know this is not really science related but i couldnt help thinking of it when i read spectrals thread.
From Victor Zammits book.


First off though ...This is for you Aquatus
“Facts often appear incredible only because we are ill informed and cease to appear marvelous when our knowledge is extended.”
Sir Francis Bacon


Helen Duncan was a most magnificent materialization medium from Scotland and one of the most important women in psychic history. Her story is given its own chapter in this book because:

• the British Government indirectly acknowledged her materialization as genuine — because of it she became a 'national security risk' in wartime Britain

• some forty-one witnesses with the highest credibility, including a Royal Air Force Wing Commander, stated in court on oath that Helen Duncan was a genuine materialization medium, explaining in detail their psychic experiences with her. Many senior barristers and Q.C’s when canvassed stated that this is ‘unique’

During World War II, in January 1944, the British Admiralty decided that it could not let Helen Duncan, a gifted medium, continue to materialize intelligences from the afterlife to reveal information which the Minister for Defense considered top secret. It was a most crucial time in World War Two, immediately before the landing at Normandy.

Throughout the war years Helen Duncan reunited many grieving relatives with servicemen who had died. At one such séance at Portsmouth in 1941 a sailor materialized and was reunited with his mother. He told the assembled sitters that his ship, HMS Barham, had recently been sunk. The editor of the Psychic News, Maurice Barbanell, innocently telephoned the British Admiralty to enquire whether this was true and if it was true why the Admiralty had not advised the sailor's mother about the loss of her son. The military intelligence was furious because for security reasons and for public morale, news of the sinking had been withheld and had been classified 'top secret'.

National Security thought that a medium of Helen Duncan's caliber could very easily get hold of the most secretly held information: where the Allies were going to land in Europe on D. Day. One can understand the concern of the Admiralty for secrecy of such an important event.

But one cannot understand the way the Admiralty dealt with a frail woman, who had six children and a disabled husband to support, by sending her to jail for nine months causing her family to be evicted from the family home. The way the Admiralty conspired to put her away was outrageous, immoral, unconscionable and violated every human and legal right of a human being who did nothing except help people communicate face to face with their loved ones who had 'died' and were living in the afterlife.

Helen Duncan was arrested in January 1944, charged initially with vagrancy and later with a trumped up charge of fraudulent mediumship and sentenced to nine months in jail. According to BBC Online (2001) she was visited in jail by Winston Churchill who, appalled at what had happened, promised to repeal the Witchcraft Act under which she had been charged. He did keep this promise and after the war Spiritualism was made a legal religion in the UK.

"Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider."

Sir Francis Bacon

Helen Duncans treatment was a matter of national security, which, in context, was on the heavy handed side. As to the veracity of her claims they still remain ambiguous, she does though illustrate the point about knee jerk reactions to paranormal claims and the often unwarranted harshness of that reaction. Having said that there are countless instances of fraud in this particular area so some bias is perhaps understandable.

Agreed but if she had been considered fraudulent she would have been left alone. When she said that the ship had been sunk and the Navy hadn't released the information yet they got scared that she would be a security risk....they must have given credence to her work.

Good point Bogeyman, their motivation seemed to be more about security than skepticism.

Not necessarily. A person does not have to be a psychic to be a security risk. There are plenty of celebrities out there with a fanbase that can turn fanatical at the drop of a hat, and any figurehead that has as her point of power some mysterious, ethereal, force, will tend to have those who would follow her more out of religious devotion than any rational analysis of the accuracy of her work. If Koresh had claimed that the Waco Army base was a stronghold of Satan, he would have had plenty of followers perfectly willing to become a security risk in his name, regardless of any supernatural abilities he may have had.