Marcia Angell, "Science in the Courtroom: Opinions Without Evidence" and:

• David Abram, "The Ecology of Magic" (2 versions)
• David Abram, "The Ecology of Magic" and Jon Krakauer, "Selections from Into the Wild"
• Stephen Hall, "Prescription for Profit"
• Alexander Stille, "The Ganges' Next Life"

For more assignment ideas involving this essay, visit the Angell link-o-mat.

The Status of Evidence in Abram and Angell

At one point in our discussions of Abram's "The Ecology of Magic," many of you made it clear that Abram had failed to make a persuasive case about the intrinsic merits of experiencing "wild nature." He obviously had his opinions about sickness and balance but, this line of response went, where was his evidence? What proof did he have beyond his own descriptions of what he had seen, heard, and felt? For this assignment, I would like to move this discussion about the value of evidence drawn from personal experience into another domain. Whereas Abram is concerned with the evidence of the senses, in this assignment we will turn our attention to the status of scientific evidence in the courtroom.

In "Science in the Courtroom: Opinions without Evidence," Marcia Angell focuses on the overeagerness of judges and lay people to accept the testimony of scientific experts in product liability cases. Angell, who is herself a medical doctor and an editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, describes the conflict that arises whenever a scientist is asked to testify in court about causation:

The question of causation is, after all, a scientific one. But scientific questions are handled very differently in the courtroom than they are outside the courtroom. The difference turns on the relationship between evidence and opinion. In both science and law, of course, "expert" opinion is important. But what that means in the two professions is as far apart as day and night (116).

Because the courtroom isn't a laboratory and the people on the jury aren't scientists, the rules that govern the scientific community are altered in ways that Angell finds troubling.

For this assignment, I would like for you to write a speculative essay on the causes and consequences of the conflict Angell describes. That is, how many different understandings of evidence are at play in a courtroom when a scientific expert testifies? Whose understanding governs the outcome of the cases Angell discusses? Whose understanding do you think should have governed the outcome of the cases Angell discusses? What do you think would have happened if the prosecution in the breast implant case had called Abram to testify? What if the defense had? What if he--or someone like him--had served on the jury?

Back to top

Angell and Abram: Something's Rotten in Denmark (And Things Aren't So Hot Here, Either)

All's not well in the world. We're wracked and weakened by greed, materialism, sophistry and disease, and we're trapped in the limits of our culture. At least that's how it seems to David Abram and Marcia Angell. In his essay "The Ecology of Magic," Abram seems physically sickened by what he sees:

Angell isn't ill, but the women she writes about are, or seem to be. In "Opinions in the Courtroom: Science Without Evidence," Angell is concerned with disease and causation in a literal sense. What are these women suffering from and what caused it? What's being done to discover the answer? Are others exploiting their fear for personal gain? She writes:

For your next assignment, examine the conditions afflicting us as individuals and as a society. Base your essay on Abram and Angell. What are we suffering from? What's the cause and what's the cure? Evaluate Abram and Angell's evidence and conclusions to determine whether we're really in such bad shape. Cite each author at least three times.

Some questions you might want to consider as you develop your argument include the following: Is our suffering avoidable? What are the obstacles to overcoming our afflictions? Are we to blame for our problems or are we reacting to the world we're born into? Or are we just looking for someone to blame? Is the "cure" in science, culture, spirituality, magic, ourselves or some combination of these? Are Abram and Angell overstating the problems? Have these problems always been around? What's the danger of not confronting and overcoming them? Can't we just muddle through?

Rich Pliskin, Fall 2000

Back to top

Angell, Abram, and Krakauer: Meaning and the Encounter with Nature

Directly or indirectly, each of the last three writers we've read--Angell, Abram, and Krakauer--explores the manner in which individuals engage the natural world. The women in Angell's essay search for the cause of their illnesses. Abram ponders the value of a deeper understanding of nature. And Krakauer tells the story of a young man who sought to live off the land in the Alaskan backcountry. The characters in these readings explore, examine, embrace, or challege the natural world to varying degrees of success.

For your final assignment, write an essay exploring how individuals respond to the natural world, why they respond the way they do, what meaning they discover i ntheir explorations, and to what extend their efforts succeed or fail. Base your essay on Krakauer, Abram, and Angell. You may substitute Heim for Angell.

Some questions to consider: What is nature? Under what terms and conditions do we engage nature? What is our goal in doing so? Once engaged, to what extent do we embrace nature, challenge it, or recoil from it? In taking up nature, do we set out in search of something, to escpae something, or are our journeys merely accidental? If we're escaping, what are we excaping? Do we find what we were looking for? Are we better off for having made the journey? What, if anything, do we learn from these journeys?

Rich Pliskin, Fall 2000

Back to top

Angell and Hall: The Objectivity of Science

In "Science in the Courtroom: Opinions without Evidence," Marcia Angell describes the problems that arise when scientists are called into court to testify on behalf of parties who pay their salaries. What does Stephen Hall's account suggest about the objectivity of science outside the courtroom? Where might one find scientific research that is objective? Is such neutral research an achievable goal or is it simply a professional ideal?

Back to top

The Scientist's Identity in Stille and Angell

"Please consider them an endangered species, these people who still have this faith, this living relationship with the river," Mishra says with passion. "If birds can be saved, if plants can be saved, let this species of people be saved by granting them holy water" (Stille 60).

In "The Ganges' Next Life," Alexander Stille focuses on Veer Bhadra Mishra's collaboration with William Oswald to use "sustainable technology" to clean up India's holy river. Stille is intrigued by Mishra's "complex double identity" (58) and spends much of his piece trying to make sense of how Mishra can be both a devout Hindu and a scientist at the same time. Stille seems surprised that Mishra can maintain such an identity. Why is this, do you think?

As you read Stille's essay, I would like you to consider the following questions: What is a "complex double identity," exactly? Does everyone have one? Or only a few people? That is, what makes an identity "double"? What makes an identity "complex"? What are the virtues of having such an identity? The costs? What other types of identity are there? What is the relationship between "identity" and "evidence"?

Then, when you have completed Stille's essay and reviewed the chapter from Angell, I would like you to write an essay that discusses Mishra's identity and Angell's identity. Both Mishra and Angell are identified as being scientists, but what does "being a scientist" mean in these two readings?

Make certain that you cite from each assigned reading at least three times. You are welcome to expand your discussion of the scientist's identity to include other scientists mentioned in the readings: Oswald, Lappé, et. al. Doing so may give you more terms and examples with which to think.

Back to top