Beware, Science
by Candice Watters on 01/03/2008 at 8:34 AM
In a culture where everything is relative, it's hard to defend anything as true. Few trust anything that isn't supportable by science. But science without truth is barbarism. The standard evidence of this point is Auschwitz, the concentration camp now decried for it's "scientific" experiments.
A lesser known example is the way American hospitals used to treat their pediatric patients. Tuesday's New York Times tells of an era not too long ago when hospitalized children were only permitted two hours each week with their parents. And that was a good case scenario.
In When Hospitals Kept Children From Parents, Howard Markel, M.D., writes,
In 1894, Boston Children's Hospital had only two "visiting days for parents" per week, 11 a.m. to noon on Wednesdays and 3 to 4 p.m. on Sundays (fathers only). At Massachusetts General Hospital in 1910, homesick children who cried too much for their parents were moved to isolation wards so as not to disturb the other patients.
Such draconian prohibitions were the norm at hospitals across the United States. "Order was a word almost sacred in the terminology of the pious gentlemen who wrote the bylaws, raised the funds and sat on the boards of America's first hospitals," said Charles E. Rosenberg, a medical historian at Harvard. "They regarded all the hospital's inmates as moral minors, and most of their regulations were aimed at controlling behavior."
All this was done -- you guessed it -- in the name of science. Markel writes,
From the early 1900s to the late 1950s, most American hospitals continued to promulgate strict rules separating children from their parents, cloaking them in the language of science.
"Medical science was reflected through a prism of ethnicity and class," said David Rosner, a historian of public health at Columbia. "Germs became the surrogates for older class distinctions.
"The vulnerability changed from individual morality to propensity to disease," he went on, "but the targets of the visiting restrictions — the poor, immigrants, the disenfranchised — remained the same."
What was most shocking to discover is that only since the 1960s have things changed. Why such a backward status quo?
"One reason," said Dr. Seidel, the veteran pediatrician, "might be because we had always done it that way. But I suspect many doctors simply found it convenient and considered parents to be in the way."
Without truth, we all suffer. Contrast this with a King who said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
1. P&P said the following at 11:01 AM on Jan 3:
Devil's Advocate Alert:
Yes, it's important for children to be comforted by their parents in a time of need, however this pendulum has swung painfully far once again. The reality is that doctors and nurses are professionals who need to perform their jobs in what are truly life or death situations. There are times when a parent truly is in the way.
Another example of this is the movement towards childbirth as an "event" rather than as simply childbirth. Although the father or close friend/relative can be a huge source of emotional support, the new trend has been for labor and delivery to become a full-scale friends and family event, rather than a personal experience for the new family. As a result, some hospitals are back to restricting the number of people in the L&D areas to the mother-to-be +1.
The fact is, there are times when the doctors and nurses have to do their jobs, which is to save lives. It can't be done easily when the parents are clinging to a child who needs to be cleared for a defibrillator or for a birth where the mother's heart rate drops dangerously low and the birth party can't get away from the instruments.
Also, why on earth does B'less always have to rank on science? Seriously, get over it. If it hadn't been for dedicated scientists, most of us would have died before the age of 10.
2. kman said the following at 11:49 AM on Jan 3:
Yes there are times when parents and family members are in the way. But having worked in hospitals for 15+ years I can say that when the time comes that a defibrillator is brought in , parents and family members will leave. Exceptions make poor rules.
The reference in the post was to limit visits to 1 hr on Weds and Sundays and similar extremely limited contact with parents. In all but extreme cases severely limiting parental contact is unnecessary. For example- an extremely ill preemie baby.
It also states that science was used as an excuse for discrimination against "the poor, immigrants, the disenfranchised". Science is not immune from the problems of the people involved in it. Can you say "Eugenics"?
3. brx said the following at 12:44 PM on Jan 3:
P&P,
I think that's a misnomer because I don't think you're intending to advocate for the Devil. Seems to me you did a good job of explaining very legitimate purposes for some rules of order.
One thing everybody would do well to realize: the human body is an incredibly complex system and our extensive library of knowledge on it is still incomplete. Even what we do know is too much for any one medical professional to recall instantly. So, it's important to realize that doctors have a tremendously difficult job to do with lots of stress while they are only human themselves. YOU are your best advocate; ask questions, double-check medication effects/interactions/concerns with the doctor _and_ pharmacist, and get second opinions for serious conditions. Interactively discussing a complex situation helps people think about it in more detail.
