I've mentioned in other comments, a recent book I've been reading and studying by a favorite Astro-physicist, Hilton Ratcliffe, titled "Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks." The primary emphasis of this book, that follows much of Ratcliffe's previous work has to do with the effect of belief systems on scientific inquiry and mathematical formulation of and nonsensical corrections/additions to theories to incorporate such beliefs into current scientific research and even experimental findings. In these writings, Ratcliffe is really talking about socially derived belief's-faith's impact on science today, as well as the fact that all humans grow up with sets of belief systems that those in science, in particular though not exclusively, must first recognize such belief systems' impacts and their influences on their and their predecessors' work, but then take the extremely difficult path of ensuring that such does not interfere with their actual and factual experimental and measured findings and work.

Now, I've recently encountered another source in the referenced blog (Gene Expression), that goes even further than Ratcliffe in describing this phenomena of human existence in scientific work by delving into the scientific squabble that's been going on since the 70's with those, sometimes termed neo-darwinists', that searched for and believe they've found support in their studies and work to support what they've termed sociobiology. A term developed to explain many studied characteristics of today's individual humans actions and responses whose predilections in society are derived from evolutionary genetic traits at neural and molecular levels combined with environmentally influenced expressions. The referenced article, though not easily read, describes those opposing sociobiology as driven by their own early Marxist and Stalinist indoctrination that wish to believe that humans are so malleable as to be controlled through progressive/socialist government and institutional policies and imposed moralities.

The article goes on to compare the opposing leftist, progressive influence to the rightist, conservative arguments on creationism:
"Rose, like his fellow travellers Gould and Lewontin, doesn't want his worldview, which has been extensively shaped by Marxist philosophy, to come crumbling down. The solutions proffered are state centered, gene-phobic, and premised on the extreme malleability of human nature. Further, like Diamond, he knows what sells and what his fans want to read and hear. He panders to the ideology, whether he truly believes in the Ghost in the Machine or not, and despite the warnings offered by Ehrenreich, McIntosh and Konner, the faithful of the Left lap up the ideologically reassuring pablum and turn a blind eye to the reality unfolding before them. The core of this faith is that human nature is malleable beyond limits that now exist, and like I've written before, along with my co-bloggers, it is that faith in the face of reason that binds one faction of the Left to their faith-based counterparts on the Right and like on the Right, the Left has its charlatans and hypocrites delivering these sermons." (emphasis added)

For Objectivist, these ideas and concepts will make a lot of sense. For those dedicated to the validity of their beliefs-faith, as the author says, in the face of reason, they will find much to argue with (if they even bother to read and follow some of the referenced material before commenting).


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been disappointed lately in the level of much posting and commentary on the site of recent days, and much of my posting lately is an attempt to restore to the site, a quality of Objective thought, posting, and commentary; as well as further the value of reason over faith/belief.