University Dogma

A resent series of TV programs has caused quite a stir in Norway by exposing a number of university professors as ignorant of research relating to their field of study, and extremely prejudice against views that do not agree with their personal opinion.

The interviewer started each program by asking basic questions about culture vs. biology, for which the university professors gave short and definite answers in defense of culture. The interviewer went on to ask for supporting evidence for the answers, and got some examples from everyday life and personal experiences as an answer, but no numbers or reference to research despite being repeatedly pressed for facts.

Not having gotten anything specific to go by from the Norwegian professors, the interviewer travels abroad to interview international experts on the sciences related to the culture vs. biology problem. These experts are surprised to hear what the interviewer just learned from the Norwegian professors, and show him experiments and research that indicate that biology is an important, but by no means only, factor in determining the behavior of humans.

There was in fact, and contrary to what the Norwegian professors had said, plenty of evidence that biology is an important factor in determining such things as intelligence, gender preferences for certain professions, mother child bonding, etc.

Returning to Norway, the interviewer confront the professors with the facts collected abroad, and unable to say anything sensible about the facts in front of them, the professors proceed to dismiss the facts as irrelevant, flawed and poor, despite the rather obvious weight of the evidence, much of it regarded as the very best science currently available in this field.

How is it possible, one wonders that these professors were ignorant of such research, produced in the very field that they operate? These professors have been very active in public debate and rebuffed biology quite frequently, and must have had first time access to the research that they so categorically dismissed, or else it could not possibly pass as well founded science. And yet, they were ignorant of all the evidence against them, or deliberately lying about their knowledge. Either way it is reason for concern.

The professors that were exposed as frauds in the TV series were all very high profiled personalities, frequently quoted by politicians when proposing reforms in education, health care, equal opportunities legislation and so on. They are also some of the best paid and best funded researchers at the universities, receiving generous grants from the government.

The Norwegian government wields great power over the universities by determining what fields are to be investigated, and what fields are not, granting funding to research deemed valuable, and denying funding to research considered worthless.

Having opinions that are in accordance to official government dogma is in other words of great importance when asking for funding, and the high profiled professors are all supporting the current government view that human nature is dynamic and malleable, which in turn is an important assumption when promoting policies for the common good, rather than laws based on human nature.

The level of power and influence on a detailed level that the current government wields over research at Norwegian universities is currently greater than ever, greater even than it was during the days of the Nazi occupation of Norway. What looks like an exposure of a few professors, is in fact turning out to be an exposure of a political system, in which the universities are being made loyal to government dogma, and opposition is systematically oppressed.

Bearing in mind the enormous influence universities wield over matters of science, and hence government policies, it is interesting to note that not a single political party in Norwegian politics regard the welfare state as anything but a common good, and an essential part of future policies. Not even the progress party which considers itself a classical liberal party suggests that the welfare state needs more than a bit of tinkering in order to give more desirable results.

The introduction of a state run publishing company to provide free schoolbooks to high school students, met only token opposition. Having won control of the universities, the high schools seem to be next on the list of institutions that are to preach the official dogma of the common good, and denounce the notion of natural rights.