amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with unusual claims by
scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant--that the sun lies at the center
of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete
particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of
unusual research is terraforming---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where
none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society’s
pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets
in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more
significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?
Those who would oppose the speaker’s assertion might point out that public universities
should not allow their faculty to indulge their personal intellectual fantasies at taxpayer
expense. Yet as long as our universities maintain strict procedures for peer review, pure
quackery cannot persist for very long. Other detractors might argue that in certain academic
areas, particularly the arts and humanities, research and intellectually inquiry amount to little
more than a personal quest for happiness or pleasure. This specious argument overlooks the
societal benefits afforded by appreciating and cultivating the arts. And, earnest study in the
humanities affords us wisdom to know what is best for society, and helps us understand and
approach societal problems more critically, creatively, and effectively. Thus despite the lack of
a tangible nexus between certain areas of intellectual inquiry and societal benefit, the nexus is
there nonetheless.
In sum, I agree that we should allow academic scholars nearly unfettered freedom of
intellectual inquiry and research within reasonable limits as determined by peer review.
Engaging one’s individual talents in one’s particular area of fascination is most likely to yield
advances, discoveries, and innovations that serve to make the world a better and more
interesting place in which to live.Issue 24
"Such nonmainstream areas of inquiry as astrology, fortune-telling, and psychic and
28
paranormal pursuits play a vital role in society by satisfying human needs that are not
addressed by mainstream science."
This statement actually consists of two claims: (1) that non-mainstream areas of inquiry are
vital in satisfying human needs, and (2) that these areas are therefore vital to society. I
concede that astrology, fortune-telling, and psychic and paranormal pursuits respond to certain
basic human needs. However, in my view the potential harm they can inflict on their
participants and on society far outweighs their psychological benefits.
Admittedly, these non-mainstream areas of inquiry address certain human needs, which
mainstream science and other areas of intellectual inquiry inherently cannot. One such need
involves our common experience as humans that we freely make our own choices and
decisions in life and therefore carry some responsibility for their consequences. Faced with
infinite choices, we experience uncertainty, insecurity, and confusion; and we feel remorse,
regret, and guilt when in retrospect our choices turn out be poor ones. Understandably, to
prevent these bad feelings many people try to shift the burden of making difficult choices and
decisions to some nebulous authority outside themselves--by rely-ing on the stars or on a
stack of tarot cards for guidance.
Two other such needs have to do with our awareness that we are mortal. This awareness
brings a certain measure of pain that most people try to relieve by searching for evidence of an
afterlife. Absent empirical proof that life extends beyond the grave, many people attempt to
contact or otherwise connect with the so-called "other side" through paranormal and psychic
pursuits. Another natural response to the prospect of being separated from our loved ones by
death is to search for a deeper connection with others here on Earth and elsewhere, in the
present as well as the past. This response manifests itself in people’s enduring fascination with
the paranormal search for extraterrestrial life, with so- called "past life" regression and
"channeling," and the like.
While the sorts of pursuits which the speaker lists might be "vital" insofar as they help some
people feel better about themselves and about their choices and circumstances, query
whether these pursuits are otherwise useful to any individual or society. In the first place,
because these pursuits are not rooted in reason, they are favorite pastimes of charlatans andothers who seek to prey on dupes driven by the aforementioned psychological needs. And the
dupes have no recourse. After all, it is impossible to assess the credibility of a tarot card that
tells us how to proceed in life simply because we cannot know where the paths not taken
would have led. Similarly, we cannot evaluate claims about the afterlife because these claims
inherently defy empirical proof--or disproof.
In the second place, without any sure way to evaluate the legitimacy of these avenues of
inquiry, participants become vulnerable to self-deception, false hopes, fantastic ideas, and
even delusions. In turn, so-called "insights" gained from these pursuits can too easily serve as
convenient excuses for irrational and unreasonable actions that harm others. On a personal
level, stubborn adherence to irrational beliefs in the face of reason and empirical evidence can
lead to self-righteous arrogance, intolerance, anti-social behavior, and even hatred. Moreover,
on a societal level these traits have led all too often to holy wars, and to such other atrocities
as genocide and mass persecution.
In sum, I concede that the non-mainstream pursuits that the speaker lists are legitimate
29
insofar as they afford many people psychological solace in life. However, when such pursuits
serve as substitutes for reason and logic, and for honest intellectual inquiry, participants begin
to distrust intellect as an impediment to enlightenment. In doing so, they risk making
ill-conceived choices for themselves and unfair judgments about others--a risk that in my view
outweighs the psychological rewards of those pursuits.
Issue 25
"To be an effective leader, a public official must maintain the highest ethical and moral
standards."
Whether successful leadership requires that a leader follow high ethical and moral
standards is a complex issue--one that is fraught with the problems of defining ethics, morality,
and successful leadership in the first place. In addressing the issue it is helpful to consider in
turn three distinct forms of leadership: business, political, and social-spiritual.
In the business realm, successful leadership is generally defined as that which achieves the
goal of profit maximization for a firm’s shareholders or other owners. Moreover, the prevailing
view in Western corporate culture is that by maximizing profits a business leader fulfills his or
her highest moral or ethical obligation. Many disagree, however, that these two obligations are
the same. Some detractors claim, for example, that business leaders have a duty to do no
intentional harm to their customers or to the society in which they operate--for example, by
providing safe products and by implementing pollution control measures. Other detractors go
further--to impose on business leaders an affirmative obligation to protect consumers,
preserve the natural environment, promote education, and otherwise take steps to help
alleviate society’s problems.