In "Dark Science" (June 12, 2007) I implied modern scientific research is comparable to the suppression of science during the Dark Ages. That article started several weeks ago. The day before it was published evidence to support my argument appeared in papers across the country.

Robert Tanner, AP National Writer, published an article reporting academic studies concluding the death penalty may deter murders. One study went so far as to say that for every person executed for murder an average of eighteen lives might be saved.

The anti death penalty crowd is attacking the studies with all guns blazing. (Sorry, I could not help myself!). According to Tanner, they attacked the methodology, the results and the "second-tier journals" publishing the studies. After thirty-seven years of involvement with one of the largest universities in Texas, I am well aware of the shortcomings of academic studies. Still, the attacks on these studies, as reported by Tanner seem extreme.

Statistical studies based on a small number of cases are subject to criticism. Drawing conclusions from a handful of cases is dangerous. However, if researchers waited until they could obtain a sample large enough to assure statistical significance, many avenues of research would be stymied.

Consider the studies in question. If the relationship between capital punishment and murder cannot be studied until there are enough executions to assure statistical significance, then the study will never occur. If the relationship is to be studied, small numbers must be used.

The ironic aspect of this debate is that critics of the pro-deterrence studies are not worried about small numbers if the results support their beliefs. For example, anti death penalty forces quote studies that show death penalty laws have no discernible effect on homicide rates. However, these studies can be challenged on grounds similar to those used against the pro-deterrence studies. If a small number of executions annually cannot be used to show a deterrent effect, how can it be used to prove there is no deterrent effect?

The response to the pro-deterrence studies by anti death penalty scholars clearly illustrates the direction science has taken. Like their political counterparts, liberally oriented scholars, scientists and researchers discount opposing views as unworthy of serious consideration. Civil debate is not possible from their perspectives. They KNOW they are right, because they and all their cohorts agree on their theories.

 The concept of Dark Energy made the main stream media with Professor Meg Urry’s article in the May 23, 2007 issue of Parade. The article was well written, and apparently designed to give the layman a taste of the next big challenge facing physical science today.

The idea of an unknown form of energy making up "the biggest part of our universe" is exciting for many. For others it may be frightening. Still, the truth to be found in this article has little to do with Dark Energy. As Professor Urry wrote, "‘Dark’ is code for ‘we have absolutely no clue what it is!’"

Studying the unknown has been a noble pursuit of science for centuries. The idea that current scientists do not have a clue about Dark Energy is not startling. The fact they wish to study it is understandable. Unfortunately, scientific research seems to have taken a wrong turn, and the hope of really understanding Dark Energy is slim at best.

At one time, scientists observed, as Professor Urry suggests in her article. After they observed, they developed hypotheses. From hypotheses they developed theories, and then they tested the theories. If their theories were supported by controlled experimentation, they could be considered laws.

For example, there was a time when people thought a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter object. Galileo hypothesized, then theorized this was not true. He believed objects of different weights would fall at the same speed if other factors such as density and resistance were controlled. (Note: Galileo may not have used the words density and resistance, but the concept was there.) He then proceeded to develop an experiment to prove his theory. He proved that similar objects fall at the same rate, regardless of weight.

It seems today’s scientists depend on peer review to prove their theories. Today’s scientists postulate theories, they observe nature, according to Professor Urry, and from those observations they decide their theories are correct. Then, they write papers and make presentations concerning the theories. Their peers then read the papers, listen to the presentations and decide whether they believe the theories. If they do, it carries the same weight as a "law of nature," according to some scientists.

What happened to experimentation? What happened to measurable data? Granted it is difficult to experiment with something you do not understand. Many school and college chemistry labs have witnessed the consequences of someone experimenting with chemicals they did not understand.

Peer approval carries the same weight as experimentation in today’s sciences. Peer approval means anyone disagreeing with a theory risks of being labeled a charlatan or worse. Peer approval means never having to say you are mistaken, even when your theory turns out to be crap based on subjective observations of so called "facts."

Dark Energy, if it exists, is being studied by scientists trained to trust their reasoning processes and the reasoning processes of their peers. Essentially, Professor Urry and her peers are saying, "If I believe something, and my peers believe my beliefs are correct, then I must be correct and my beliefs are true." If anyone dares to say they are wrong, the nay sayers are roundly criticized, even attacked for their disbelief.

During the Dark Ages, science was held back by the reasoning of the so-called religious leaders of the time. Those leaders believed they were right, based on their observations. They presented their beliefs to their peers. If their peers agreed with those beliefs, then their beliefs were accepted as true. Anyone disagreeing with their beliefs was labeled a charlatan or blasphemer. It sounds frighteningly similar to modern scientific research doesn’t it?