NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/feminism/3406

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-26 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: uunet!infmx![e-mail] (Robert Hartman)
Subject: Science vs. feelings? (was: someone convince me)
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 61
Date: 26 Jan 93 06:57:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

It seems to me that when science or the results of science is used to
dismiss another's viewpoint, science is being misapplied.  Science is
simply and only a method for gathering evidence and validating our
assertions about the world.  Gut reactions are not contrary to
science.  Gut reactions are real phenomena that provide data about
the world.

When a person's feelings are interpreted to create beliefs, the
scientific method can be used to test those beliefs.  But if the
beliefs aren't borne out experimentally, it does not diminish the
validity of a person's feelings, nor the observations on which they're
based--even when those observations haven't been expressed in a precise
enough fashion for a controlled experiment.

As long as controversy remains about an issue, then this is an
indication that the issue that prompted the initial gut reaction has
not been resolved.  For a case in point, look at the current issues in
cosmology.  No one can dispute the erudition on any side of the "dark
matter" controversy.  Therefore, if the experiments have been conducted
properly, and there is still no consensus of opinion, then the
interpretation does not adequately explain the basis for a person's gut
reaction.  The hypothesis does not adequately express the nature of the
problem.

We just saw an example of this in the discussion about pornography.
The concern women have about how it harms them isn't just that it
"causes otherwise normal men to rape in some mysterious and
unfathomable way," but that pornography "provides unbalanced men
already prone to violent acting out with a target and a script."

This latter assertion is difficult to test, but it is a much more
precise rendering of the problem.  It also seems testable.  If it were
to be borne out experimentally, I suspect that such a finding would be
very powerful evidence in the political debate.

But that's not the point.  The point is that when you use the rubric of
science to dismiss the visceral reactions of others, you may find that
you've been made a fool of down the line.  Those other people are going
to continue to think about what's bugging them until they figure out a
precise way of expressing and validating it.  That's what science is
about.  Science is a method.  The current body of conclusions is just a
bunch of data that is subject to revision at any time.

When you cite the current theory as if it were fact, you demonstrate
little understanding or respect for the very science you claim to
cite.

In the case of pornography, the best one can say at this point is that
the studies indicate no relationship between porn and rape in the
general population at large.  But they say little or nothing about
subpopulations of unbalanced readers.  When you dismiss this issue
altogether on the basis of the extant studies, you are simply
misinterpreting the data.

-r

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.