This blogger responds to the article that got passed around a couple days ago claiming that we're hard-wired to reject scientific data that contradicts our beliefs. I was skeptical of the original article, mostly because it was intentionally titled and tagged to annoy people who believe things. Have a faith? Well, watch out, 'cause neuroscience proves you're a fool. It was good to read a response that was a little less annoyed and a little more coherent than my own skepticism. The blog post also reminded me of how intertwined our scientific programs and our public policies are. There's nothing wrong with having an agenda, but there's definitely something wrong with ignoring the influence your agenda has on your results. This doesn't just apply to science.
because you were all wondering what I'm writing my dissertation on, here's a brief synopsis of my 'research context': When James Macpherson published his Fragments of Ancient Poetry in 1760, he went to great lengths to make the Fragments appear to be authentic remains of an ancient, heroic oral tradition. His reasons for this were largely political, and as such, influenced the content of the epics themselves. As an attempt to establish a particularly Scottish identity, the poems were quite effective. However, to do so required both a simplification and a manipulation of traditional mythology. Stripped of anagogical significance, the Ossian epics more or less represented an Enlightenment version of history, tradition, and mythic heritage. The stories themselves were changed by their very purpose and in turn changed the manner of representing myth in future narratives. Moreover, the emphasis on the Ossian epics as authentic tales from the past, as ‘fragments,’ served...
Comments
Post a Comment