I got 99 problems but science aint one

For me a phrase that deals with one of my deeply-held beliefs is one in reference to the reaction to sociobiology- “From the academic left, there was a vehement, and sometimes violent, reaction to the people who first publicized these ideas in the 1970s” (5)    

This moment is strongly charged for me because it reminds me of the politics that are often involved in science. People and in this case people who work in academic setting will discount scientific work because it does not fit with their worldview. My belief that is challenged is that unless I can explain why something that is scientifically proven or proposed is wrong, I should not reject is simply because I feel it might be wrong or dislike the implications of the knowledge that is found. The critique form the left in this case that Pinker gives in this speech is that the ideas of sociobiology are used to justify the status quo and then of course are brought to the ultimate popular criticism of comparing anything we don’t like or disagree with to Nazi Germany.  Now for me this is not just an issue for the left but I do find it more of a problem since the criticism presented in Pinker’s speech comes from academics.  I don’t think that religious leaders or groups who discredit science are as harmful or dangerous as academics, and especially highly respected evolutionary biologists who instead of employing valid criticisms of methodology or counter research employ emotional appeals and political name calling to try to discount work that disagrees with their world view. I think the implications for the ‘science  wars’ of such a level of discourse are very important. How can we expect the regular public to trust scientific work when even those who understand what is being done chose to simply call their opponent a Nazi and leave it at that?  I feel like the questioning of reality that is brought out Latour is fitting here because it is exactly that kind of disconnect from any reality that occurs when we allow our emptions instead of facts to get in the way of academic work.

            I do believe that there is and always will be a bias to scientific work, and there is certainly much possibility to misuse the knowledge that is gathered every day. But the best way to truly discredit work that is incorrect is to engage it and show how it is false, not to discount it entirely because we do not like what we might find. We should have one reality in which sociobiology is studied until we understand it as much as we can, not multiple realities in which those who are studying the topics are either Nazis, scientists, or perhaps Reaganites seeking to oppress the 99% through genetically justifying their oppressive socioeconomic regime.

*To fit a bit more with my own belief,  I did look a bit more at the criticism that Gould levied at Wilson and it was not as simplistic as what is presented in the limited space that Pinker can afford it, but I do feel that it is the larger phenomenon of discounting work because we disagree with the conclusions that is important here.