Huh? I don’t agree with Vance, but what’s with the red baiter
baiting? Vance certainly wasn’t saying that “because Communists use science he
does not trust it” – rather, he was saying that many unsound theories, such as
Communism (presumably its approaches to economics and history), phrenology,
eugenics, and the like were once seen by many as “scientifically” sound.
Nor is Vance saying that any people who profess various views
should be shunned – simply that certain approaches have a poor track record
when applied to legal decisionmaking. And his focus was on sciences that deal
with human behavior, which I take it does not include scientific testimony
about bruises, or much biology. (I realize that one could read “sciences that
deal with human behavior” so broadly as to cover the likely physical cause of a
bruise, but I don’t see why one should read fellow list members’ posts so as to
make them least plausible, rather than more plausible.)
Again, I don’t agree with Vance, for reasons that I mentioned in a
separate post. But there’s no need, it seems to me, to lash out against
arguments that Vance didn’t make.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 3:43 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
Vance's response smacks of "red baiting." Because Communists use science he
does not trust it?
The KKK uses he Cross on its Robes? So I suppose we should all be careful of
anyone professing to be a Christian? The Oklahoma City Bombers were veterans
and "patriots" so beware of anyone who argued for patriotism?
I wonder what Vance means by "so-called science" -- Biology (which surely deals
with human behavior) does not apply in his world? Medical science (another of
those "human sciences) is a "so-called" science -- so that if a physician
testifies that a the bruises on a child were caused by a use of force by a much
stronger human being (the parent beat the child) he will reject this as
"so-called" science.
As for anecdotal evidence, we have very good evidence (even anecdotal evidence
that apparently works better for Vance than other kinds) that most people who
end up doing serious harm to others were abused, beating, "bruised," etc. by
their parents.
----
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208
518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)
pf...@albanylaw.edu
www.paulfinkelman.com
--- On Mon, 8/3/09, Vance R. Koven <vrko...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Vance R. Koven <vrko...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Wisconsin convicts parents for denial of medical treatment
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 4:38 PM
To me, "scientific" principles are to be avoided in anything to do with the
law. Phrenology and eugenics (sorry, Eugene) were once state-of-the-art
science. Communism was considered "scientific." Having been trained as a social
scientist, I can tell you that those two words don't even belong in the same
sentence, much less cheek by jowl. All the so-called sciences that deal with
human behavior suffer from the same defect: for ethical and sometimes
logistical reasons, we cannot subject people to a rigorously applied scientific
methodology, and we cannot adequately isolate the thing being tested from the
millions of other things that influence behavior. That's why so many of the
scientific studies on virtually every topic are contradicted by other equally
scientific studies. It does not require a suspicion of bad faith to draw the
conclusion that science and human behavior are no better than nodding
acquaintances; and every so often actual bad faith, prejudice and hubris
manifest themselves in the investigation and interpretation of social studies
(and even hard sciences). Just imagine if all those "scientific truths" had
been ensconced in a legal system based on stare decisis? It's bad enough when
legislative *policy* is based on science that proves an embarrassment fifty or
fewer years later--which to some extent is a necessity--but to send people to
jail based on crackpot pseudoscience, is something every decent society should
resist. A degree of self-awareness and humility would go a long way here.
Based on my admittedly anecdotal experience (but I've accumulated an awful lot
of anecdotes over my life), children subjected to traditional child-rearing and
discipline, short of battering and other major harm, will turn out fine or
twisted, as their natures dictate. Same story with children raised on
"progressive" principles.
I realize this has strayed a bit from the original question, but I think it
does relate to the deference the law should show--under a unified theory or
multiple theories--to parents' choices of disciplinary philosophy. The law
*ought* to defer to secular parents as much as to religious parents, but the
latter should not be denied this deference just because the law has tied itself
in knots over the basis for such deference to the former.
Vance
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
