If you want to change the course of history, speak out against the crowd.
That was the message from Dr William Rolleston, Federated Farmers’ vice president in an Otago University graduation address.
. . . As you go out into the world your lives and your actions will be defined by your values.
The challenge is to value for the whole of your life the knowledge that will inform your decisions.
Gather all the information available to you; understand that risk and probability is a part of this universe – nothing is certain or risk free and everything is a trade-off; understand the contrary argument; always be prepared to challenge and question – even your own views; above all adapt to new information.
You will recognise these as basic principles of the scientific method.
My message today is whether your degree is in commerce, law, bio science or the health sciences you must, each and every one of you, understand and employ science principles.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s super detective Sherlock Holmes said:
“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts “.
Sherlock Holmes called it “a capital mistake”, we call it “confirmation bias.”
Confirmation bias is seen in many of this country’s debates for example alternative medicine, immunisation, genetic modification and fluoridation.
Marketing relies on confirmation bias – accentuate the positive eliminate the negative.
Fundamentalism of all persuasions also relies on it – accentuate fear, eliminate reason.
Science can also fall victim to confirmation bias but the strength of science is that, because of its principles, over time it is self-correcting. . .
. . . Employ scientific principles and your conclusions will have integrity.
But if you want to alter the course of history you need to be prepared to speak out against the crowd.
To back what you know is right in the face of hysteria or as Kipling said “keep your head while all about are losing theirs”.
In 2001 a group of science and industry organisations, including this university, formed the Life Sciences Network to provide a rational perspective in the genetic modification debate. I was its chairman.
At the time it was a popular notion that genetic modification was bad and dangerous. Bad news stories, no matter how incredible, would linger in the papers for weeks. Celebrities were falling over themselves to slam genetic modification.
Fifteen thousand people marched down Queen Street calling for the technology to be banned. We were vilified as puppets of evil corporates such as Monsanto. It got nasty – at times I was assigned a bodyguard and wondered about the safety of my home and family.
It was not a comfortable position to be in but the question of genetic science was a critical strategic issue for New Zealand. We applied scientific principles and our values.
We did our homework, we considered all the information available to us, we understood risk and probability, we put ourselves in our opponents shoes to understand their view, we continually challenged our assumptions and we were prepared to modify our view if compelling information came forward.
In other words we used scientific principles to form our views and underpin our arguments, which, while not popular, had integrity and longevity.
In our view genetic modification can be used for benefit or harm but like fire it should not be banned.
Our GM opponents confirmed their bias in a fundamentalist approach which is ultimately doomed to failure as Galileo proved several centuries ago.
We held the line.
Fast forward a decade and, while genetic modification is still restricted and viewed with suspicion in some quarters in New Zealand, around the world it is one of the fastest adopted technologies in agriculture.
It is widely used in medicine, food production and manufacturing.
The GM debate was for me an exciting and rewarding time despite the risks. It has also provided opportunity. Speaking out has led me into leadership roles in science, industry and agriculture. The chance to make a difference has increased, not decreased.
You too have that opportunity.
A university education has taught you how to think. But don’t underestimate the importance of this skill and above all don’t take it for granted nor misuse it.
As you go out into the world you will meet triumph and disaster. Take Kipling’s advice and “treat the two imposters just the same”. Have the courage of your convictions, but whether you be in law, commerce, health or the biosciences use the principles of science to give your convictions longevity and credibility.
After all in the words of Sherlock Holmes “it’s elementary Dr Watson”.
“If you want to change the course of history, speak out against the crowd.”
The very reason I like to comment here on your blog, Ele
Dr William Rolleston is right in saying that, but very mistaken in many of the other statements he makes in the piece you feature.
But if you want to change the course of history then you will have to do a little more analysis than simply professing others to be “mistaken”, “wrong” and “nonsense!”
Afterall, the crowd does have the ability to think. Even the uneducated members.
“Uneducated members”
Can you tell me who they are?
And another thing, a crowd cannot think. It does not have a brain. It is not a sentient being.
You see, Tracey, I am doing some analysing of your statements, as you suggest is necessary. I’m looking forward to your doing the same.
A crowd is collectively made up of people who think and feel. A crowd can make change happen (or prevent change) and in that sense is very much alive. Some might also say the synergy of the crowd gives it a greater sense of liveliness than the members have individually.
Uneducated members – people within society without an education (or much of one).
My point was that there are people from all backgrounds (educated or not) living within the crowd who reguarly use their brains and don’t just accept, necessarily, conclusions that are drawn without proper reasoning. You commonly use the words “wrong”, “mistaken” and “nonsense” like a full-stop. End of debate. Like a parent who has gotten annoyed with their child’s persisting inquisitiveness.
Have you have stopped there because you’ve run out of arguments to continue the debate?
Or perhaps you are just busy and don’t have the time (or desire) to get into it here.
But if you want to change the course of history you will have to.
William very clearly describes the group think of the climate doomsayers. They will not or can not allow anything that does not follow the party line even when the real data does not support the conclusions that their models create. My daughter graduated from Otago last weekend and Hodgson got up and made a climate scare speech. I much prefer Williams vision of looking forward instead of trying to return us to the stone age.
If you want to change the course of history, speak out against the crowd.”
If you want to change the course of history have lots of kids and bring them up in your ways.
Liberals are not very good at having lots of kids that is why they try an reeducate the children of people who are good at it, subvert them as it were.
