Scientific controversy

Last updated
Six of Diamonds, When Doctors Disagree, from Harlequin Cards, 2nd Series (N220) issued by Kinney Bros. MET DPB872267.jpg

Sustained scientific debate, sometimes scientific controversy [1] or persistent disagreement, [2] is any a substantial disagreement among scientists. A scientific controversy may involve issues such as the interpretation of data, which ideas are most supported by evidence, and which ideas are most worth pursuing. [1]

Contents

Controversies between scientific and non-scientific ideas are not within the realm of science and are not true scientific controversies. [3] A genuine scientific controversy entails an ongoing discussion within the wider scientific community. [4] Well known examples include the debate over the existence of the atom that lasted until the turn of the 20th century, the Bohr–Einstein debates, the linguistics wars, or the debate over the causes of ADHD.

Academic debate

Scientific discourse happens almost exclusively in writing. Before speaking on a conference, scientists will have written on their subject. Everything prior to writing is usually considered scientific research.

Conflict with beliefs

In the situation of even presenting clear and scientifically proven evidence, people will always have their own opinion. "Controversy can be rooted in differing beliefs and values; personal, political, social, and economic interests; fears; and moral and ethical considerations—all of which are central to decisions and typically subject to public debate". [5]

As described above, individuals have their opinions based on various subjects such as culture, history, ethics, morals, religion, and more. This leads the stance on certain scientific topics to be very different across the board as perceptions vary from person to person, this is the ultimate reason why scientific controversy exists, to begin with. Science-related controversies all follow similar characteristics.

  1. Conflict over personal beliefs, values, and interests
  2. Public perception
  3. Voices behind opinions presented to the public

With science being inconclusive in itself, it leads to a disconnect between individuals. Oftentimes, science gets roped into personal morals and social values which leads to contrasting ideas. [6] This arises the issue of communicating science in an appropriate manner. Listed below, there are some of the various examples of scientific controversies.

See also

Related Research Articles

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between religion and science</span>

The relationship between religion and science involves discussions that interconnect the study of the natural world, history, philosophy, and theology. Even though the ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion", certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The pair-structured phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in the literature during the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries—partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization. Since then the relationship between science and religion has been characterized in terms of "conflict", "harmony", "complexity", and "mutual independence", among others.

Cultural relativism is the position that there is no universal standard to measure cultures by, and that all cultural values and beliefs must be understood relative to their cultural context, and not judged based on outside norms and values. Proponents of cultural relativism also tend to argue that the norms and values of one culture should not be evaluated using the norms and values of another.

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.

The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.

The politicization of science for political gain occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom, and as a result it is considered taboo to mix politics with science. Historically, groups have conducted various campaigns to promote their interests in defiance of scientific consensus, and in an effort to manipulate public policy.

Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rejection of evolution by religious groups</span> Religious rejection of evolution

Recurring cultural, political, and theological rejection of evolution by religious groups exists regarding the origins of the Earth, of humanity, and of other life. In accordance with creationism, species were once widely believed to be fixed products of divine creation, but since the mid-19th century, evolution by natural selection has been established by the scientific community as an empirical scientific fact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wedge strategy</span> Creationist political and social action plan

The Wedge Strategy is a creationist political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document. Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect politically conservative fundamentalist evangelical Protestant values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False balance</span> Media bias on opposing viewpoints

False balance, known colloquially as bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Science journalism</span> Journalism genre

Science journalism conveys reporting about science to the public. The field typically involves interactions between scientists, journalists and the public.

"A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" was a statement issued in 2001 by the Discovery Institute, a Christian, conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington, U.S., best known for its promotion of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. As part of the Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy campaign, the statement expresses skepticism about the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encourages careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinism", a term intelligent design proponents use to refer to evolution.

Feminist epistemology is an examination of epistemology from a feminist standpoint.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence</span> Material supporting an assertion

Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field.

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry, fact vs. values, so there is a difference between the "nets" over which they have "a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority", and the two domains do not overlap. He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria." Some have criticized the idea or suggested limitations to it, and there continues to be disagreement over where the boundaries between the two magisteria should be.

<i>Merchants of Doubt</i> 2010 book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming is a 2010 non-fiction book by American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. It identifies parallels between the global warming controversy and earlier controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, and the hole in the ozone layer. Oreskes and Conway write that in each case "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached was the basic strategy of those opposing action. In particular, they show that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.

Motivated reasoning is a cognitive and social response in which individuals, consciously or sub-consciously, allow emotion-loaded motivational biases to affect how new information is perceived. Individuals tend to favor evidence that coincides with their current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence.

Academic bias is the bias or perceived bias of scholars allowing their beliefs to shape their research and the scientific community. It can refer to several types of scholastic prejudice, e.g., logocentrism, phonocentrism, ethnocentrism or the belief that some sciences and disciplines rank higher than others.

Scientific dissent is dissent from scientific consensus. Disagreements can be useful for finding problems in underlying assumptions, methodologies, and reasoning, as well as for generating and testing new ways of tackling the unknown. In modern times, with the increased role of science on the society and the politicization of science, a new aspect gained prominence: effects of scientific dissent on public policies.

The gateway belief model (GBM) suggests that public perception of the degree of expert or scientific consensus on an issue functions as a so-called "gateway" cognition. Perception of scientific agreement is suggested to be a key step towards acceptance of related beliefs. Increasing the perception that there is normative agreement within the scientific community can increase individual support for an issue. A perception of disagreement may decrease support for an issue.

References

  1. 1 2 Anne E. Egger, Ph.D., and Ph.D. Anthony Carpi. “Scientific Controversy: Process of Science.” Visionlearning, Visionlearning, Inc., 12 Feb. 2017, www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/Scientific-Controversy/181.
  2. The Globalisation of Scientific Controversy, www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08globalization.html.
  3. What Controversy: Is a Controversy Misrepresented or Blown out of Proportion?, undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/sciencetoolkit_06.
  4. McMullin, Ernan (1987-03-27). "Scientific controversy and its termination". Scientific Controversies. Cambridge University Press. pp. 49–92. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628719.004. ISBN   978-0-521-25565-3.
  5. "Home - Books - NCBI." National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books.
  6. What Are Personal Morals and Values?, askinglot.com/what-are-personal-morals-and-values.