Another month, another media-friendly quote from Baroness Greenfield. For once she's not bemoaning computer games (while selling a computer game), or frothing about how Twitter makes you a sociopath; she'sentirely reasonably comparing Stephen Hawking to the Taliban.
Referring to Prof Hawking's recent comment about God, Baroness Greenfield said that when scientists "assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers then I do feel uncomfortable. I think that doesn’t necessarily do science a service.”
It strikes me that there are three main points that need to be made here. One is the old Biblical adage of considering the beam in thine own eye before beholding the mote in thy brother's. For instance:
• Texting might lead to attention deficit disorder, says Baroness Greenfield, on the basis of research published in the – hang on – on the basis of no research.
• Twitter may create a generation of dangerous fantasists, says Baroness Greenfield, citing a paper from – er – no, sorry.
• Video games may have caused the financial crisis, says, Baroness Greenfield, in a groundbreaking study at the University of oh no wait I've done this.
• Computers might be fuelling obesity crisis, says Baroness Greenfield; consistent computer use can "infantilise" the brain, stifle empathy and imagination, damage the pre-frontal cortex, blah, blah, blah. All according to the authority of Baroness Greenfield.
What really does science a disservice is dressing up scaremongering hunches as science and then using your exalted position as the (now former) head of the Royal Institute to give them unwarranted authority.There is evidence that computer and internet use changes the brain – but, as far as I know, most of it seems to suggest that the changes are positive. Certainly, there is no reliable evidence to suggest they are dangerous. If she has concerns, she should be carrying out research and publishing it, not whipping up fears via the media.
The second point, and it's really quite an important one, is that Prof Hawking at no stage said the science proves God doesn't exist, or anything of the sort. He said that, with our understanding of the nature of the law of gravity and how it allows for the spontaneous appearance of matter out of nothing, that we no longer have any need for God in explanations of how the universe began. It's a very different statement, and at no point does he claim to have "all the answers".
No scientist ever would; as Matt Ridley says, "The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing that we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view." Or as Dara O'Briain put it, rather more succinctly: "If science had all the answers, it'd stop."
Thirdly: the Taliban? Seriously? Admittedly she had the good sense to backtrack a bit, saying she had no wish to compare Hawking "in particular" to the Taliban, but still, it's an idiotic, and if I may somewhat characteristic, piece of wild hyperbole. When Hawking, or any other atheist or scientist, stones someone to death for wearing the wrong clothes or believing in the wrong bedtime stories, then call them what you like. In the meantime, shh.
