David Pelzer and Me

            I recently read the book A Child Called “It” and it royally pissed me off.  For any of you who aren’t familiar with it, it’s basically the author’s personal account of his own childhood of abuse.  His mother, at first, is the virtual paragon of motherhood.  At first, she’s just the kind of mother virtually anyone would love to have.  She’s loving, protective, supportive, but not coddling, clingy or suffocating.  This must have continued for at least a few years.  We can conclude from the book that this continued at least long enough for him to have memories of it.  Then the account leaves off and picks up again a couple years later and she has taken a turn for the downright sadistic.  She’s a completely different woman.  It’s as if she’s an impostor.

            Now personally, I have no objection to sadism per se.  As long as the sadists in society keep their inclinations directed against the masochists in society, I have no objection.  As long as those who enjoy dolling out suffering restrict themselves to those who enjoy receiving it, I have no objection.  I’m mystified, but content.  If that’s the sort of thing my neighbors are into, fine, as long as they don’t make too much noise when I am trying to sleep.

            But if someone who happens to be neither is left at the mercy of a sadist who doesn’t care that he or she is neither, then we have a problem.  This is the author’s situation here.

            The mother isn’t just physically abusive.  She plays mental games.  She deprives him of food.  She punishes him for obtaining food through other sources.  Sometimes, when he manages to get food through other sources, she actually goes so far as to force him to regurgitate it.  Once, after doing that, she forces him to consume it again.

            This much was alarming, of course, but the part that pissed me off was the father’s behavior.  For years, he knew this was happening and responded to it by trying to gingerly coax and cajole the mother into changing her MO.  For years, his way of dealing with this abusive, sadistic, blood-sucking harpy was by shaking his little finger at her for being naughty.

            Then, finally, the father reaches the point where he can’t take it anymore, and leaves.  This guy’s not even being abused.  This poor fellow has to put up with the suffering of another and he can’t take it anymore.  He finds himself unable to suffer the suffering of another.

            I found myself, with limited success, fighting down the urge to yell at the book.  What is wrong with you?!  Get that kid out of there!  When you realize that a child is in an abusive situation, the highest priority is to get the kid out of it!  Get that kid away from that abusive parent!  If you have to make noise and hurt feelings in the process, if you have to rock the boat, capsize it, or even leave it in pieces, then so be it!  If the boat in question keeps the child in question in the situation in question then such is a public service!  When it comes to removing an abused child from an abusive situation and putting an end to the abuse, every other concern is secondary!

            Ah, but wait a minute.  That’s easy for me to say.  I have never been that parent.

            That’s true.  I have been that child.  For me, it wasn’t just one parent who did the abusing.  It was both.  And it wasn’t just one parent who looked the other way.  It was all my aunts and uncles and all four grandparents.

Science vs. Science Education

Most societies have both scientists and science teachers, but which is more of a benefit?  I dare to say the latter and here I explore my reasoning for this conclusion.

            Science is often criticized for having conclusions in a state of transition.  “How can one trust science when it’s always changing its mind?” is the question.  Funny, I think, how the image evoked here is of a field in a continuous state of wild fluctuation.  Here we have an image of scientists going inexorably from one conclusion to another which is wildly different, but in fact, this is less of a fluctuation and more of a modification.  The difference is scale.

            Every last one of us may be completely certain of one thing.  Somewhere in our current understanding of the world lies error.  It may seem surprising, but that’s a good thing, because where there is error in one’s understanding, there is room to improve that understanding and this leaves the door open for discovery.  Thus, each of us having an error in our understanding, has the opportunity to discover something, and since we all have this error, we all have this opportunity.  One engaged in a continuous search for those errors is exploring.  One engaged in revising one’s position with each error discovered is bound to have a more accurate picture than one remaining intransigent in one’s conclusions in the name of being constant.

            The conclusions of science remain in a state of gradual, slight modification because science is dedicated not to the end of claiming to have every answer, but to the end of achieving the highest degree of certainty humanly possible about the answers we have.  The fact that science is ready to admit its errors and the fact that it remains ever vigilant in the search for these errors is precisely what makes it trustworthy.  Science is a self-correcting process, continuously seeking out an understanding of the world better than the one it furnishes today, and though “different” doesn’t necessarily mean “better,” “better,” does necessarily mean “different.”

            Science is the best method we have for furthering our understanding of the world, because it works.  If one wishes to send a rocket to the moon, one relies on astronomy, not astrology; physics, not metaphysics; chemistry, not alchemy.  When a woman goes into labor, one calls a doctor, not a homeopath.  When one collapses with a heart-attack, the paramedics bring a defibrillator, not magic crystals.  There’s a reason one never hears the words, “Those odds are astrological.”

            I appreciate science because I understand this.  I understand this because of my science teachers.  In high school, I took two semesters of biology, physics, botany, earth science, and psychology.  In this, I came to understand and appreciate this.

            A society benefits directly from scientific research, but to conduct this research, one needs both expertise and funding.  With either of these taken away, the research simply won’t happen.  Well the scientists who provide the expertise are much more able to secure the necessary funding in a society that supports that funding, and that is much more likely to happen in a society that understands and appreciates science.  A society that has no science teachers is a society in which the general public ceases to understand science, and subsequently ceases to appreciate it and support its funding.  Where there is no science education, there is no science.  Thus, I conclude, when society loses its science teachers, when those teachers are negligent in some way, or when they are in some way hampered in their efforts to teach science, that society derives more harm than when the same happens to its scientists.

            Therefore, in the interests of protecting his or her trade, every scientist is well advised to maintain a high level of skill for colloquial explanation.