Archive for January 17th, 2010

Dangerous Science?

January 17, 2010

Dangerous Science?

I believe that strong connections between correlated human events and the consistent predictions of over 70 years of experimental findings should be given special consideration. I also believe that cultures should be advised of this information as they attempt to self-manage their evolution. 

Several esteemed colleagues have told me that my analysis of the spread of sexually irresponsible behavior (Sexual Maladaption Contagion) in the U.S. “is dangerous”. 

What does this mean? 

1. Does this mean that my analysis is dangerous to me personally?

No.

I have achieved no special status or political power in my profession which can be lost. Those who like and respect me will continue to do so because I have not changed. Those that do not like or respect me will not change their minds. 

I do not do this analysis for personal approval or support. My personal life-style and standard of living, is independent of my conclusions. All that is important to me is that I do my analysis, remain objectively science-based, and that I honestly report my provisional conclusions. 

While it is true that a significant proportion of my personal integrity and self-esteem rests upon the skilled completion of this analysis, all of this is in my hands alone. 

2. Does it mean that if my analysis is wrong the enterprise of science would be significantly damaged?

No. 

If my conclusions are of any significant consequence (not likely), they will be sharply attacked by other scientists. This would stimulate more research into this critically important area. It would be an advantage to science to know, as soon as possible, if my provisional conclusions gain or lose future empirical support. 

3.  Does it mean that if my analysis is wrong someone will die or be harmed?

No.

If my analysis is eventually proven wrong, but in the interim, induced some to be more careful about sexual behavior (not very likely) fewer people would die and fewer lives would be damaged. This would not be dangerous. 

4.  Does this mean that my analysis is dangerous to scientists who’s lives are vested secular progressive liberal belief systems?

No.

But, they may think so. 

5. Does this mean that my analysis is dangerous to a currently popular pleasure-centered secular progressive Post-Modern philosophy held by many?

Perhaps so. We shall see.

I wrote the preceding to myself on 12/8/96, as I thought about my research project and some criticisms the this enterprise. 

                            ___________________ 

My research strongly suggested that legalized pornography, among other determinants, had increase the rate of damaging sexual behaviors and damaging consequences in America. These potentially controversial findings were published in Behavioral and Social Issues, (vol 8, No. 2, Fall 1998), by the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies. 

This past decade has strengthened my convictions that my research findings were correct, and remain ever more so today. However, nothing that I am aware of ever came of this work and publication. 

Later,  partially on the merits of this research project, I was promoted to Full Professor of Psychology. I am now retired and living “happily ever-after”. 

My dear colleagues were wrong. My work was not “dangerous” to anyone or anything. They were also wrong about another thing. 

What was and is still dangerous is the post-modern secular progressive liberal philosophy that unleashed a torrent of amazingly explicit and vividly pornographic images , of every imaginable genre, into our children’s and teenager’s brains…not to mention our own. 

I’ve done the best that I can do, and now the rest is up to you. 

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D.,  1/17/10


%d bloggers like this: