God save us from scientism

There I was writing my newspaper column about “non violent communication” when, rather ironically, I became enraged by two stop press news items that knocked me off my perch in a fit of utter incredulity.

Just as I was adding the finishing touches to an article that espouses the need to acknowledge our deepest needs and act lovingly when it comes to getting the best out of ourselves and each other, I don’t mind communicating that I was incensed by the latest outbreak of what I call “scientism”.

First I hear a “ground-breaking” British study has found that artificial colours and commonly-used preservatives, such as those often found in sweets and soft drinks (do they still warrant the tag “soft”?) might be linked to hyperactivity in children.

And then, only moments later, a further news item (I use the term “news” with some resistance) which warns that children who have binge drunk by the age of 16 are more likely to use drugs when they grow up, turn into alcoholics and possibly end up with criminal convictions.

If you heard these items, were you tempted - as I was - to put your head through your hi-fi system? So much for non violent communication.

What’s more, I later found out that the findings of those ground-breaking scientists - namely a team at Southampton University whose results were published this week in The Lancet – are being taken so seriously, that the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) will be looking into the “possible link” between certain food colours and ill behaviour.

Furthermore, I gather the no-doubt earnest scientists also suggested that parents now have a simple tool to help them tackle hyperactive behaviour. Thank you - I must add that to my list that includes not playing on motorways and refraining from juggling with knives.

In the similar what-planet-do-these-people-live-on piece of work, researchers at the Institute of Child Health in London reckoned that in a long-term study of 11,000 British children born in 1970, those who drank heavily in their mid-teens encountered a wide range of social and medical problems by the age of 30.

Well I never. Lord only knows what an over-indulgence of those iridescent blue alco-pops might do to the average teen.

Not for the first time, I am reminded of Basil Fawlty who tells wife Sybil that if she were on Mastermind her specialist subject would be 'stating the bleeding obvious'.

I understand that we all have to have jobs and pay bills, but this sort of work and these sorts of “findings” are an insult to the intelligence, instincts and intuition of the people for whom they are presumably intended.

We know at a very basic level that blue sweets and industrial chemicals might not do our kids much good. And that if they go on to overdo it on the booze, it could bring about all sorts of nasty consequences; you don’t need a degree to see that let alone a well-funded, long-term research project.

And therein lies my beef - not with science not even with scientists - and the joy I imagine they get in endeavouring to understand how and why things work, especially when geared to the betterment of humankind and society. My complaint is levelled right between the blinkered eyes of “scientism” – the narrow-minded belief in the scientific worldview to the exclusion of other equally valid terms of reference, those subtler human faculties and inner knowing.

We just know some things and don't need a prolonged and rationalised trip around the houses to prove it. Only the most dead-from-the-neck-down types of people need the validation of this sort of research. And what about those binge drinkers who don't turn into social misfits or the poor kids who never got to try a blue Smartie, just for the fun of it? Life is more complex than those boffins would have us believe.

I sincerely hope that the work of these clearly well-meaning folks has been dumbed-down, trivialised or mis-represented. There must surely be much more to it than the hype that made the headlines this week.