Covering science without considering social impact is irresponsible – 10/02/2023 – Darwin and God

It’s been a while since this blogger was called “pusillanimous” by a reader, which always helps to shake us up, doesn’t it? And all because of this recent post, in which I recommended a video by my friend and co-author, the paleontologist Pirula, about a fossil that has gained media coverage in recent weeks. The fossil — of a 9-million-year-old great ape — is being wrongly used to argue that humans emerged in Europe, not Africa.

In addition to being factually wrong, this interpretation has been used ideologically to reinforce racist ideas, even more so in a context in which the ideology of white supremacy — disguised under the term “racial realism” — is once again rearing its snake head around the world. And it was for citing this danger that I was called pusillanimous. In science, says the type of person who used this adjective, what matters “are the facts.” If they will be used ideologically in a disastrous way, science and scientific journalism have nothing to do with it. Really?

At least from my point of view, it is increasingly clear that this is a simplistic and, ultimately, dangerous view. Especially when we talk about the branches of biological and behavioral sciences that have a direct impact on the way we conceive of our humanity, things are always much more complicated.

In these cases, it is necessary to deal with a very wide range of complex and contradictory data, whose causal arrows — that is, the famous “what is a cause and what is an effect” — we are still far from fully understanding. This is the case, for example, of the relationship between genetic characteristics of individuals and groups, the environment in which they live and the results in terms of behavior, intelligence, income, potential for conflict, etc.

In past centuries, we have seen how apparently “scientific” data was used to justify foreign policy decisions, armed conflicts, prejudiced laws and even genocides. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that, given this history, we raise the “bar of scientific explanations” as much as possible before accepting as fact any interpretation that may highlight prejudices, especially in the public debate regarding them.

Extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence, a wise man once said. And this is even more true when the claims in question can become ideological weapons of mass destruction.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.