One of the reasons why "science" no longer holds the same weight now in this postmodern age as it did 50 years ago is the influence politics play on scientific discussions. From global warming to intelligent design, any science theory that dares to challenge the prevailing view is attacked as dangerous and "not science." One Northwestern University professor learned that lesson the hard way.
The bastion of conservative press, The New York Times, reports that J. Michael Bailey almost lost his job, was attacked online, denied federal funding, accused of sexual impropriety and had photos of his children posted online with sexually explicit captions all because he wrote a book that challenged the traditional understanding of transgender women.
His book argued that men who want to cross genders are primarily driven by an erotic fascination with themselves as a women, instead of the accepted explanation that the men are victims of a biological mix-up. They believe they are women trapped in men’s bodies.
Because Bailey’s book said differently, he was vilified. Even though several independent investigations revealed that Bailey had done nothing wrong – personally or in the writing of his book, he was still attacked. The most egregious example being the actions taken by Andrea James, a Los Angeles-based transgender advocate and consultant.
James downloaded images of Bailey’s children from his website. She then posted the photos, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she wrote. She explained away her despicable actions by claiming that Dr. Bailey’s work exploited vulnerable people, especially children, and that her response echoed his disrespect.
Is it any wonder that deviations from the accepted theories of sexual orientation, global warming and evolution are rarely pursued and even more rarely published. Research lives off of federal grant money which does not live off of controversy. This doesn’t mean that all science is bad or wrong, but it does mean that science, just like any other field, is influenced by popular culture and can be wrong on key issues – especially if those issues are highly politicized.
Related Posts:
I agree that the persecution of this person was wrong. However, this isn’t anything new in the history of science.
However, I find it almost hysterically funny that you would criticize the “politicization of science” when it’s the conservative Christians who have consistently been guilty of this by trying to force their political and religious versions of science through the initiative process, various legislatures and the presidency. So, please, stop throwing stones or you’ll break your own windows.
I don't know if "I" have been trying to do that. I'm sure some Christians have and do, but I try to avoid that as much as possible. It leads to battles with no possible positive solution.
By the way, glad to have you back and commenting.
Thanks. After watching skeptic floundering, I felt a more even-handed approach was needed. The key is not to let seeker’s extremist moments get to one.
Perhaps those gays who attacked were more fringe than mainstream gays.
I think the more important point is not that gays attacked (though that is an important point) but that in general, there is an orthodoxy, hegemony, and suppression of ideas in science.
This is always somewhat true in general, since you have accepted ideas that require more than a simple compaint to debunk, but i think narrow dogmatism is heightened right now to the point, as you observed, that people are losing their faith in science because it is truly not open to differing ideas or opinions, even when they have merit.
And in fact, we SHOULD be skeptical of modern scientific claims, partly because
– science is currently riddled with such undermining factors as political liberalism, evolutionary dogmatism, publish or perish pressures, and corporate monies
– we have put too much faith in science in general, to the point where we allow it to answer metaphysical questions, and to the point where we confuse philosophy of science (evolution, most notably), and real emprical science, confusing assumptions and data.
Louis, I enjoyed skeptic's perspective and hope he has not left, but I am always glad to have you back sharing your thoughts.
I agree with seeker that who made the attacks is not as important as the fact that attacks were made to someone who disagreed with the accepted theories.
Rivalries and politics are always present in science (as in all human relations). But to reason from this to posit a "hegemony" or "orthodoxy" is absurd. Scientists themselves may be unfair and political, but that doesn't mar science itself and the scientific method. At least science institutionalizes the attempt to remain objective and disinterested in the face of reality, and doesn't just accept authority at face value. To my mind, much of the current attack upon science (such as seeker's above) comes from the religious who don't like their beliefs undermined. They project a false image upon the scientific endeavor, based upon their own system of faith and orthodoxy. While it is true that some scientists may bring a personal agenda and dogmatism to their work (again, the human factor), this is countered by the spirit of open inquiry, standards of evidence and proof, and peer-review which is lacking in religion. Also, attacking bad science isn't the same as imposing a hegemonic orthodoxy – it's just a part of the critical give-and-take which is essential to science and the search for truth. I don't think it's persecution or politicization to require someone with a left-field theory to defend their theories. On the other hand, they shouldn't be silenced or intimidated either.
But to reason from this to posit a "hegemony" or "orthodoxy" is absurd.
Well, it needs to be explored. What are the hallmarks of unhealthy hegemony and orthodoxy, as opposed to normal politics.
I think that when professors are denied tenure, publicly mocked and treated disrespectfully, when they are denied publication rights for otherwise good science (that is, it is good science with unpopular assumptions or implications), such indicators show something beyond simple human politics – they indicate a sickness.
BTW, I made some clarifications about the undermining factors in science in my comment above.