I didn’t get far yesterday with my claim to a postgraduate student that climate change delusionism is analogous to irrational belief in biblical creationism – both involved a rejection of mainstream science and reliance on emotional instincts. The student responded that he believed in the latter – that Adam’s dalliance with Eve created the human race – and that the issue was not one of evidence (of the type he supposed I might advance) but simply of belief. My response was that ‘belief’ in this sense amounted to ‘faith’ which in turn involved nothing more than blind acceptance and a rejection of reason based on, in this specific case, evolutionary history. It is a standard story I have accepted all my adult life – the words I used hatched in my throat like they were already written there (thanks WB) – I knew this dialogue would go nowhere.
It is interesting how people can compartmentalize their approaches to understanding different aspects of the world. Science and evidence are guides to certain parts of their lives but in other areas superstitious belief take over. There is something sad about the need for this. As Bertrand Russell pointed out:
“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does not dare face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”
By coincidence I also yesterday attended a university discussion on academic policy. It was a private affair and I won’t discuss specifics but again I am struck by the universality of the compartmentalization phenomenon. The sorts of principles we seek to instill in undergraduate students – for example, that claims about the world should be based on evidence not anecdotes, not ad hominem argument or simply unsubstantiated though plausible-sounding claims – are often rejected by those at the most senior levels of academic administration in Australian universities. If they were isolated from their context and their power base they would be exposed to utter ridicule by those with ordinary intelligence.
There are those who might rail about the idiocy of Chairman Mao’s pursuit of steel production targets in the 1960s without attention to resource constraints and the difficulty of centrally managing complex organizations without delegation but who also find no difficulty in applying exactly these same inefficient, views and centralist – indeed Stalinist – techniques in a university. We who don’t teach and have done little research will nevertheless tell you what to do. “What is the role for academics in academic planning issues anyway – call the marketing area and consult those failed academics who dominate academic administrations on what should be done – they have gotta be good at something!”
Err, no, they don’t.
If you point out the divergent modes of thought then eyebrows rise – you are ignoring ‘politics’ – a catch-all idea that these days is used to gloss over any need to think through anything carefully. “Proposition X is stupid” – “Yes, I know that but it’s all politics”. Probably the presentation of views without supporting argument in certain ‘dialogue’ situations is simply a way of asserting who is the boss – there is no interest in determining the most sensible views, only in implementing those held by non-reflective leaders further up the chain who at all costs must “win”.
It is interesting for me that a major reason for friends and colleagues leaving universities these days is the failure of academic administration. People simply tire of listening to the authoritarian rubbish of the Little Napoleons.
Consistency is an underrated virtue.
Unfortunately you can hear a similar story across most Australian universities, but I don’t need to tell you that. My favorites are (a) it must be correct because we paid a useless management company, who didn’t do any research either, millions to think of it; (b) it’s a big piece of iconic equipment that costs millions (just like a white elephant I guess); and (c) it’s a good educational strategy because it brings in money.
Actually, I forgot one. It’s the entire lack of understanding most management have of opportunity costs and the fact that, in many areas, they not only employ people in a competitive job market but have the oldest staff of any industry.
I would recommend not discussing biblical creationism with your students. They are free to their beliefs and it could easily end in an official complaint. If you like dealing with such complaints, then keep on doing it!
James Boag: that’s nonsense. Academics have a role (especially in evidence-based economics) to ensure their graduate students question all articles of faith, and judge those articles’ value according to the evidence. If that means bagging religion, so be it.
James, I retain the old-fashioned view that universities have the central objective of seeking truth and avoiding myth. As an issue of ethics I’d find it very difficult to give equal time to creationism or, indeed, to climate change denialism/delusionism. I certainly can accept that many people do hold irrational views and could meaningfully examine the consequences of that.
These are very idealistic and interesting views. By all means, keep discussing personal issues with students. As the boundaries between professional and nonprofessional lives and beliefs become blurred, the chance of receiving a complaint from students becomes increasingly likely. Indeed, I still cannot believe you discussed this with a student and you are lucky they have not complained. As I said in my initial posting, keep doing it by all means. Eventually, you will find out how nice it is to have your career threatened by small, meaningless comments, especially because universities will usually support a student.
You are compartmentalising James issues that hardly involve “small, meaningless comments” into a set of issues that cannot be discussed. I find it utterly fantastic that you suggest conforming belief in Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory is off limits in a university. What is? Criricisms of homeopathic medicine, the power of crystals….