Reasoniong in law and reasoning in science have a lot in common. The application of law is guided by the principle of due process. There is also due process in science. The scientific method is a large part of due process in science. But there are some areas of science where we really cannot do the types of experiments that are a normal part of the scientific method. In these areas due process needs to take a somewhat different form. I believe the analogy with due process in the law is particularly relevant in areas of science where we cannot perform the kinds of experiments that we normally see as a part of the scientific method. The study of our origins is one such area.
At this point it is reasonable to ask whether law is best carried out in public or in secret. We do not want secret tribunals answerable to no one, but we also do not want things to become so public that justice becomes no more than mob rule. So we need find a middle ground between these two extremes. The situation is similar in science. Science should basically be done by scientists, but their work should be open to the public. Rarely does the public care very much what scientists do--but there are some areas of science where the general public cares very much, and evolution is one of these areas. It is in these areas that the reasoning of science can become something akin to mob rule.
Trial by jury is the foundation of the justice system in England and America--but jurors have no special expertise. This can create problems. Lawyers can try to influence jurors with arguments that have no legal merit, but can be effective in swaying the views of people without much legal training--or experience with precise logical thinking. A large part of a judge's job is keeping lawyer's use of such arguments in check, and instructing jurors regarding the part of the law which they need to decide a particular case. There is a need for some people to play a similar role in science when the are highly emotional public debates on issues such as evolution.
In the absence of any formal position for anyone as neutral arbiter, we can try to judge whether a person seems to be neutral, and give more credence to the views of those who seem neutral. There are degrees of neutrality, and we can also judge whether people seem partisan but fair, as opposed to people who want a win for their position any way they can get it. In this regard, I like to make a comparison with an honorable prosecutor who will argue for a conviction, but will only use fair arguments, and will not hide exculpatory evidence from the defense.
Not all judges and prosecutors are what I would consider honorable. Witness 9 in the Trayvon Martin case provides an interesting example of what can be done to get around the rights of a defendant. The testimony of witness 9 would not have been allowed at the trial, except possibly as a rebuttal witness if the defense called character witnesses on Zimmerman's behalf. But as long as the prosecution considers witness 9 as a possible rebuttal witness, and as long as the defense exercises its right to know what evidence the prosecution may use in the case, thern they need to tell the defense about witness 9 if they ever hope to be able to use her as a witness. Now in Florida what is made available to the defense is also made available to the public. At this point two problems arose.
The defense asked that the testimony of witness 9 not be made public and at first the prosecution said that is what they also wanted. But in any case, the public was told about a mysterious witness 9. I'm not sure what would be worse for the defense, having the public know what the testimony of witness 9 actually was, or simply having them know there was a witness out there with testimony that the defense did not want people to know. Then once the judge ordered the material released and once the material was released by the prosecution, we reached a situation where material the prosecution could not legally present to the jury, at least until the rebuttal phase, would already be known to the jury before they were even picked for the trial. Basically, the state sneaked out evidence they could not legally present at the trial through the back door of honoring the public's right to information.
Even if you do not like George Zimmerman, you should be bothered by the idea that the state can sneak around defendants rights in this fashion. But this post is not about the Zimmerman trial. It is about scientists who can often be like judges or prosecutors, and that can sometimes involve sneaking around the due process of science the same way judges and prosecutors sometimes sneak around due process in law.
At the Scopes "Monkey" trial, Clarence Darrow argued that it was wrong for just one version of our origins to be taught in the schools. That is a natural and a comfortable position for scientists who believe in evolution to support. Freedom of expression is an important part of the due process of science. But in 1968 and later decisions, the US Supreme Court essentially ruled that evolution and only evolution could be taught in the American public schools. Religion was the basis of these decisions.
Whatever you may think of these Court rulings from the perspective of religion and the law, from the perspective of science, these rulings impose a mandate of only one way in the science of our orgins, and they do it though what, from the perspective of science, is the back door of relgion. All scientists and science teachers should be troubled by this. At first there were biology teachers who supported evolution but argued against the ban saying if that there were opponents of evolution who wanted to express their views, then these teachers were perfectly happy to take them on. But soon such voices were dimmed, and almost everyone who supported evolution also supported, or at least did not oppose, the idea that the best way to take on the opponents of evolution was to do everything possible to deny them the opportunity to express their views. Up to now that has not included killing everyone who disagrees with them--but it is not entirely clear whether that lack of such a program is due to moral compunction on the part of evolution supporters, or simply the lack of enough power to carry out such a program.
No comments:
Post a Comment