Despite the merits of the speaker’s claim, I find it problematic in two crucial respects. First,
common sense informs me that it is impossible to theorize in the first place without at least
some data. How can theorizing without data be dangerous, as the speaker con tends, if it is not
even possible? While a theory based purely on fantasy might ultimately be born out by
empirical observation, it is equally possible that it won’t. Thus without prior data a theory is not
worth our time or attention. Secondly, the speaker’s claim overlooks the inverse problem: the
danger of continuing to acquire data without venturing a theory based on that data. To
postpone theorizing until all the data is in might be to postpone it forever. The danger lies in the
reasons we theorize and test our theories: to solve society’s problems and to make the world a
better place to live. Unless we act timely based on our data we render ourselves impotent. For
example, governments tend to respond to urgent social problems by establishing agencies to
collect data and think-tanks to theorize about causes and solutions. These agencies and
think-tanks serve no purpose unless they admit that they will never have all the data and that
no theory is foolproof, and unless timely action is taken based on the best theory currendy
available--before the problem overwhelms us.
To sum up, I agree with the speaker insofar as a theory based on no data is not a theory but
mere whimsy and fancy, and insofar as by theorizing first we tend to distort the extent to which
data collected thereafter supports our own theory. Nevertheless, we put ourselves in equal
peril by mistaking data for knowledge and progress, which require us not only to theorize but
also to act upon our theories with some useful end in mind.102
Issue 93
"Scandals---whether in politics, academia, or other areas---can be useful. They focus our
attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."
Are scandals useful in calling our attention to important problems, as this statement
suggests? I agree that in many cases scandals can serve to reveal larger problems that a
community or society should address. On the other hand, scandals can sometimes distract us
from more important societal issues.
On the one hand, scandals can sometimes serve to call our attention to pervasive social or
political problems that we would otherwise neglect. Perhaps the paradigmatic modern example
is the Watergate scandal. Early in that scandal it would have been tempting to dismiss it as
involving one isolated incidence of underhanded campaign tactics. But, in retrospect the
scandal forever increased the level of scrutiny and accountability to which our public officials
are held, thereby working a significant and lasting benefit to our society. More recently, the
Clinton-Gore fundraising scandal sparked a renewed call for campaign-finance reform. In fact
the scandal might result in the passage of a congressional bill outlawing private campaign
contributions altogether, thereby rendering presidential candidates far less susceptible to
undue influence of special-interest groups. Our society would be the dear beneficiary of such
reform. Surely, no public speaker or reformer could have called our nation’s collective attention
to the problem of presidential misconduct unless these two scandals had surfaced.
On the other hand, scandals can sometimes serve chiefly to distract us from more pressing
community or societal problems. At the community level, for example, several years ago the
chancellor of a university located in my city was expelled from office for misusing university
funds to renovate his posh personal residence. Every new development during the scandal
became front-page news in the campus newspaper. But did this scandal serve any useful
purpose? No. The scandal did not reveal any pervasive problem with university accounting
practices. It did not result in any sort of useful system-wide reform. Rather, it was merely one
incidence of petty misappropriation. Moreover, the scandal distracted the university community
from far more important issues, such as affu’mative action and campus safety, which were
relegated to the second page of the campus news paper during the scandal.Even on a societal level, scandals can serve chiefly to distract us from more important
matters. For example, time will tell whether the Clinton sex scandal will benefit our political,
social, or legal system. Admittedly, the scandal did call our attention to certain issues of federal
law. It sparked a debate about the powers and duties of legal prosecutors, under the
Independent Counsel Act, vis-i-vis the chief executive while in and out of office. And the
various court rulings about executive privilege and immunity WIU serve useful legal
precedents for the furore. Even the impeachment proceedings xxhll no doubt provide useful
procedural precedent at some future time. Yet on balance, it seems to me that the deleterious
effects of the scandal in terms of the financial expense to taxpayers and the various harms to
the many individuals caught up in the legal process---outweigh these benefits. More
importantly, for more that a year the scandal served chiefly to distract us from our most
pressing national and global problems, such as the Kosovo crisis, our social-security crisis,
and health-care reform, to name just a few.
103
In sum, I agree that scandals often serve to flag important socio-political problems more
effectively than any speaker or reformer can. However, whether a scandal works more benefit
than harm to a community or society must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Issue 94
"Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not
obviously practical has little value in today’s world."
In today’s world is practicality our idol---one which all powers and talents must serve. While
this claim has considerable merit with respect to most areas of human endeavor--including
education, art, and politics--I take exception with the claim when it comes to the direction of
scientific research today.