On Second Thought ...

Glad to hear the evolutionary psych boys (and aren't they all boys?) are finally riding into the macho sunset. Now if someone would just tell the profs in the grad psych program I just finished.... Did you know that (according to some people) job satisfaction is genetically determinied? Just like your choice of beer and what you name your dog. Ain't it all simple!

It's not remarkable at all that scientists rarely change their long-held opinions. They are people too, frequently with their self- and public-image tied up with their interpretations and publication record. When faced with truly incontrovertible evidence, few scientists worth their salt would continue opposition - the result would be career suicide if they didn't. This inertia is a double edged sword: it means new ideas are slow to meet acceptance, but that only the truly robust ones survive. What is a more significant problem is that science is often portrayed by the media and taught in schools as certainty, trimmed of the ubiquitous contention that research needs. Consequently, individuals are labeled as being either 100% for or against ideas, which are themeselves presented as "known" or "unknown". Ultimately this erodes lay confidence in the scientific community when scenarios advertised in the media as definite manifest their uncertainties in ways that were not convenient to spoon feed to the less educated. If science were represented less sensationally and more authentically, public panic and disillusionment would diminish substantially. But then I suppose, so would the advertising revenue on which the media outlets depend.