PRODUCTIVE AND JUST COMPETITION

Many of civic related concerns have to do with maintaining cooperative behavior between citizens by maintaining sufficient feelings of solidarity. Using federal language, the challenge can be described as counteracting social forces that tear at or encourage disunity within a federal association. This challenge can affect families, businesses, communities, cities, states, nations, or international associations (for example, NATO). There are a variety of sources for such challenges. There are jealousies, misinformation, conflicting aims and goals, corruption, use of excessive coercion, and so on. One source that is particularly subtle is competition. This last source is subtle because competition, per se, is not divisive. Ideally, competition can be a process by which the highest level of talent and other assets in the association come to bear in its striving to attain its goals. It can become divisive, though, if certain transcending rules governing competition are not adhered to. And what are those rules? One, given the context of the competition, is that it has to treat all the competitors as equals – equal in the sense that each competitor has an equal opportunity to win the competition. Two, the processes and standards by which the competition is conducted and evaluated need to be logically related to the prize for which the competitors are striving to attain. Three, the process needs to be as transparent as possible. And four, the competition itself needs to advance either the survival of the association and/or to advance the legitimate goals and aims of the association. This last rule needs to be explained a bit more.

For one thing, the consequences of a competition within an association might accrue short term positive results. In the long term, though, it might result in consequences that are not only negative, but also seriously threatening to the health of the association. And in this, lies the purpose of this posting. Take for example, the competition between states to attract businesses. This competition has taken many forms, but a common way is to put in place policies that lower the wages of workers by, for example, undermining the influence of labor unions. Recently, Indiana illustrated this by becoming a “right to work” state in which unions can no longer negotiate to become the sole representative agent for the workers of a business – that is, workers do not have to belong to a union in order to land a job. Consequently, in many states such as Indiana, that have been hostile to unions, collective bargaining has either become less effective or more difficult to conduct. Probably more than any other factor in the last three to four decades, this strategy has been responsible for the average median wages of workers to have first leveled off and then to have actually gone down.¹ The result is that inequality has been increasing during a time when production and productivity have increased. This, in turn, has resulted in the top income groups garnering ever higher percentages of the national income. The point is: this competitive activity by states is undermining a central goal of our nation. We are in effect less equal in terms of not only economic well-being, but also in terms of political influence. Our whole claim at providing equal opportunity has, with these developments, become less and less believable.

Really? Am I just rationalizing in order to excuse the shortcomings of some? Well, I have just become aware of how this competition between states is affecting even the ability of young people from lower income families to attend state universities. In the past, many states, through the efforts of their higher education offices, have provided financial assistance so that academically talented youths from lower income families could attend state universities. Through the reporting of Catherine Rampell,² I have become aware of organized efforts to dry up such assistance to poorer kids and expand the help to richer kids. “The share of state aid that's not based on need has nearly tripled in the last two decades, to 29 percent per full-time student in 2010-11. The stated rationale, of course, is that merit scholarships [exclusive of consideration of need] motivate high-school achievement and keep talented students in the state.”³ Rampell provides enough statistics to back up her claims – for example, about 1 in 5 rich kids (from households making over $250,000 a year) get assistance while only 1 in 10 kids from households making less than $30,000 a year get similar assistance. But my point is that this practice is a form of competition between states, not to attract talent, but to keep talent. The thinking is that these richer kids can easily shuffle off to highly respected universities in other areas of the country; they move to those universities and they don't come back. If, on the other hand, states can keep these students in their home states for their college education, they are more likely to stay in the state after they receive their degrees. At least, that's the thinking. The evidence, though, doesn't support this eventuality. It is needless to point out that the success rate for these wealthier students is much higher than for lower income students, although even richer kids don't do as well at these state schools than those who do go off to the more expensive, farther away schools. So, this form of competition, one that betrays our national commitment to equality, has become counterproductive. While the aim of the policy doesn't seem to be materializing, the policy will still be in effect for years. In the interim, how many poorer kids will be denied a real chance at economic success because they will be deprived of the financial assistance to attend state schools that at one time was there? Besides, one can justly question the sincerity of the stated justification for such a policy change. Is it just a way for those with influence, the wealthy, to get more of the resources that a state government is willing to distribute? Who knows?

Irrespective of its justification, I would judge such a competition contrary to the stated goal of equality that our nation claims it has. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with entities in a federal union competing. Competition motivates people to work hard and it increases the chances of entities developing their potential skills. In turn, such developments make it possible for organized people to do what it is they want to do successfully as long as the competition is productive and just.

1I claim this factor to be primary because I feel that all of the other factors, such as transferring work assignments to foreign workers, are negotiable developments that unions could have moderated and made less effective in lowering wages. I must admit a lack of expertise in this, but the decline of wages among American workers mirrors, in terms of timing, the decline of union membership.

2Rampell, C. (2013). Freebies for the rich. The New York Times Magazine, September 29, pp. 14 and 15.

3Ibid., p. 14.

SCIENCE AND/OR RELIGION

Some have argued that the belief some other people have in science amounts to those people making science a religion. I have never fully appreciated this claim. Yes, science does provide theoretical answers to many of the puzzling aspects of life, such as how all this stuff around us came about. When considering all the different forms of knowledge and the processes of knowledge acquisition, people who ascribe to scientific explanations and methods tend to place in priority that knowledge and those processes. They might almost label other accounts and methods as, if not illegitimate, inferior. And this priority extends not only in the way they view or study the physical elements of existence, but also how they view human behavior and human consciousness. The exclusion of other knowledge content and methodology, by the more “extremist” advocates of science, seems to place on science such a privileged position that it at least seems “religious” to those who observe this level of devotion.

