Letter: Good science is no mere '-ology'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In her scattergun attack on "-ologies" (4 April), Suzanne Moore lumps mysticism together with science. She confounds the use of the scientific method to answer trivial questions with its use to answer important ones. She regards regulation and information provision as the same approach to risk-control, when they are policy alternatives. She includes psychologists among the experts she accuses of ignoring the unconscious when, in fact, they are the ones who study its contribution to our behaviour. Good journalism, like good science, requires discrimination: we need less of some "-ologies" (graphology, astrology) but more of others (good psychology, good neurology).
The study showing effects of environmental stimulation on brain and behaviour is good behavioural neuroscience demeaned by a whimsically misleading reference to the animals in the more stimulating environment as "middle- class". Sometimes attempts to render good science palatable for public consumption result in its appearing as trivial as bad science. This makes judgement of the true quality and relevance of the work harder for the lay person. Nevertheless, journalists should be competent in such judgements.
NIGEL HARVEY
Reader in Experimental Psychology
University College London
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments