|
|
|
November 08, 2010
"science and politics can't be divorced"
No matter where I look, it seems there's no getting away from people who seek to impose their morality on others. Take today's headline. "Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics" John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.I sensed something in Michigan's student newspaper last week, in which a prominent researcher announced that there had to be a major shift in morality, because we must be made to see to see the burning of fossil fuels the same way we see slavery. The problem is that these rhetorical and moral arguments simply are not science. The questions of whether the climate is changing and the theory of why it might be changing do involve science, but the questions of what could or should be done about it, the weighing the pros and cons in the form of a cost-benefit analysis -- these are inherently political questions. Scientists can invent new technologies, new drugs and vaccines, but their implementation is not up to them, nor is it up to them to judge human morality or immorality. Whether a breakthrough in life extension technology is ultimately for the good of mankind or the bad is not up to the researchers -- any more than the ultimate deployment of the Hiroshima bomb was up to the scientists at Alamogordo. Of course, being free people, we are all entitled to our opinions, including scientists like Robert Oppenheimer, who waxed philosophically about his work: After the initial euphoria of witnessing the explosion had passed, test director Kenneth Bainbridge commented to Los Alamos director J. Robert Oppenheimer, "Now we are all sons of bitches."[27] Oppenheimer later stated that while watching the test he was reminded of a line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita:While it was perfectly OK for Oppenheimer to say that, it can hardly be considered science. Oppenheimer had serious moral problems with the use of the bomb, and he had every right to become an anti-nuclear activist, just as scientists are free to oppose nuclear weapons or nuclear power today. But if scientists declared that political activism against nukes constitutes "science" (or that it was a "scientific consensus") that would not make it science.Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.[28][29] The assignment of collective blame and the insistence that something be done is not science. It is a public policy argument based on morality, with quasi-religious overtones. Calling it science contaminates morality and debases science. Scientists who wish to impose their morality on us are of course free to try, but they shouldn't be able to get away with calling it science, nor should they have a leg up on everyone else just because of scientific credentials. I miss the good old days of separation of morality and science. posted by Eric on 11.08.10 at 10:16 AM
Comments
It is time, and past time to stop government financing of most science. Libertarians, if they are serious about their principles, and not just a pressure group for Stuff IT Geeks Like, would support this. Gov't financing does debase science as it forces politics more into the mix. Science is the daughter of Christianity, but they do not need to live in the same room, just in the same mansion, and the mother needs to have a hard talk with the daughter about that sleazy boyfriend Government who's moved in with her. Tennwriter · November 8, 2010 10:45 AM The Chair of the College of Liberal Arts at Oregon State University has stated that one of his major goals is to find the narrative necessary to impose Global Climate constraints upon our nation. Of course, it is his degree in English that compels me to trust his viewpoint. OregonGuy · November 8, 2010 11:16 AM it is his degree in English that compels me to trust his viewpoint. Well, I have a degree in Rhetoric, which compels me to deconstruct emanations from those whose degrees are in English! It's part of my bigoted tribal obligation, doncha know! Eric Scheie · November 8, 2010 11:31 AM I am reminded of what Obama said about “science” and politics several weeks ago: "Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country's scared."Obama's exposure to math and science past high school is unlikely to equal that of Al Gore, who took all of two math or science courses in college. And the science courses Al Gore took were of the rigor of "Science for Poets." Perhaps there is an underlying truth to Obama's "science" remark, when one recalls the mantra in past years about scientific socialism coming from Marxists on both sides of the Iron Curtain. From both Obama in his autobiography, where he wrote about "seeking out" Marxists, and from John Drew, we have evidence of Obama's Marxist orientation as a student. His "science" remark was an unwitting reminder of that. Gringo · November 8, 2010 12:44 PM If the "science" is conclusive all