I am sorry your discussion with Arota below went south so fast. It seems like that happens a lot here these days. But I think Arota's point about politics and science is well taken. More important, Bruce Rind seems to think so as well. Writing about the "scientific" pathologization of homosexuality and its subsequent reversal in a book chapter titled "Sacred Values, Politics, and Moral Panic: A Potent Mix Biasing the Science behind Child Sexual Abuse and Related Phenomena," Rind writes: It is important to qualify that it is not the case that the science just reviewed triumphed over older moral views in changing cultural attitudes to the greater tolerance or acceptance we have today. Campaigns for gay rights occurred during at least three distinct periods in the twentieth century (c. 1920s, 1950s, and 1970s), which were met with derision the first two times. The third time, with essentially the same arguments, the campaign resonated with cultural shifts occurring, including ascendancy of the new congenial ideology of sexual self-determination over the older one of community interests, values, and morals. What the newly created tolerance for homosexuality did was to legitimize studying it outside the moral-pathology framework..., resulting in works that essentially comported with the new cultural attitude. I highly recommend this chapter. The book in which it appears can be downloaded from Anna's Archive. Manny's post, linked below, contains the relevant link. I don't think Rind is denying that the science supporting homosexuality was objectively correct and the science pathologizing it was wrong. I am not sure whether or not Arota is denying the existence of objective science in general. The title of the book in which Rind's chapter appears is Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions. There are certainly posters here, for some of whom I have great respect, who deny that psychological science can be objective, or that it is a science at all. I think Rind believes psychological science can and should be objective. But he recognizes (as well illustrated by the lack of acceptance of his own work) that this is not enough for it to prevail over bad science. Politics will always have the final word. hugzu ;-p |