A Plea for Scientific Integrity– Posted at ARN.org

AITSE received notice of this well-written blog post, referencing Steve Fuller, a Humanist professor from AITSE President’s alma mater, Warwick University, and feels it is worth pointing out to AITSE members.

The article discussed in the blog is entitled Science Studies Goes Public and is Professor Fuller’s response to a paper by Dr. Christine James who wrote about Evolution and Conservative Christianity. Here Dr. Fuller advocates the work of metascientists, those he says “evaluate science from a standpoint that does not presuppose the legitimacy of the dominant paradigm. He or she starts by asking why we pursue science in the first place-the question of ends-and then turns to consider the extent to which the normal pursuit of science satisfies those ends.” In other words, a metascientist does not base their science on consensus, but on data and evidence. Sound familiar?

Why is this important? Fuller gives several reasons, basing them on the current debate between naturalistic evolution and intelligent design (ID). First, to reject ID because it is (erroneously) said to be a religious position would be to negate the work of the many scientists who based their research on the assumption of the existence of an intelligent designer. Second, enforcement of the naturalistic paradigm stifles academic freedom.

That is, those who dare to question the consensus are judged on intentions rather than their science; some even lose their jobs. Finally, Fuller points out that the quality of debate is reduced. Many of us have witnessed how ideologies and emotions instead of reasoned argument dominate when this subject is discussed.

For a fuller discussion, go to the ARN blog–or better yet, read Fuller’s article. Either way the message is reinforced: Good science must be based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus.

An Appeal for Authentic Science Studies