Battleangel

Specifically Scientists vs. the Dalai Lama. Nature editorialized about this a while back. I don’t remember the issue but you can always look it up. I think it’s been brought up more than once. I did however find correspondence from Janis Dickinson in Nature 436, 912 (18 August 2005).

CNET, Stefanie Olsen - Hundreds of scientists are protesting a scheduled lecture by the Dalai Lama next month. Why? Because the exiled leader of Tibet plans to present research on how intense meditation practiced by Buddhist monks can train the brain to think positively, according to a story in the New York Times.

The Dalai Lama is scheduled to speak in November in Washington at the Society of Neuroscience, but 544 brain researchers have signed a petition to ban the event. According to an excerpt of the petition published in the Times, the lecture “will highlight a subject with largely unsubstantiated claims and compromised scientific rigor and objectivity.”

I believe the position of Nature was that this one ought to slide, put bluntly. Mainly so because one should encourage a difference of opinion or more accurately another angle on the field. If it is even an angle or a difference of opinion. I’m sort of divided. One the one hand, people seem to be forgetting that the Dalai Lama is a religious leader because he is such a nice, and frankly reasonable, old man. I can see why American scientists would be worried considering the looming threat of their more fanatical brethren. And accepting one religious leader can be an invitation, especially for the politically correct. But on the other hand the topic is harmless, “thinking positively” … sounds like any lifestyle consultant. I came to think of A Divided State (imdb), which contains an equal but opposite scenario with a community of Mormons opposing Michael Moore. Seeing as both are reasonable speakers, the audience is one of adults and free to attend, it seems irrational to oppose the exchange of idea. Unless one of course had the expressed practise of not inviting political or religious figures at all of course. Utah Valley State College had after all planned to do a series of political speeches. So I guess it’s not a perfect analogy. But still, it seems irrational to oppose something that doesn’t pose a real threat. Upon being confronted with the question about neuroscience coming up with something that would contradict Buddhism the Dalai Lama calmly noted that “then we would have to change the philosophy to match the science”.

Then again, reading the comments over at CNET, it quickly dawned on me that the issue was being hijacked by the religious lobby, spouting their usual sentiments about how science needs to realize “not everything can be explained scientifically.” So in the end, it may not be so much about the Dalai Lama.

Also, I noticed that Astrology is now scientific theory according to the ID proponents.

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.

I have very little leniency for this sort of nonsense. ID proponents, if they are biochemists at that, need to put their money where their mouth is and make some progress showing anything that could validate their claim. Trying to debase the definition of a “theory” is not exactly the mature, or indeed scientific thing to do. But I’m tired of pointing this out every time and these loons may have to dealt with more swiftly and less compassionately, scientifically so to speak. When In Rome …