true scientists will support it. Hugh · November 8, 2010 02:20 PM newrouter · November 8, 2010 05:33 PM newrouter · November 8, 2010 05:35 PM It's not science even aside from the confusion of politics in it. You can't tell a cycle from a trend with a segment of data that's short compared to the cycle you wish to exclude. So there's zero evidence of a temperature trend; and lots of evidence of long term cycles. I think the thing to look at is mass delusion rather than bad faith, though. rhhardin · November 8, 2010 06:03 PM It's a religion. And that's why I only point and laugh anymore. Veeshir · November 8, 2010 06:54 PM Science is the daughter of Christianity That Galileo guy was quite a comedian. === Science was actually part of a movement designed to check the power of Christianity. M. Simon · November 8, 2010 08:52 PM I must say that the Catholic Church did learn its lesson after a long while. They currently support the general outlines of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. M. Simon · November 8, 2010 08:58 PM Science is the daughter of Christianity That Galileo guy was quite a comedian. === Science was actually part of a movement designed to check the power of Christianity. M. Simon: ask yourself the following. What was the difference in worldview between Europe, Islam, and China that meant that from 1500 on science stagnated in the latter two and advanced in the former? Gringo · November 8, 2010 09:07 PM What was the difference in worldview between Europe, Islam, and China that meant that from 1500 on science stagnated in the latter two and advanced in the former? I realize the question was directed at Simon, but I think that thanks to internal Christian religious strife (by various warring Reformation sects, the Inquisition, etc.), science was able to advance while its enemies were distracted. Modern Islamists (making the logical mistake of post hoc ergo propter hoc) concluded that the advances in science were because of the Christian Reformation rather than in spite of it, and an unintended consequence of this mistake has been a revival of radical fundamentalist Islam -- in the name of "reform" -- but that is just my opinion, and I lack the necessary academic credentials which might lend it authority. Eric Scheie · November 8, 2010 10:14 PM What most call Science has its earliest traceable roots around 400 BCE in the Socratic Method of questioning. His student, Aristotle began its refinement toward the Scientific Method. The books ascribed to "Luke the Physician" show strong evidence of its influence. The method calls for questioning and testing of basic assumptions; something authoritarian power structures (including those of the science community itself) have often sought to limit or control. Will · November 9, 2010 12:53 AM Sorry, Aristotle was a student of Plato, who was a student of Socrates. Will · November 9, 2010 01:52 AM What was the difference in worldview between Europe, Islam, and China that meant that from 1500 on science stagnated in the latter two and advanced in the former? Let me echo Eric - theocracy was weakened in Europe. Islam the opposite - plus Allah Wills It i.e. no cause and effect. China - new technology is disruptive. M. Simon · November 9, 2010 07:40 AM You didn't answer my question: "difference in worldview." WORLDVIEW Gringo · November 9, 2010 12:35 PM Gringo, Oh. I get it. The difference in Worldview between Europe and Islam? God is not capricious. He works through natural law. For China - disruptions to the system are bad. M. Simon · November 9, 2010 05:19 PM I'm puzzled by how unperceptive so many science types are. About a century ago, many scientists decided that the scientific establishment must become an arm of the state, and progressive tyranny was the result. The seduction of power corrupted scientists and the rest of academia into permanent confirmation bias. Political activism has lost scientists their credibility; these intelligent people don't have the smarts to understand that fact. Brett · November 10, 2010 08:01 AM M.Simon : Bingo. From what I had read of the history of science, trying to find out in better detail how God had ordered the world, was a not insubstantial influence on science from Medieval times onward in Europe. These days, probably not.
Gringo · November 11, 2010 03:01 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2010
October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• True Fiction
• In our national kindergarten, another tragedy means another law! • A Pagan Resurrection • First, they came for other people's children... • More Government Than We Can Possibly Afford • Hanging Out With Marines • Don't worry! There's still hope for civil war! • How to make the Tea Party support big government conservatism • Scapegoat • Pink Triangles
Links
Site Credits
|
|
(to the tune of "Marching to Pretoria")
"We're coercing to Utopia,
U-top-i-a hurrah!"