Thanks for the link in (3) below, Mike; great stuff to work into lectures to make them as "catchy" and "interesting" as they website.
Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 tay...@sandiego.edu ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:01:51 -0400 (EDT) >From: Gerald Peterson <peter...@vmail.svsu.edu> >Subject: Re: [tips] When Medicine and Faith Clash >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > > >Thanks Mike! I knew you could bring this out. Thanks also for the link to >Coker's guidelines. I don't know that I could do justice to the depth of >these issues in the undergrad classes I have, but it's food for thought. It >would require great care and tact to raise these political/religious issues in >relation to criteria of pseudoscience--especially if one were not a tenured, >senior faculty. Perhaps others do so and find these issues relevant to >clarifying issues in their methods or social psych or other classes? I have >all I can handle when I try to convey the idea of operationism, etc., but do >agree that the content of these amendments could be relevant. I would use >them to just point out how general scientific knowledge or lack of such, is >indeed relevant to important issues being politically deliberated. Gary > > > > >Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. >Professor, Department of Psychology >Saginaw Valley State University >University Center, MI 48710 >989-964-4491 >peter...@svsu.edu > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> >Cc: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> >Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:41:57 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >Subject: re: [tips] When Medicine and Faith Clash > >On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:39:50 -0700, Gerald Peterson wrote: >>And this is relevant to my teaching of???????Political Behavior >>Analysis maybe? > >If the relevance to your teaching of psychology is not immediately >obvious, let me suggest these points that you might want to think about: > >(1) When teaching research methods we may distinguish among >different types of explanations (I often use Bordens & Abbott, >currently in 7th edition, which make the distinctions I'm highlighting): > >(a) Scientific explanations, which a research methods course >whould spend significant time explaining (see chapter 1 in B&A). > >(b) Commonsense explanation, which are based on a common >set of beliefs, knowledge, history, culture and societal practices >which people rely upon in order to behave in predictable ways >and maintain social cohesion (the problem is that commonsense >explanations are not subject to the same evaluation as scientific >explanations and false beliefs, false knowledge, etc., may be >maintained though false, e.g., complex social behavior is "instrintive"). > >(c) Belief-based explanation, which are based on knowledge >that is accessible only throught certain special means or special >authority. Belief in an inerrant Bible and that it provides all one >needs to know about how to live in the world is an example. >Religious beliefs are rarely evalauted in the same way that scientific >explanations are and, indeed, it is not at all clear one can apply >the same criteria to both (e.g., scientific explanations and theories >are tentative and subject to disproof by new observations; religious >beliefs are not supposed to be tentative or disprovable by observation >because they frequently require an act of faith that transcends mere >rationality and empiricism). Decisions based on belief-based >systems, whether on the Bible or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, >might seem reasonable within the belief community but may >seem to be absurd to people with different beliefs (e.g., abstinence >only sex education program should be supported regardless of >empirical evidence against their effectiveness -- it is an expression >of deeply held beliefs that transcend mere empiricist concerns). > >(2) Some Tipsters have expressed being sick and tired of politics >running our lives but seem to fail to understand that is not really >politics but religious beliefs that fuel the drive to (a) reduce the >influence of science in teaching and popular culture and (b) the >promotion of a particular religious dogma as a substitute for science. >There has been the lament of late on Tips on how clinical psychologists >appear to be lacking in scientific orientation and questions of how >to make clinical psychologists at least as scientific as medical doctors. >However, why should we bother when medical science gets trumped >by religious belief? Should a healthcare reform bill be concerned >with the promotion of evidence-based procedures, with programs >that have been empirically demonstrated to work? If so, why >is an amendment being provided to support "prayer" and "spiritual >care"? Why an amendment to re-fund abstinence only sex Ed >when there is no support for the effectiveness of such a program? >If you ask your students these questions, what is their answer? >That religious beliefs take precedence over scientific beliefs and >our laws should reflect this? If this is their answer, I put it to you >that you and other teachers of psychology have not done their >job in teaching critical thinking and an appreciation of the power >of science. > >(3) If you gave the amendments listed below to your class and asked >them to use Rory Coker's guidelines for distinguishing between science >and psuedoscience, what would your students say was the basis for >the amendments: science or pseudoscience? For Coker's guidelines >see: >https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/distinguish.htm > >On second thought, why don't you go over Coker's points and explain >whether the amendments are based on science or pseudoscience? > >And after that, perhaps you can explain which is the better basis for >public policy and law: scientific knowledge or psuedoscientific knowledge? > >-Mike Palij >New York University >m...@nyu.edu > > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> >Cc: "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> >Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 10:03:51 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >Subject: [tips] When Medicine and Faith Clash > >Some of you may be aware that there is a major battle going >on in the U.S. Congress over health insurance, who should it >cover, what it should cover, and how to keep the insurance >companies wealthy while bleeding the federal government dry >(that last bit is just a joke). > >The process of making law has been likened to making >suasage (i.e., the result might be tasty but you really don't >want to know what they put in it), with amendments added to >bills to either correct definiciencies or remove existing >protections (or just to be a pain in the ass of someone). >Consider the following blog entry in the Washington Post >titled "Health Funding for Science, Not Faith", see: >http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/herb_silverman/2009/09/health_funding_for_evidence_not_faith.html?hpid=talkbox1 >or >http://tinyurl.com/y8d3y6w > >The article lists amendments proposed for the Baucus >Health Care Bill (which recently passed in the finance >committe with the support of one Republican Olympia >Snow). Consider: > >|First is the bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators >|Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Kerry (D-Mass.). Under >|current law, religious people who object to medical care >|may have some "spiritual care" covered by Medicare and >|Medicaid, including reimbursement for payments that Christian >|Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them >|when they are ill. Numerous children have died while receiving >|this "spiritual care," when modern science could easily have >|saved their lives. > >And > >|We also oppose an amendment by Senator Mike Enzi >|(R-Wyoming), which would allow doctors to deny patients >|any care or information that violates the doctor's religious >|beliefs. This violation of medical ethics is labeled with the >|Orwellian term "Conscience Clause." This amendment >|cruelly places the religious beliefs of practitioners such as >|pharmacists above the medical needs of patients. > >And > >|Lastly, we object to an amendment by Senator Orrin >|Hatch (R-Utah), requesting that funding for Title V >|abstinence-only-until-marriage programs be restored. >|Congress has already wasted $1.5 billion on such programs >|since 1996, despite the fact that there is no evidence that >|abstinence-only programs have been effective in stopping >|or even delaying teen sex. > >Given these amendments to only one of the bills (I believe that there >are two in the U.S. senate and four in the house of representatives) >I suggest that it might be worthwhile for people, especially >U.S. citizens, to be aware of what is in the ultimate health care >bill. Unless, of course, you don't mind paying for someone >else religious beliefs with your health plan. > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
