Science is best when data are collected by trustworthy individuals, conclusions are based on impartial evaluation and interpretation of that information, and resultant claims are evaluated by a group of interested and informed peers. That is the ideal, but is it what happens?  

Not according to epidemiologist Dr. John Ioannidis, who published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association where he claims that most published results are false. This is not because the scientists are dishonest, but rather because of "miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis" (WSJ). Unfortunately, many scientists are not trained in statistical analysis and it is not too difficult to use a computer program to make the numbers "prove" what you would like them to say!

But then there are also the problems of some information or alternative explanations of data never seeing the light of day because the conclusions are not in accord with currently-accepted scientific viewpoints. According to Pamela Hines, "...strong opponents of a particular position may not be terribly interested in contributing to open debate. Groups favoring a particular perspective may aggressively push their own point of view..." (Agbioforum)  It is entirely possible that scientists might ignore or distort results that threaten their preconceived ideas or values. In fact, they may even ensure that those with whom they disagree are barred from publishing or lose their jobs.  

This is exemplified by the behavior of social scientists at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Here, a recent New York Times article reports, such a hostile environment for "outsiders" was created that only 0.3% of attendees admitted to being politically conservative. Dr. Jonathan Haidt is quoted as saying "if a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community. They'll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they'll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value."  

The article then claims that "fundamentalist Christians who embrace intelligent design" are an example of those who ignore science. Seems like the author needs to step out of the preconceived values of his community and think again. After all, as Dr. Haidt says about the former president of Harvard University who suggested that there are intellectual differences between males and females and was forced to resign, "We should have defended his right to think freely." One wonders why this principle does not apply to those who have scientific questions about evolution, anthropogenic climate change or even the dangers of diesel emissions and second-hand smoke!  

This is what AITSE is working towards: educating and encouraging integrity in science. After all, we need to be Free to Think.   

Upcoming Book on Naturalism and Science

edited by Bruce Gordon and AITSE Consortium member Bill Dembski