Family Values? Scientists Have Them, Too
If you've been asleep since late April, you've missed a fascinating scientific discussion about the existence - or not - of the ivory-billed woodpecker.
First, some scientists from Cornell said they had evidence of the existence of the bird, believed extinct for decades. A 4-second-long video of the supposed woodpecker was posted online.
Scientists from Yale and the University of Kansas found the video unconvincing proof of the bird's existence. They were near to publishing their doubts in a scientific journal when, in late July, the Cornell scientists sent them an unreleased sound recording that caused them to pull their paper.
The controversy, like a flare shot into the night sky, brings attention to many related stories.
One of these is how scientific debate works - and scientific minds work.
It all comes down to what I'll call scientific family values, which ruled in this case.
Discipline is one of those values. Scientists hold themselves and their peers to a high standard of proof. They occupy a mental space that seems cramped to many of us, a place where "scraps of doubt" are permitted but a final, unchanging "truth" is never quite reached.
Another scientific family value is flexibility. When evidence seems scanty, scientists doubt. When they get sufficient evidence, they are convinced. And when new evidence appears, they revise and update.
Working openly and publicly is another value. Scientists submit their evidence to journals where peers can review it and decide whether it should be published. If it is, other peers can argue for or against it.
Flexibility and openness are part of the raw power of science but also a point of attack for those who dislike it.
"It's just a theory," say the opponents of science, using the word "theory" as if scientific ideas were some loopy hybrid of whimsy and carelessness.
Truth be told, scientific ideas may be born in a flash, but they don't stay dreamy for long. They add muscle based on evidence - or else they die.
Scientists acknowledge their limits when it comes to discussing some ideas. These ideas may be valid and interesting, but if no evidence can be deployed for or against them, science can't really tackle them.
Should the doubters from Yale and KU be embarrassed at having expressed their doubts and then changing their minds when presented with the new audiotape?
No. They were acting according to scientific family values.
We live in a time when an unbending will and an unchanging mind are sometimes considered a sign of power.
Scientists don't think that way. Changing one's mind in light of new evidence isn't shameful to them.
Stubborn refusal to do so is.
Roger Martin
Publications & Features Editor
KU Center for Research
