Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
Member (Idle past 6129 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001

Message 309 of 417 (26846)
12-16-2002 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:30 PM

Originally posted by gene90:
You believe that Government has the right to denounce unpopular scientific findings REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF SAID RESULTS.
To denounce something is to claim it has no validilty. Therefore the clause "regardless of the validity" is irrelevant. And you will notice that the APA even called in for independant analysis.
Of course it's right and proper for there to be follow-up by skeptical scientific scrutiny. This would happen anyway, as the field of study is intrinsically interesting to social scientists of many bents.
However, many of the APA's statements were specifically made in response to government THREATS of NON-SCIENTIFIC overview of psychological research. I get this information directly from the APA, by the way (I'm a psychology grad, and a member of the APA came to town to give a talk on the debacle). These goverment actions, by the way, were instigated by radio's self-proclaimed moral watchdog, "Dr." Laura Schlessinger.
I'm flabbergasted that you would defend this sort of governmental policing of ideas, and would argue that denouncing a study because of of *possible* disturbing implications of peer-reviewed research is justified. Big into Lysenkoism are you??
Here's an account of the APA's predicament, from the APA journal American Psychologist:
| Haverford College
These members of Congress were thus suspicious of
the Association?s scientific credentials and harbored distrust
of?or, at best, unfamiliarity with?the APA?s peer
review system. Skepticism and lack of scientific understanding
led many congressional offices to discount the
assertions of APA staff. To these offices, the only indicator
of the quality of the peer review system was the reputation
of the Association, which was being undermined by the
storm raging around the Rind et al. article.
Given the ever-increasing number of cosponsors for
H. Con. Res. 107 (1999), it was painfully evident by late
May of 1999 that there was little chance of preventing
passage of the congressional resolution. The leaders in this
controversy were determined to see it through to its natural
conclusion?that is, passage of H. Con. Res. 107 in some
form. The only viable option was for the APA to persuade
the sponsors to introduce and support a less extreme substitute
With the growing likelihood of the resolution?s passage,
APA staff were concerned that subsequent broader
attacks would ensue, possibly against psychological research
budgets in such federal agencies as the National
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and
the Department of Defense. It was also feared that the
independence of the APA?s journals? peer review process
was in potential jeopardy. This fear was confirmed in a
conversation Fowler had with Representative Weldon, who
clearly believed that peer review, at least as practiced by
the APA, was an old-boys? ?you scratch my back, and I?ll
scratch yours? network. Representative Weldon elaborated
on the implicit threat in his earlier letter by stating that if
the peer review process continued to allow publication of
articles such as Rind et al., congressional oversight hearings
might be necessary.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:30 PM gene90 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024