Heard some interesting radio programmes in the last two days: Start the Week (Monday 17 October) and The Life Scientific (Tuesday 18 October) – both Radio 4 at 9 am, and The Today Programme (Radio 4, Tuesday 18 October 8.10-8.25).
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and renowned atheist, was one of the guests on Start the Week, along with the Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks and the cosmologist Lisa Randall. Dr Sacks suggested that cultures – such as Judaism and Islam – which use a right to left written language are more ‘right brain’/global perspective than cultures – such as Greek and English – which use left to right writing, and which he characterised as more ‘left brain’/analytical. I found these ideas stimulating and thought-provoking. Dr Randall had some fascinating things to say about human abilities to comprehend events and processes that occur at the very large/very tiny scale. In response to some of Dr Sacks’ ideas, Lisa Randall was openly sceptical of the need for religious faith – but I found Richard Dawkins’ responses dogmatic rather than sceptical.
That got me thinking about the role of scepticism in scientific thinking and discovery, and how and when it turns to dogmatic denial of other people’s views. I also wondered, rather cynically, whether being someone known to argue strongly leads to more bookings by media producers who believe that an argument will hold viewers’ and listeners’ attention more than a rational exploration of differing views.
This morning, Stephen Pinker was being interviewed by Jim al-Khalili on The Life Scientific. While I find many of Pinkers’ views on language both fascinating and plausible, I was concerned with the flavour of what he was saying about the relationship between genes and upbringing. Although he acknowledged that genes and environment constantly interact, I found his suggestion that a major element in whether or not people are violent is down to their genetic make-up very suspect. While I agree with his assertion that there has been insufficient research on twins, which can help untangle some of these gene/environment questions, I was concerned by the rather dogmatic way in which he dismissed opposing views.
Earlier this morning, on the Today programme, Nigel Lawson had been supporting plans for starting extraction of shale gas off the UK coast, and dismissed the current Energy Secretary as being ‘ideological’ in raising environmental concerns. I know nothing about the environmental risks of extracting gas from shale, but commissioning an environmental evaluation before leaping into it strikes me as appropriate caution. But I found myself thinking that if Nigel Lawson had been talking about a stand he was taking according to his beliefs, he would probably call it ‘principled’ – while an opponent is described as ‘ideological’.
I am concerned that the skills of rational thinking and debate are being debased. The essence of the scientific method is framing hypotheses in a way that allows them to be tested, then devising appropriate ways of collecting and evaluating evidence. I can remember being taught that a theory is never proved correct – there is always the possibility that a new observation or experiment will reveal something which disproves it. I’d like to see a bit more willingness to advance theories in a tentative, ‘our current best guess’, way, open to alternative interpretations and questioning, and rather less dogmatic assertion that those who hold differing views are wrong, deluded or ideological.