God speed!
4. Brian said the following at 12:52 PM on Jan 3:
P&P,
I don't think boundless is dogging on science in the sense that it's all bad. What they are saying is that science alone is not the ultimate truth. We as Christians are called to be discerning, and I think many Christians tend to just accept statements that are "scientific" without questioning.
I'm sure Candice, Ted, et. al. will readily support the sciences as an investigation of the world with which we are entrusted.
5. Jethro said the following at 3:09 PM on Jan 3:
I love it. If atheists label Christianity as evil because of atrocities like the crusades, you jump up and down. But you're happy making the same sort of generalizations about the evils of science. Go figure.
6. Chris said the following at 4:01 PM on Jan 3:
This is another example of science being abused for ulterior motives. People used to measure skull sizes and, imagine that!, whites and men had "better" measurements.
The great thing about science (unlike many religions) is that it is self-correcting. Sooner or later, misuse of science will be outed by good data and good science.
Please, go rail on some other methodology like economics, sociology, and the like. Leave science alone.
7. Josh said the following at 4:14 PM on Jan 3:
"in the name of science"
^ is that even a coherent accusation?
People do things in the name of the greater good, God, family or what have you. Science is a means to whatever end you happen to want. There's really no such thing as doing something purely for the science; there's always some other motivation.
I doubt, for example, the doctors described in this post were doing these things with an amoral "screw the parents I just want to play with my chemistry set" kind of attitude. What's more likely is that they had good intentions and just messed up the science.
8. John said the following at 6:33 PM on Jan 3:
Ditto Josh.
"All this was done -- you guessed it -- in the name of science."
As evidenced by this statement Candice obviously has some slight prejudice towards the areas of science. But what seems to be at issue here isn't science, but rather society.
9. Jacob Douvier said the following at 8:08 PM on Jan 3:
"Also, why on earth does B'less always have to rank on science? Seriously, get over it. If it hadn't been for dedicated scientists, most of us would have died before the age of 10."
I, for one, like to think for myself and not blindly accept what a bunch of people who think I'm obligated to accept their opinions without reservations tell me.
10. BDB said the following at 1:03 AM on Jan 4:
Reminds me of a wedding I went to where the bride - and all the bridesmaids - were trained engineers. Somehow I doubt that they would allow "science" to get between them and their children. Education has a way of making such things a lot less intimidating.
11. John said the following at 5:33 AM on Jan 4:
This is when people with poor reading comprehension should not be allowed to post.
The original post is addressing science WITHOUT truth, not science.
Evolution, AGW, etc. are examples of science without truth, pseudoscience.
So, again for those of you having trouble comprehending the written word, this post is about the evils of ignorning truth, NOT the evils of science.
Science is good. When people do bad things in the name of science, that is bad. Simple enough for ya?
Wanting to do something bad to other people is immoral, not "amoral" (sic).
Economics and sociology are sciences too!
You all are reading prejudice into this, it isn't there.
Based on your poor reading comprehension skills, most of you wouldn't know what to wear in the morning, much less think for yourselves, if somebody didn't tell you what to think.
So stop trying to "rank" on boundless until you are able to think for yourselves.
12. Josh said the following at 2:17 PM on Jan 4:
Sorry John, I'm calling poor reading comprehension on your part. And I think in this case calling out Boundless on an anti-science prejudice is perfectly justified given the article.
The post purports to be talking about "science without truth", but then goes on to show that they just badly misinterpret anecdotal evidence to suit that claim rather than backing it up.
I was greatly amused by your calling evolution pseudoscience. Read some Thomas Kuhns sometime and then tell me how you can call our overarching paradigm for the biological sciences a "pseudoscience". But I digress.
Science is "amoral" (check a dictionary, it won't bite) because it is neither inherently moral or immoral (I appreciate the condescending spell check but "amoral" is a word. Don't sweat it). Its morality is entirely dependent on who does is performing it. The story cited in the Boundless article has nothing to do with ignoring truth for the sake of science, its about people thinking they have a good grasp of the truth and then eventually discovering they didn't.
