I recently had an encounter with a prominent scientist that had, to put it lightly, some very problematic things to say about society, certain groups of people, and ways of knowing and interacting in this World. For a seminar at UNR we are reading this scientist's book, so I thought by subscribing to his blog, I would better understand who he is and his ideas better. It turned out that it has caused some great distress in my approach to knowledge and science as a discipline.
This scientist really bothered me because how he positioned himself as "public intellectual" that is there to "track down prejudices." Because of his power of having dual-Ph.D. and impressive academic standing and record, he claims in his writing that he is a man of the people. This pretentious display is SO wrong in SO many different ways.
First, he needs to realise that he has great power! People in power, whether it be police officers, politicians, CEOs, etc., have greater ethical responsibility and should be held more accountable for their actions given their disproportional impact they can potentially have--not to mention, the propensity that power has to corrupt!
Next, realising this power, he needs to really question what he is doing. It is especially surprising that SO little criticism and research was done in some of his works on this blog. For instance, he went on a tirade regarding spirituality, without doing his homework. I called him out because he essentially deduced and made up definitions of spirituality, and he said that in his "research" could not find what spirituality means in non-western cultures! Really!? I mean, if there is ANY arena that would yield poor examples of spirituality, it would be the Judeo-Christian belief systems. Nonetheless, much of what he wrote was holey.
I soon unsubscribed to his blog because dealing with man was not worth my time and energy.
BUT, now I have to read his book for the seminar and I am in a dilemma: What do you do with a person's ideas when, in their field of specialty, they are "experts," but in other fields have distorted and problematic ideas and Worldviews?
This dilemma is nothing new, but very important. When I think of some of the nastiest things scientists are directly responsible for (e.g., nuclear bombs, chemical and biological warefare, carcinogenic consumer products), I cannot help but acknowledge the similar arguments that could be made for advancing our knowledge and the consequences.
What I think is a HUGE problem amongst scientists (and others too) that could clarify what is happening, is that they tend to be highly disembodied. They think that what they study or work on is important to know, but fail to make the connection between their work and possible negative consequences.
What scientists do and say is VERY important and should be handled very delicately.
Without connecting what they do to the possible political, social, environmental, and cultural consequences, they are behaving selfishly and irresponsibly. I think that more discussion is needed about the role of the scientist in our society what what we are ultimately trying to accomplish.
