Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 26 October 2007 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2007.199
Column: Muse
You can't control irrational people
Many of us who write on scientific issues have our work distorted by others, but that doesn't mean we should retract our words, says Michael Hopkin.
We've all done it — whiled away a few minutes idly typing our name into Google to see what the world thinks of us. But when retired chemistry professor Homer Jacobson tried it, he didn't like what he found.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Irrationality plagues the human race and has been responsible for a great deal of evil over the centuries (loss of potential, delayed progress, etc). Your main point about how some take scientific conjecture as "fact" is a good one. I have seen that occur on multiple sides of controversial issues. Regarding your angst over those with whom you disagree citing your writings as part of their cause, you should step back and look more neutrally at some of these instances, and see that it actually is both harmless and a compliment to you. For example when you were cited for "Why did God create bacteria?" it does not appear to be a "twist" of your point, but rather, citing your evidence that bacteria is not ALL bad as an example that "there is purpose in everything"... which for one who believes in God would mean that God had a purpose for even the lowly bacteria.... on the other hand, I challenge ANYONE to find a similar proof that mosquitoes were not somehow brought about by the fall of man or Satan rather than by some positive design. :)
Sorry, but I can't help but to butt in. As someone with an Economics degree, I would like to point out that the basis for my "science" is that all people are "rational". While many would argue about that, not one would agree to be irrational themselves, would they? :-) Rational in its simplest form means doing what you believe to yield the best result. This is the best result based on your observations, your interpretaion of these observations and your personal values (your lookup table in an internal spreadsheet, if you like). So my rational is different to your rational, however as long as we're both doing what we believe to be the best thing to do, then we are in fact both rational. These values change over time, as well. That's why you might prefer juice with breakfast, and wine with dinner. They are both liquid refreshment, and available in your house. It is your personal preference that alters your behaviour, while maintaining "rationality". Similarly, Stephen Hawking is still rational, despite refuting his earlier work on black holes. It's just that his interpretation of observations has changed. Finally, it is a good thing that people have different "rationalities". Otherwise we may all be performing the exact same activities all the time... and where is the fun in that? Imagine a world without disagreement - no debates, no inquiry, no scientific thought. Sad indeed. I'm done for now. Thanks for reading. :-)
I couldn't help but comment on creationist sites like Darwinismrefuted.com. While i'm sure many creationists draw hope and energy from blogs like these, speaking of scientific facts is a whole different story. I find nothing but the same arguments over and over again, e.g. "There is no proof", "It makes no sense", "Scientific proof for evolution is nothing but fantasy." Now let me say science has never denied there are gaps in the theory of evolution, yet creationists continue to harass scientists for it. What's new? Maybe it's time creationists come with some decent, scientifically grounded, proof? This however, they never do. Don't get me wrong, believe what you want, but saying the theory of evolution is pure fantasy shows me the fear creationists have to even begin to actually read and understand what this theory is about. Websites like these are filled with untrue, iterated statements about science, something they clearly know nothing about. I suggest a copy of Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' as a start for critical thinking about this subject. For once, try to look at both options with an open-minded objective view, then take a step back, and explain what you've actually seen.
Excellent piece Mr Hopkin, As responsible scientists we should not try to self-censure our work, or be embarrassed about genuine results robustly and reliably derived. Our data will always be manipulated by others to suit their own ends but that is not a reason not to publish, rather another reason to disseminate our work as widely and as comprehensively as possible and to effectively explain the likely inferences and conclusions that it provides. We must be prepared to defend our work rigorously and not shy away from reasoned argument purely because science rarely, if ever, provides absolutes or 'proofs'. Let us reclaim our intellectual property.
To Mark the Economist: According to this definition of rationality, it appears that all behavior may be rational; including criminal behavior, suicide, rage, and buying Enron. Perhaps there are examples or cases when these behaviors are rational, but even economic utility must struggle to hold any frequency. And isn't rationality part of what holds science together as a communal effort? Otherwise we'd have little basis for disagreement and progress. But, on the other hand.....
As someone who finds his value and meaning only in being cared about by a Designer Father and not in being a stem cell reseracher, please allow me to comment here. This creationists-evolutionists everlasting debate is endless because it is unappreciated for the latter that scientific research becomes shifted to the back seat by the supernatural-irrelevant by definition, while the former fear the science to underestimate the role of the Designer in designing such an organized inhabited universe. The theory of evolution has many gaps waiting to be filled, while for the creation, rather than being a blind belief, it is a matter of admitting the presence of what is measurable-natural, what is not yet measurable-future discoveries and what is truly beyond our measurements –the supernatural.Obviously, it is unacceptable to stop trying to find explanation to things and filling up the gaps calling for the supernatural as well as it is unappreciated to speculate that the homosapian able to argue,choose,consider ethics and rise civilizations is a continuety of an ape with a 5% difference in DNA. I agree that everyone should interprete freely all events and ideas arround him and find in arguing and debating the fun in being - proudly-a homosapian.Thanks for reading that far.