BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

What to do with Dangerous Ideas

  
 
Grand Panjandrum of the Pointless
23:38 / 27.07.03
Recently, over in the 'Is Racism Innate' thread, Mister Disco objected to the idea that racist/prejudiced attitudes might be (partially) innate because ze believed any investigation of the possible existence of innate characteristics of this kind could have no value except as a means of excusing racist/prejudiced behaviours.

This got me thinking about the problem of how societies handle dangerous ideas- i.e. any idea/theory that offers insight at the risk of lending support to repressive ideologies of the kind that 'lithers tend to see as Bad Things. Another, more neutral formulation might be: ‘Any new idea/technology which has consequences that cannot be foreseen and are likely not to fit clearly into the current political paradigm.’ E.g. GM, Stem cell research.

The effect of these ideas is to create fear at all levels of society. Those who do not understand fear unforeseen unpleasant consequences. Those who do (or think they do) fear that society will be hobbled by intellectual luddites. It is something of a ‘two cultures’ problem, and it already seems to be having unpleasant effects. On the one hand we have the famous kerfuffle over US.Govt funding of stem cell research. On the other the story I read recently in a popular book on neuroscience (Rita Carter- Mapping the Mind)about a group of neuroscientists urging their peers to keep contentious research findings within the community in order to stop the ignoranti from hobbling research through knee-jerk political action.

It boils down to a conflict between the ideals of democracy and the ideals of the enlightenment. Which is more important to us? How do we go about compromising between the two obvious extreme positions? Are there necessary or overwhelmingly likely connections between certain research paths and ideologies?

My personal inclination is to slightly favour science over democracy. In concrete terms, I think all governments should have some fixed proportion of legislators who are highly qualified in relevant fields. These legislators should not be appointed, but elected in the usual way by the whole electorate. (Sort of like the old British system of having MPs for universities)
Dealing with tabloid spin on research would be harder. I think any attempt at censorship (even self censorship in the scientific community) would inevitably be counterproductive.

Another interesting angle on this is the whole 'teaching creationism in schools' problem. It is very difficult to come up with a coherent liberal position on this that doesn't shoot itself in the foot.
 
 
C.Elseware
08:35 / 28.07.03
I read an article in an anthology called Rebels and Devils (New Falcon, ed. Christopher Hyatt) which suggested that rebels with new and dangerous ideas are the random mutations of culture. If everything is hunky dory then people will supress and ignore rebelious elements. If there are problems and people want change then they become more willing to listen and accept the extreme ideas.

Memetic survival of the fittest.

I think in many ways the hodge podge of science, democracy, theocracy, monarchy etc.in the world is in some ways better than everybody running the world in the same way. Variety makes us adaptable. Some seemingly stupid concepts (racism) have had their survival reasons in the past. Keeping cultures seperate decreases homogenisation, which decreases the chance of all cultures failing to adapt to the same change in the external environment.

(Which is not to say I approve of racism, I disapprove of cancer too, but it'll take more than my disapproval to get rid of it)

We currently don't have any big pressures on our lives (I have shelter, food, security) therefore people are unlikely to be keen to embrace new technologies. In times of war or shortage people are more inclined to accept and embrace change.
 
 
Quantum
10:45 / 28.07.03
It's a mark of a liberal society that it allows dissenting voices and opinions, and that extends to controversial research IMO. Generally the Establishment resists and suppresses threatening ideas as much as it is able (e.g. Nazi book burning) so we have to be prepared to listen to 'offensive' views and consider evidence that may support arguments we don't like, if we want to maintain our ideal of freedom.

It boils down to a conflict between the ideals of democracy and the ideals of the enlightenment
I don't think it's a good idea to allow democracy to decide what can and can't be considered, as it relies on freedom of information to function. One of the main ideals of democracy is free speech (the current conception of democracy at least) and that should be protected, even from the populace. In that conflict above, I come down on the side of the enlightenment.

It's easy to slip into censorship if we're not careful. To end on a couple of quotes "There is nothing in a book as offensive to me as censorship" and "Although I don't agree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 
 
C.Elseware
15:53 / 28.07.03
yeah, Currently it feels like we're quite a liberal climate. Accept in lots of ways we're not. It's just that opinions have shifted, so the old benchmarks don't apply. OK, people are used to ideas like equality for women, accepting some people have a colourful sex life etc. but on the flip side we have a government that ignores the people, try walking around town in a t-shirt that says "proud to be abused as a child" and see how liberal society is.

Maybe it's time to define new benchmarks of librality. These days the liberals have gone full circle and persecute those not in line with their beliefs (which is hardly liberal)

Maybe it's time to admit that it's a grey area and that too liberal is not always good, but it's ok in moderation.
 
 
No star here laces
17:31 / 28.07.03
I'd like to proffer an example on this thread.

A couple of years ago a psychology lecturer at Edinburgh University called Chris Brand published a book called "the g factor". This book was basically an exploration of IQ testing and race. IQ testing is a thorny subject because when developing an IQ test, psychologists will test a group of individuals and try to ensure, by tweaking the questions, that the individuals tested fall onto a normal distribution without any systematic bias. So conventionally, IQ tests ought to be constructed so as to eliminate any racial bias i.e. they presuppose racial equality in terms of intelligence.

However, historically this hasn't necessarily been the case and widely used IQ tests are often quite out of date and frequently contain cultural bias.

So if you examine the database of IQ testing you find that black people on average score lower than whites.

Conventionally this is explained by two theories: firstly that the tests are culturally biased (see above) and secondly that economic inequalities betweent the black and white populations cause the difference.

