Isms and the Science Disenfranchised

Throughout this past week, I have been distracted by an ongoing mental conversation about "isms."  This all started when I thought I could involve myself in (what I thought) was a semi-political conversation online.  Apparently I failed.

The thing that bothers me the most however, is the prevalence of "isms."  An "ism" is any ideology that is completely closed to the possibility or discussion of another framework of thinking.  Most scientists are very familiar, therefore, with "fundamentalism."  Understandably.

However, I am distressed to find that many who argue for scientific reasoning (explanation of observable natural phenomena using observable means) completely shut down those who agree, from a different viewpoint.

For example, there was a recent blog post on attacks against female reproductive health by the religious right, i.e. fundamentalists.  There is however, a large community of those who accept and trust scientific reasoning and also maintain a faith background.  In trying to act as bridges, a number of individuals responded to the arguments of the religious right using phrasing common to a belief culture.  I was dismayed to see two things: 1) the blog poster went and asked others to end the apparently religious part of the conversation, and 2) one of those requested responders answered with "don't argue against science with the Bible and your no-show God."

First of all, that is not what was happening.  All of those using belief-based phraseology were arguing FOR science, not against it.  They were complaining equally about the misrepresentation of the religious right.  As to his argument, it is clearly his prerogative to hold his own belief system and I by no means am trying to degrade his point of view.  However, I felt that he was hypocritical as he answered not with scientific reasoning, but his own belief-based arguments.

I had the opportunity to meet with science writer Deborah Blum this week, author of The Poisoner's Handbook and Ghost Hunters.  She is an extremely intelligent woman with a strong grasp on how to reach the public to increase science literacy.  In talking about the prevalent subculture of people who believe they have experienced the paranormal, she criticized science for shutting these people down.  She termed them the "science disenfranchised" and feels that they are more reachable (in terms of science literacy) than fundamentalists. 

I would add to the list of science disenfranchised faith based/spiritual individuals (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindi, etc.) who are often marginalized directly or indirectly even when they are in support of science.