Comments on: Science a la Carte

By: Withywindle

Withywindle — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 03:40:09 +0000

Oh, you shouldn’t doubt people’s good faith willy-nilly–always call your domestic opponents fools, not knaves–although at this late date I am not terrifically shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment. Again, this turns on “More importantly, it should have serious implications for every process that involves trusting in scientific knowledge.” Maybe it should, but people aren’t very consistent, and politicians less so. Calling this “relativism” unwarrantably dignifies the usual happy opportunism, for which consistency is scarcely ever a bar.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:40:37 +0000

Well, skepticism of expertise is an old theme here too. But it’s not so much that politicians have to be “up on science” as much as they need to avoid using epistemological expediency. Or if you like, a favorite bugbear of conservatives, they need to avoid being postmodern relativists.

Accusing a very large majority of scientists now practicing of authenticating results they know to be false for personal gain is a serious accusation, or should be coming from anyone who aspires to be entrusted with the power of the Presidency and already has the power of a state governor. More importantly, it should have serious implications for every process that involves trusting in scientific knowledge. But Perry tosses this off as a quip instead. Believing that evolution is a false or fundamentally undemonstrated theory should occasion serious suspicion of antibiotics, and as a matter of public policy, should instruct active disinterest in governmental programs that are premised on viral and bacterial evolution being real. Picking and choosing which demonstrated truths you’re going to not believe in based on what’s politically expedient is precisely what complaints against “relativism” are all about.

By: Withywindle

Withywindle — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:43:28 +0000

Jim Manzi — http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275417/boundaries-science-jim-manzi — speaks to you. It’s not quite so a la carte as all that.

John Derbyshire also had a good post some years ago about how utterly indifferent he is if the postman is a creationist so long as he delivers the mail. The areas where an elected official has to be up on his Science are, I think, much fewer than you appear to believe–a certain happy inconsistency and muddle gets us through the day. E.g., “I don’t believe the wispy theoretical underpinnings behind antibiotics, get me another thousand cases ASAP, I don’t care why they work so long as they do!” is not a very difficult practical combination. You can find areas where public policy gets affected–but on the whole it’s pretty small potatoes. Save, I suppose, for “we’re not going to spend trillions of dollars because some climate scientists are hot and bothered and think the aliens will spank us if we don’t shut down our coal plants yesterday.” But I hope you don’t really think that this “the Himalayas will melt tomorrow, oops, that was a typo” branch of (pseudo-)science is quite on a par with Boyle’s Law.

Me, I’m generally skeptical of experts and scientists–the Montaigne in me.

By the way, thanks for switching your commenting format. The downside is that I may comment more frequently.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:51:01 +0000

I love the design of that graphic.

By: Colin Purrington

Colin Purrington — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:08:56 +0000

darn:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/h5n1/avianflu.htm

By: Colin Purrington

Colin Purrington — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:08:32 +0000

rather,

By: Colin Purrington

Colin Purrington — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:07:37 +0000

I know you've probably already seen this, but the issue of antibiotics makes me want to be sure: .

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:37:12 +0000

Laying it on a bit thick, I know, but honestly, there are a few things that really do go together. I don’t see how you can use antibiotics with confidence, for example, if you don’t believe in evolution, unless you have some extremely exotic alternative theory about why they work and how antibiotic resistance occurs. The Christian Scientist example is a good one in the sense that that’s at least philosophically coherent and consistent as a position on biology, medicine and scientific authority. A la carte rejectionism in contrast is just pandering or cynicism. You can’t say, “Look, an exceptionally large majority of scientists are all on the take, producing results they know to be fake in return for financial gain” and then turn around and say, “On most other matters, I accept the authority of scientific experts and will fund scientific and technological institutions and investments accordingly.” Those cannot be reconciled.

By: Withywindle

Withywindle — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:35:34 +0000

Ah, the seamless garment of science.

By: Richard Brandt

Richard Brandt — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:37:20 +0000

Don’t laugh too hard at that “germ theory of disease” crack; what if a Christian Scientist decides to run? (BTW, and by a curious coincidence, “God” is one of my reCAPTCHA words at the moment.)