In other words this post was incredibly ignorant in the way that it portrayed the situation that it described. It'd be like someone saying surgery is evil because obviously violently cutting somebody up is wrong. They'd be ignoring the fact that the surgeons aren't doing it "for science", they're doing it because they believe they're doing something good.
So sorry John, D- on the reading comprehension. Your effort impressed me enough to save you the failing grade, but if you need help dressing yourself sometime feel free to shoot me an email.
13. John said the following at 8:17 PM on Jan 4:
Josh, you're good at insulting people, too bad you're not so good at original thought nor understanding.
The original post was not calling science bad, sorry, but you simply don't read or write very well. But I can tell by your response, it is because you are easily offended when someone points out your illogical and incoherent statments.
You described a very immoral attitude as amoral. That's not my fault, that's yours.
Mirror time: I was amused by you thinking evolution isn't pseudoscience, read Philip Johnson sometime and tell me how you can think it is "science"
Science is amoral, what's your point? Scientists are not and pseudosciences like evolution and AGW most certainly are not.
"Its morality is entirely dependent on who does is performing it." Next time please check what you write before you try to make fun of someone else.
Your last remark shows that you are apparently dealing with some issues that should be addressed by a Christian counselor. Boundless could help you with that.
Don't be angry. Lots of people have tried what you just did, and failed just as sadly.
14. Josh said the following at 2:35 AM on Jan 5:
It's cute that you think you could offend me. I was writing with a smirk the entire time because it's painfully obvious you didn't comprehend a word of what I wrote.
The author of the post made a plausible thesis about truth, science and morality and proceeded to fail miserably at addressing the thesis. It devolved into a transparent polemic against science that displayed too much ignorance and not enough common sense.
My use of amoral was correct, and your comment about immoral vs amoral just shows you completely missed the point. Science is amoral because it is method; doing something "in the name of science" is a nonsensical accusation because whatever goal science is used to progress towards is the moral or immoral thing. The goal in the anecdote was the betterment of children's health; the goal is not immoral, and the original thesis is left unaddressed.
The fact that you sink to attacking the typo in my comment shows me that you can't squarely address my points meaningfully, and are looking for other straw men to burn. It's funny you point out a harmless grammatical error when you were riding me for using "amoral" because you thought it wasn't a word.
I don't think "original thought" is qualified by agreeing with Phillip Johnson (a lawyer) about evolution. Seeing as how you fail to define "original thought", I can only assume you use it in the sense of "agreeing with me", in which case its not particularly original. In any case calling evolution a pseudoscience is very irresponsible language that even the staunchest Intelligent Design advocate wouldn't use.
Look, I enjoy anonymous internet badinage as much as anyone else, but at least make it intelligent and witty. Sadly your posts show a lack of both virtues.
15. T. said the following at 10:21 AM on Jan 5:
First: there are arrogant people who think their rank gives us rights over people in every area. Including science. Do not blame science for that, as you would not blame religion for the acts of some religious people unless that religion clearly defended those acts.
For instance: when I was born (c-section), the nurse attending to my mother did not allow her to drink anything for long hours, did not allow her to touch me (mind you, I was ok, I was in a crib nearby, not in an incubator or anything) and was so rude and bossy that later on a doctor told my mother she should complain about that nurse's unadmissible behaviour. That what the nurse did was against what they believed to be scientifically/medically sound.
Second: I don't think most of you are trying to dismiss "evolution" (in the weaker sense) per se. I believe you may be dismissing "evolutionism", which is a different thing. Evolution processes (selection of the most favorable characteristics from generation to generation) can be seen in agriculture, for instance, or naturally in cases where the environment changes fast. What I believe a lot of you are dismissing is "evolutionism", the belief that blind chance and evolution processes are the only forces that lead to life and its diverse species. This evolutionism is a kind of materialism and cannot be reconciled with the idea of a God that intervenes, as far as I can see. On the other hand, the weaker belief on evolution processes does not dismiss the possibility of a God intervening.
(please excuse any English mistakes, it is not my mother tongue)
16. John said the following at 5:28 AM on Jan 6:
Josh,
Don't be mad. Look there are plenty of ways to improve reading comprehension. There are books, classes, probably lots of stuff on the internet.
Anyway, the original post was about how the term "science" is used to justify a lot AND people mindlessly believe that if something is "scientific" then it must be okay.
That's what the post was about, nothing more. You and everyone else are reading into it.