Brand suggested in his book that there could be a third factor involved - the 'g' or genetic factor i.e. that black people are, as a population, genetically less likely to score highly on intelligence tests.

Now, purely scientifically, all three hypotheses are equally valid until falsified by experiment. But socially, the 'g factor' explanation is unacceptable.

Furthermore, when you bring the media into the picture, the book gets summarised as "Edinburgh lecturer writes racist book claiming all black people are stupid".

Which is incorrect on several counts, obviously.

What happened in this case was that Brand was forced to resign after a student boycott.

It is difficult to see how one can handle a case like this. I would suggest that it calls into question both the ideals of the enlightenment and of democracy in that I personally consider notions of aesthetically good behaviour to be more important than simple truth and also that thinking of people in terms of groups is inherently dangerous.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
20:06 / 28.07.03
Interesting thread. Obviously the abstract questions scientific research, but how about should we try to limit intolerant ideologies that threaten our ideological/ethical positions? Not trying to hijack the thread, these seem pretty similar points for discussion.

So the quote "I do not like what you are saying but will defend to the death your right to say it" - In principle I warm to this and of course the sentiment is noble, but is this sensible when dealing with an intolerant ideology which would not tolerate the same from your own? So is there sense in, for example, allowing Abu Hamza to preach 'Death to the infidel' and distribute 'Why 9/11 Was A Great Day' leaflets, when on the flip side arriving in, for example, Saudi Arabia with a Sanskrit/Christian/Jewish text may get you arrested, and preaching 'Jesus saves and loves you' could get you deported? It doesn't really make sense to me - tolerance is a contract between people, and must surely be based on quid pro quo, or it becomes a nonsense?

Of course the ideal is free speech, but is tolerance of intolerance a folly? How far can a society support ideologies which are not just basically incompatible, but actively aggressively opposed?
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:04 / 28.07.03
I believe one has to have boundaries, which are as loose as possible, but present nonetheless. With that said, I don't think that tolerance is a "quid pro quo", but rather a value like any other, with restrictions and not absolute.

So I think we should be tolerant of those cultures within our own borders that my seem intolerant. This tolerance is clearly to be placed within certain minimal boundaries of expected behaviour, which we can argue over if need be, but most of which seems pretty intuitive to me. The fact that these cultures hail from nations that are less tolerant is irrelevant in my view. One shouldn't use another's failings as an excuse for one's own.

Slightly offtopic, but it parallels my position on scientific research as well. On the whole, knowledge is to be valued, even if that knowledge runs counter to our ideology. So, do I think there should be research into whether racism is innate? Perhaps, depending on the research. What I cannot see is a way to legislate against all such research in a reasonable way. (And I am slightly appalled by Croydon's example.)

But there are limits, like (all but the most safe) experimentation on humans. Knowledge might arguably suffer, but I think there are lines to be drawn. More controversially, I tend to take the same view about experimentation on great apes. But that isn't threatening an ideological position more than finding a particular ethical boundary. I suppose what I am saying is that I can't see how to accept the former, but the latter may serve as a reasonable substitute.
 
 
Quantum
08:51 / 29.07.03
"I think there are lines to be drawn." Lurid
Couldn't agree more. Some things should be enshrined, things that are set in stone as it were, that can't be voted out.
Like not killing needlessly for example, or oppressing free speech etc. If we decide that it's better to be tolerant in general, but that there are things that we won't tolerate, that then sets the restrictions on research. If our line is drawn so that we find it unacceptable to experiment on animals, then that research will be suppressed. If we find it unacceptable to even formulate theories that might support contentious views, we're heading toward big brother thought control.
In Dr Brand's case, I think he had every right to formulate that theory (racist though it was) as it could then be tested, shown to be false (it's easy to show how culturally biased IQ tests are) and rejected, which can't happen if it's never allowed to even be formulated.
Media witch hunts notwithstanding, following any contentious research is going to upset somebody somewhere- how free should research be? I think it should be allowed even if it's potentially offensive- a paper supporting a (false) racist theory of intelligence is less offensive to me than censorship of that paper. What if Society deems my interests unacceptable next?
 
 
Grand Panjandrum of the Pointless
21:31 / 29.07.03
I suppose my position (now I've had a bit more time to consider it) is that no research that actually harms people or animals of a reasonable level of intelligence should be allowed. But playing around with things without well developed emotional centres is probably ok. So I agree with Lurid about the Great Apes. Though of course some of the borderline stuff would probably be ok if suitably altruistic and/or terminally ill volunteers could be found. Could add a whole new dimension to the Darwin Awards.
Concerning GM and stem cell research- I am definitely in favour of stem cell, and I think GM is pretty much a fait accompli now- they should just declare open season on both of them. I suspect this is pretty much what will happen/is happening anyway.

Concerning the media, it might not do any harm to force tabloids to present scientific findings in a more balanced way. (think 'popular science book' rather than 'journal') On second thoughts this probably wouldn't work 'cos they'd just bugger up the statistics somehow, and if they didn't, or were forced not to, people would misread them anyway. Ah well

Anecdote supporting statement above- I have a friend who is a local politician here in the UK. One day he was at a meeting at which various statistics were being presented by a fairly high-ranking Conservative councillor who made pigshit look sentient. She explained to my friend that the data under discussion were qualitative, which meant that they were high quality, rather than quantative, which would mean that there were a lot of them. With politicians like this, who needs tabloid journalism?
 
  
Add Your Reply