science and religion

Posted on January 27th, 2009 at 8:13 am by admin

315


This past spring, I sent The Sensory Team Handbook to publishers for consideration.

Dumb, yes. And I did receive an offer, which I turned down. Long story.

Anyway, back in March, my brain still umbilically attached to the printing press, I sent a manuscript (one of several) to a children’s book publisher owned by the American Psychological Association. The website blurb said it published books for children and youth on topics related to psychological health and growth.

Sounds good, I thought. Good fit.

But by late spring, I received a response of no.

The reason?

Because the APA does not believe in sensory processing disorder.

Does not believe.

I raise an eyebrow.

I’m all for freedom of religion, don’t get me wrong. People have all kinds of belief systems, and I think that’s great.

But <ahem> what’s religion doing in the American Psychological Association?

And an even bigger question — What is religion doing in science?

I don’t mean the pro/anti-creationism thing goes on in the US. I mean treating science like a package of facts glued together, that you can choose to believe in or not

Science is not a thing, it’s a way. It’s the scientific method, which is the great truth serum of the universe. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best serum we’ve cooked up in a few millenia.

So is it just me, or is what’s called “science” moving farther and farther away from the scientific method?

Who hasn’t dealt with doctors that “don’t believe” in something that you know you have? Doctors are not scientists. They lost their link with science when they left their bio undergrad. Now they just read publications and join organizations. Maybe go to some lectures.They read summaries of the research or just the conclusions attached to the summaries.

They don’t ponder, question, re-test, analyzie. They learn by rote.

That ain’t science.

Think about this the next time you get a square-peg-in-round-hole answer from a specialist. Question their answer, and then watch their reaction. Do they bristle with holy indignation? Recite chapter and verse of some medical doctrine? Give you a sermon about all the apostates out there?

If you don’t back down, do they show you to the door, like priests refusing absolution to unrepentent sinners?

My opinion — nobody working in or with science should hold beliefs about what they are doing.

Read, learn, listen, yes. But still think, test, inquire, probe.

My another-opinion — it’s not research if its purpose is to bolster an already-held belief. If it blames unexpected observations on flaws in the experiment design or outside factors.

It’s a bit Monty-Python-ish:

Mr. Praline: Now that’s what I call a dead parrot.

Owner: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! …

Where do these scientifico-religious beliefs come from? In psychology, they come from the funding.

Funding is the temple of scientific belief.

Drug companies fund most psychology research. If there’s no drug treatment, then duh, nobody’s going to pay for the research.

Pharmaceutical companies get to write the bible of psychology because they pay for it. SPD is out, ADHD is in.

APA will publish books on ADHD. Not on SPD.

I studied religion at university. Rabbi Baasser told us that everything that’s interesting in religion is occurring in the fringes, among the apostates and heretics. Today’s heresies are tomorrow’s orthodoxy.

So bow to no graven images. Seek the truth, test it, re-test it, question it, analyze it. Most of all, temper your beliefs with humility, because what we know is never final. Be open to learning more.

That’s science.

I published the book anyway.