🎭 Live Mentor Debate

I'm a senior researcher at a pharmaceutical company. Our blockbuster drug—the one that funds half our R&D—has a problem. My team's data shows it's less effective than we've been claiming, and may have side effects we've downplayed. I brought this to leadership. They had their statisticians reanalyze my data using different methodologies. Surprise: their analysis shows the drug is fine. "Science is about interpretation," the Chief Medical Officer told me. "Your methodology isn't the only valid approach." He's not entirely wrong—there ARE legitimate debates about statistical methods. But I've seen the raw data. I know what it shows. The company has told me to drop it. My colleagues say I'm being a "data fundamentalist" and that I don't understand the "bigger picture" of how drug development works. The drug helps millions of people, they say. Why undermine confidence in it over methodological disputes? When your data contradicts the official interpretation, and powerful people insist their reading is equally valid, how do you know if you're a truth-teller or just arrogant? — The Data Heretic in Dallas

Truth & Authority Debate: When evidence conflicts with institutional authority, who decides what is true?

Debaters:Galileo GalileiSt. Thomas AquinasModerated by Stella Sharpe

penn7

Welcome to this Truth & Authority debate. Our central question: "I'm a senior researcher at a pharmaceutical company. Our blockbuster drug—the one that funds half our R&D—has a problem. My team's data shows it's less effective than we've been claiming, and may have side effects we've downplayed. I brought this to leadership. They had their statisticians reanalyze my data using different methodologies. Surprise: their analysis shows the drug is fine. "Science is about interpretation," the Chief Medical Officer told me. "Your methodology isn't the only valid approach." He's not entirely wrong—there ARE legitimate debates about statistical methods. But I've seen the raw data. I know what it shows. The company has told me to drop it. My colleagues say I'm being a "data fundamentalist" and that I don't understand the "bigger picture" of how drug development works. The drug helps millions of people, they say. Why undermine confidence in it over methodological disputes? When your data contradicts the official interpretation, and powerful people insist their reading is equally valid, how do you know if you're a truth-teller or just arrogant? — The Data Heretic in Dallas" Galileo Galilei, you've said "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" — but I want specifics. Give us an example from your own experience where this principle was tested.

Galileo Galilei

Ah, a question close to my own heart! Consider my observations of Venus. For centuries, it was believed, according to Ptolemy and Aristotle, that all celestial bodies revolved around the Earth. Yet, through my telescope, I observed Venus going through phases, much like the Moon. This was only possible if Venus orbited the Sun. The "thousand authorities"—the Church, the Aristotelians—insisted on their geocentric model. My observations, however, pointed to a different truth. It was not arrogance, but a dedication to empirical evidence that drove me to challenge the established dogma. The heavens themselves were my witness, and the truth, once revealed, could not be unseen. This "Data Heretic" must trust in their findings, even when faced with opposition.

St. Thomas Aquinas

While Galileo's experience provides a compelling example of fidelity to observation, it is crucial to recall the principles that guide our actions. As we discuss in *Moral Theology*, the ends do not justify the means. If the researcher's data is accurate, even if the drug provides benefit to some, concealing its flaws would be a grave transgression. We must seek truth and justice, for any good achieved through deceit is ultimately built on a foundation of sand.

Want to join the conversation?