great post... thx. yea, I think it's all about bringing the external world into our internal reality so we can control it... and therefore feel that we are in control of our lives.
IMO, behind the need to feel in control is the need to feel safe and secure rather than threatened or frightened. I think that's the primal motivator, and why we may react with considerable hostility to those holding different views. But interestingly, when we
really know whereof we speak, we're less inclined to hostility.
The degree of people's hostility then becomes a barometer of how uncertain they are of their beliefs. This applies even if what they believe in happens to be true: the key point is their
uncertainty about the facts of the situation.
The greater the uncertainty, the greater the tendency to insult and stigmatise those who differ. When someone resorts to invective, It's a telling giveaway that they're feeling insecure. When I think back, it's often been the quietly spoken truths, accompanied by a disinclination to argue by my interlocutor, that have impressed me; even if it's only later after I've calmed down, and honestly reflected on the exchange.
1. What does the Wikipedia controversy say about the way science is put across (including, for example, the lack of support by scientists of Rupert Sheldrake), and is it a widespread issue?
It's happening all over the place in a number of contentious "scientific" areas, e.g. psi, AIDS, cosmology, CAGW, Darwinism as an adequate explanation of evolution, and so on. In each of those cases, we have an orthodox view and the tendency of its supporters to vilify dissenters. Based on my rule of thumb, that's a giveaway that the mainstream case isn't as open-and-shut as it's made out to be: after all, you don't get aggressive defence of the laws of thermodynamics, do you?
There tend to be a few angry and very vocal scientists who promulgate such orthodoxies; they act as authority figures for the many more laypeople to whom it's important that an orthodoxy be true. Laypeople's arguments necessarily have to rely to some extent on "expert" opinion, but as often as not, they've predetermined the truth that's most conducive to their personal security, and expert opinion is just a tool with which to beat dissenters over the head. To be fair, some dissenters may be their mirror image even if it should turn out their views are correct.
Most scientists aren't very visible in such contentious areas. Privately, they may have personal doubts, but if so, it's inadvisable for them to voice them if they want to continue to receive funding and keep their jobs. IMO, it's not so much how science is put across, as how science is organised these days. The people in charge of the allocation of funds are orthodoxists; they're the ones most in control, and so the feedback is self-reinforcing. It's hardly surprising that we tend to hear little of the genuine doubts that real working scientists might have. It takes enormous courage to voice those doubts, and in their shoes, would I have that courage? I'm not sure.
2. Is the issue of exposing the unfair bias in Wikipedia the same as it was in the case of TED censorship of Sheldrake, and is it really a blessing in disguise?
I think it's similar. In both cases, it's not so much scientists who are attacking Sheldrake, as laypeople invested in an orthodox worldview, spurred on by the pronouncements of those angry and vocal scientists I've mentioned. Insofar as we make progress by making mistakes, I suppose it could be a blessing in disguise. History's littered with examples of orthodoxies that have been held and defended to the bitter end, and thereby stalled progress.
Science is supposed to be one area where it's possible to look at claims dispassionately, and where scepticism is welcomed, but in the end, science isn't completely independent of the social milieu in which it's practised. If a few of the sacred cows get slaughtered (I suppose two of the most influential currently are CAGW and Darwinism), the ramifications will be enormous. The scientific establishment stands to lose a great deal of its kudos, and that mustn't be allowed to happen, which I think accounts for the insecurity and hostility displayed by prestigious scientific bodies and publications (whose ordinary members/contributors may not actually be fully onboard).
The more the evidence mounts against orthodox establishments, the shriller is the defence. Unwittingly, they're exposing their uncertainties all the more by that. One doesn't have to be an expert to detect that and smell a rat: but there's nothing else orthodoxies can do to defend themselves than turn up the volume. At some point, hopefully soon, the crisis point will be reached and issues be resolved one way or the other.