I have wondered aloud, or at least in print, in the past about what I see as a fundamentally Presbyterian and Reformed trait when it comes to our polity — The tendency for us Reformed folk to hold, accept (or at least tolerate), and act upon divergent views on issues major and minor.  We seem to do this “better” than other religious branches that I have looked at.  In fact the PC(USA) enshrines it in our polity:

G-1.030(1) (a) That “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”

(b) Therefore we consider the rights of private judgment, in all matters that respect religion, as universal and unalienable: We do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and at the same time, be equal and common to all others.

(2) That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian Church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifications of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed; that in the exercise of this right they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow; yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own.

And our parliamentary procedure is based upon certain principles (thanks to Paul McClintock, RPR, for the quote):

There are five great principles underlying the rules of parliamentary law, namely: (1) Order. That is, there must be orderly procedure. (2) Equality. That is, all members are equal before the rule or law. (3) Justice. That is, justice for all. (4) Right of the minority to be heard on questions. (5) Right of the majority to rule the organization. — George Demeter, Demeter’s Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, 1969 Blue Book Edition, p. 5. [emphasis mine]

In a future reflection I will argue that this majority-minority interplay in our governing bodies is in fact what underlies our deliberative process and makes it so powerful — it is the key to our “always being reformed according to the word of God.”

But what has struck me this week is how this process has significant similarities to the way that science progresses with its “multiple working hypotheses” to explain the data and as new data is collected hypotheses are tested and may be revised or discarded in favor of alternate hypotheses which better explain the observations.  It is also a discernment process where dissenting voices must be considered because they bring into focus alternative perspectives on data interpretation.

This has been on my mind this week as I read about the e-mails and documents obtained by hackers from the computers at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and posted on public servers. (news story, CRU response)  Some of the material contained in those e-mails could be interpreted as attempts by climate researchers to suppress the publication of research that does not support the “consensus position.”  (Today NPR had an interesting story about the controversy where one of the scientists they interview is a researcher who feels he was suppressed because his research shows more extreme warming than the “consensus position.” )  I have not yet looked into this controversy in enough detail to have formed a final opinion.  I am suspicious that only the most sensational quotes are being used in the mainstream media reporting.  However, what I have read does concern me.

An interesting thing about this is that one of the central figures is Dr. Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University.  I bring this specific case up because while a student in the Geosciences Department there at PSU I had a formative experience that reinforced the role that contrary opinion plays in science, a lesson that I regularly remember up to the present day.

I began my undergraduate career at the tail end of the time of the paradigm shift resulting from the wide acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics.  (That in itself is a major century-long story of theory, data, the scientific method and the role that personality cults can play.  If you want to hear that one you’ll have to sit in on the two lectures where I cover that in the earthquakes class I teach.)  I have to admit that I don’t remember many of the speakers or talks I attended while at PSU, but I clearly remember a fascinating presentation given by Prof. MacKenzie “Mac” Keith.  In this presentation he presented alternate ways that certain features attributed to plate tectonics could have been generated.  While I was a bit skeptical at the time, and today am confident his theories don’t do the best job of explaining the data, it was reinforced on my developing scientific mind that alternate explanations must be considered, at least long enough to understand why they are less favorable.

So I don’t know how this climate change controversy will turn out, but I am forever grateful to Dr. Keith for the lesson in science, and life, that he taught in that one evening’s presentation.