And Tracey being educated does not equate to being intelligent or even knowledgable let alone WISE.
In fact the reverse is often true, some of the most closed minded are highly credentialled education wise
“And Tracey being educated does not equate to being intelligent or even knowledgable let alone WISE.” Sure it doesn’t, Andrei, I agree with you. The outcome of education is just the beginning of a rite of passage that not all make it through. But some do.
“…some of the most closed minded are highly credentialled education wise”. Yes but extremely closed-minded people can be found in every human grouping. This is to be expected. The great challenge is to make it through the process of being educated whilst maintaining the ability to think (and speak) freely. As I’m about to embark on the final educational frontier, a doctorate, that is one of my concerns.
Re bringing up lots of children. The only way I could see that as a possibility is being on the DPB. That is the only support system that draws a direct line between number of offspring and income level. And doesn’t it do such a good job of it too? I know one guy with more than 15 children and still going. Subvert them? they’re already subverted.
For the people who support them, it works in the opposite direction. The more kids you have, the poorer is your life – not only the money side of things but the quality as well.
Proposition: Being educated does not equate to being intelligent or even knowledgable let alone WISE.”
QED
I’m not knocking you getting a Phd, I believe the quest for knowledge is a good thing, a liberating thing but what is a Phd but a piece of paper? And what will
it mean when you are old and decrepit?
Helen Clark might think she is a mover and a shaker, an important person but in a few years she will be a maggoty corpse in the ground and her legacy will
be nothing whereas those drab people from South Auckland with multiple kids will be the great grandmothers of those who define NZ at the beginning of
next century and it is what they pass onto her children that will be what shape what this country will look like.
If you want to change the course of history, speak out against the crowd.……. and raise lots of kids in your image not Helen Clark’s, long term that
her ways are a loosing proposition.
Don’t be fooled by our elites, they are arrogant fools clueless to what is important in this world of woe and hold in esteem things that don’t matter one whit
“Proposition: Being educated does not equate to being intelligent or even knowledgable let alone WISE.”
For the people who support them, it works in the opposite direction. The more kids you have, the poorer is your life – not only the money side of things but the quality as well.
QED”
Point to you Andrei. BTW, I did see that coming when I was writing it. But I am happy to admit that it’s neither intelligent, knowledgeable nor wise to go on mindlessly increasing support to others who depend on us to have many more children than us (we only have two). Not that we have a choice but to pay our taxes.
But there are things that a healthy sense of self does not allow. Although it might not be smart, I decided at age 16 after time on the unemployment benefit that my soul would suffer tremendously if I spent the rest of my life that way. Raising kids on the DPB was never going to happen for me.
The piece of paper, the letters after your name, is an egotisical thing – a selfish thing to want. But it was that selfish dream that got me out (and kept me out) of a hole that was partially, and not unlovingly, devised by my parents. The hope that you might make a small difference is what it is really about. My research is in a field which could contibute to future development of social policy. So I live and hope…
AND I shall definitely not be raising my kids in the image of Helen Clark even though that may please my father!
Oh Tracey be warned dragons lurk here!!!!!
You cannot legislate morality, it goes wrong every time, it has a name “The Law of unintended consequences”.
Thus the DPB blowout, which you (and I lament) is in itself a result of past “social policy developments”. and the unintended unforseen consequences thereof.
I am a social conservative of course and realize we are the products of societies that had developed social constructs that led to the succesful raising of children socialized into those structures. These things were not the result of “social policy development” by over educated goofballs but those peoples that evolved them and promulgated them well prospered while those that didn’t dissappeared.
Thus until very recently it would have been considered shameful to bear a child out of wedlock and this social pressure meant that few were and when conceived the mother often married the father, or perhaps some other male either tricked into believing paternity or prepared to take on the responsibility of raising the child or the child was adopted.
Children to some extent more or less model their parents ways, responsible parents tend to produce children who will be responsible parents in their turn and the converse. And “social policy developments”. have been introduced to undermine this as well and as is usual such things tend to undermine the good while allowing the pathological to be re-inforced.
You cannot make life on earth paradise with “social policy development”, it will never happen! And all attempts to do so will create disaster.e.g blowouts in the DPB or famines as in the Soviet Union or organized crime as in American Prohibition
All anyone can do is try to be a decent person and to bring up their kids to be the same, fixing those problems within their locality and sphere of influence as they can. We will never reach nirvana but the more people who do it well the closer we will get.
There is no magic wand
Dragons are everywhere Andrei, as I have discovered this year. But that doesn’t mean that some of us should not try grabbing them by the tail! And even if the effort doesn’t succeed it will still make for an interesting life.
By your comments I am reminded of HG Well’s classic book “The Time Machine” which I read to my son awhile back. In it the time traveller finds what he initially sees as a perfect world where many of society’s problems appear to be resolved. But it is far from what it seems.
So I think we have to accept what we have warts and all and realise that what at times may seem all wrong, is not that bad when viewed from different perspectives both in time and space. But at the same time it is important to remain open to the prospect that there are holes in our knowledge, perhaps gaping ones, that stand in the way of improvement.
The seed for my research was a gift from my kids. The result of a long time spent at home with them. There is more that people can do than just raise kids in their own good image. They can raise their kids to be better than them. To be better thinkers, to be braver, to be more willing to act.
Your last two sentences qualify for quote of the day.
Cheers!
http://robertguyton.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/hollie-is-dux.html
Cheers!