I tend to agree that such an attachment does seem to exist and that it is problematic, but there is at least one aspect of scientific thought that is not religious – even for the extremists. The one thing all religions promote that science does not is a belief in a supernatural. Now, science does not deny the existence of the supernatural but, at best, it limits its judgment of a supernatural existence to the observation that if it exists, it does not fall under the purview of scientific study. Science is concerned with learning about natural existence, not the supernatural.

Therefore, science is a secular concern or field of study. It is not the only secular concern or field of study. There is historical study;¹ there is philosophic study; there is mathematical study, and so on. Each of these areas, as itself, is secular and does not pass judgment on whether there is or is not a supernatural realm of existence.

I have in previous postings gone over the essence of scientific substance or content and a description of scientific methodology. The scientific content, as most depictions of truth, can be structured as a continuum, going from the most abstract to the most concrete, by the following terms: paradigm, general theory, theory, generalizations, concepts, and facts. Some might use different terms; for example, the term law for generalization, but in the main this progression seems to be in play when structuring scientific knowledge. The methodology, at least as indicated by the standard arrangement of scientific research reporting, consists of

• reviewing theory to formulate hypothesis,
• developing appropriate experiments or other data collecting protocol by which relevant data can be gathered objectively,
• testing the hypothesis by analyzing the gathered data,
• determining the truthfulness of the hypothesis, and
• applying the result of the testing to either support or, if necessary, adjust the theory according to the results.

Actual operation of scientific research does not necessarily follow the above phases in cookbook style. Actual research can be quite messy and seemingly unorganized at times. But the logic entailed in the above process is adhered to and reporting of scientific findings is arranged according to this logic.

Now, and here comes the issue of this posting; nowhere in this process is there room for preconceived notions of what the truth is. Nowhere is there a call for inspiration, at least when it comes to determining what the truth is. If there is a problem with the prevailing theory – and that includes the governing paradigm – the theory is not automatically discarded or “overthrown” and it is not replaced by a theory or paradigm that is suggested by some belief in the supernatural. To attempt to do so is not science, it's political.

I bring up this issue because in Texas there has been a concerted effort by politicians and appointed officials to unduly influence the content of science curriculum and the purchase and use of textbooks in science classrooms. These politicians and officials are believers in either “creationism” or “intelligent design” theories. These theories question the Darwinian theory of evolution that has served as the governing paradigm in the study of biology ever since the middle of the nineteenth century. Motoko Rich² reports that, for example, these critics question the often cited evidence of fossil records that support Darwin's theory. They claim that the fossil data can be interpreted in other ways. I claim no expertise here, but even if this is true, the scientific process does not call for relinquishing the prevailing paradigm or theory, but it does suggest further study. It suggests reviewing research techniques. It suggests attacking the problem from a different angle. The reason the prevailing theory is the prevailing theory, in the first place, is because there are overwhelming and consistent findings that support the theory.

Technically, a scientific theory is not even considered “fact.” Theories are not facts; they are instead made up of generalizations that in turn are made up of concepts that are categorical representations of facts. In other words, facts are a far cry from theory. A fact is, for example, the lamp I am seeing across the room has a red shade. A generalization is, for example, if the temperature of water reaches a level of heat measured to be 100 degrees Celsius, the water will then boil (made up of the concepts water, heat, and boiling). A theory is, for example, the whole explanation of the state of organic life on the planet that we call Darwin's theory of evolution.

Now, if you have a religious motive and you find Darwin's theory offensive because it does not indicate any grand plan for life, as it is manifested, but instead a natural process that is quite arbitrary, then you might be tempted to find some problem with Darwin's theory. You might be tempted to bypass the scientific way of doing things and promote a non-scientific explanation for the way life exists on the planet. If you can cast doubt on Darwin, you can suggest that there are alternative ways of “interpreting” the data that, in turn, indicate a supernatural answer. Hence, the explanations of creationism or intelligent design take form. And under the guise of being “critical” and of promoting “critical thinking,” you can argue that in science classes we should present these alternative views and have the students study these views, debate them, and then they can make up their own minds as to what is true. The problem is that you are not abiding by the ways of science; you are instead using a subtle form of indoctrination under the guise of science. It is dishonest and does not belong in science classes.

Why be concerned with this issue here, in a blog dedicated to civics? Because with civics, one can find an answer for these religious advocates – and by religious, I mean fundamentalist religious advocates. Present your alternative theories in civics or history classes. This question of whether creationism or intelligent design should be presented in science classes has become a political issue. You can present the whole “theory” of creationism or intelligent design and have students review, debate, and arrive at their own decisions as to what should be taught in public schools. Through this strategy, the one in eight teachers who presently teach creationism or intelligent design can have their beliefs critically reviewed by students.³ Of course, such a study would also look at the meaning of science and what constitutes legitimate science content. Students, in this debate, would learn that words are important and what you call science needs to comport or, at least, account for what the practitioners of science mean by the term.

1I recently saw on CBS' 60 Minutes an interview with Bill O'Reilly in which he promoted his recent book, Killing Jesus. He was asked why he does not refer to Jesus as God, savior, or Messiah. He simply states that his is not a religious book; it is an historical book. Aired on September 29, 2013.

2Rich, M. (2013). Creationists on Texas panel for biology textbooks. The New York Times, September 29, National section, pp. 14 and 22.

3The rate of teachers who include creationism or intelligent design in their science instruction is reported in the Rich article that cites the research by political scientists, Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer.