Comments on: Mooney Minus the Polemic?

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:24:52 +0000

functional: “It is just as fair to hold all Democrats responsible for those anti-genetic-research views as it is to hold all Republicans responsible for the views of one terminated NASA worker.”

That’s a good point. However, just in case you’re a bit behind the curve, a guy named ‘Chris Mooney’ has written a book documenting rather widespread tendencis on part of the GOP for this type of thing. It’s called ‘The Republican War on Science’, and, by some strange coincidence, is the topic of this post.

By: Phobos

Phobos — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:18:02 +0000

The Christian Right has a beef with ALL of science.
Yep. Just yesterday, big time evangelical Dr. D. James Kennedy’s interview with D. Michael Behe ended with Dr. K saying that after evolution falls, the teaching of ALL scientific disciplines will have to change too.

By: Functional

Functional — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:27:24 +0000

Democrats aren’t opposed to genetic research which takes into account the races of subjects. Democrats are opposed to using data obtained from such research to discriminate against people on the basis of their race.

Right. That’s true. But there are certainly at least a few liberals who object to this sort of genetic research at all, which is why you find articles such as those discussed here. It is just as fair to hold all Democrats responsible for those anti-genetic-research views as it is to hold all Republicans responsible for the views of one terminated NASA worker. (Hint: That means that it is NOT fair in either case.)

By: Lawrence Sober

Lawrence Sober — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:34:35 +0000

witness how liberals fight tooth and nail whenever a social scientist reaches a politically incorrect conclusion, such as Richard Sanders’ finding that affirmative action hurts blacks’ chances of becoming lawyers, or Sunstein’s finding that the death penalty deters homicide).

Yeah, some rock solid conclusions there. Nothing questionable at all about any of those “studies,” or how to interpret the results.

The earth is warming up. And affirmative action hurts blacks who want to be lawyers. It’s impossible to draw a distinction between these two claims. Or so we’re told.

one never finds the left attacking scientific advances related to: genetic engineering; irradiation of food (have they never used a microwave?); genetics research on racial issues (even in medicine, where the benefits are quite clear); nuclear energy

Similarly, Democrats aren’t opposed to genetic engineering any more than Republicans are opposed to genetic engineering (stem cells, anyone?)

No one disputes that scientific research can become politicized and data can be misused and misrepresented (or simply fabricated). Mooney’s thesis (and it’s hardly controversial) is that the current Republican administration behaves in way which is consistent with the proposition (occasionally promoted explicitly) that the scientific method is no more useful than the Bible for understanding reality.

This is a legal and practical problem for those of us (most of us, in fact) who favor a secular government which legislates based on reason and not on scripture. Does that sort of government sound familiar? It should—it’s the sort of government that’s described in the Constitution.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:22:58 +0000

One BUSH POLITICAL APPOINTEE, not just any “person”.

The Christian Right has a beef with ALL of science. The Bush Administration will always bend over backwards to placate its base, even to the extent of planting morons like Deutsch at science agencies. If you have a shred of rationality and intellectual integrity left, wake up and take an honest look at what you’re defending.

By: Functional

Functional — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:13:43 +0000

Oh, give me a break. One person at NASA expressed skepticism about the Big Bang. He quickly resigned (obviously under the threat of being fired).

And this means that Republicans in general oppose cosmology? Come on. You might as well say that “Democrats oppose economics,” because you found a Democrat who wrote something stupid on the subject.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:04:31 +0000

You'll lose the bet about cosmology: link

By: Functional

Functional — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:57:41 +0000

There are few issues on which Democrats in the US, or
social democrats and liberals elsewhere have taken a position that is obviously at variance with the findings of mainstream science. By contrast, there is almost no scientific discipline, from geological analysis of the age of the earth to epidemiology to climate science that has not been subject to ideological attack from Republicans and associated interests.

Really? No scientific discipline? This is going to be a bombshell when it gets out that Republicans have been attacking: nuclear physics, physics of all types, quantum chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, computer science, AI research, electrical engineering, acoustics, etc.

And on the flip side, why, one never finds the left attacking scientific advances related to: genetic engineering; irradiation of food (have they never used a microwave?); genetics research on racial issues (even in medicine, where the benefits are quite clear); nuclear energy; and a host of social sciences (witness how liberals fight tooth and nail whenever a social scientist reaches a politically incorrect conclusion, such as Richard Sanders’ finding that affirmative action hurts blacks’ chances of becoming lawyers, or Sunstein’s finding that the death penalty deters homicide).

By: shinypenny

shinypenny — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:44:13 +0000

I’m not disagreeing with Mooney’s conclusions at all or the fact that the title accurately reflects the contents of the book. I just think* that the people who really need to read it aren’t going to pick it up because the title is so inflammatory. Doesn’t mean it’s not true, but they’ll never see the evidence Mooney presents, simply because the title essentially translates to “Go Away – This Isn’t For You” to the conservative mind. The book is just too easy for Republicans and conservative independents to dismiss out of hand the way it’s named now. And that’s a true pity.

*Actually I don’t “just think”, I know: the two copies of TRWoS that I’ve purchased for libertarian friends have remained unread. When I asked why, they pointed to the title. “Too ‘Michael Moore’”. I’m not excusing the fact that these friends are close-minded. You have to work with what you’ve got though.

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 15:46:06 +0000

Mooney was not writing about anti-science trends in the culture in general. He was writing about a very specific, well-defined, and highly visible political phenomenon of recent years, namely- wait for it- the Republican war on science. (Which, as I argued in another comment, is but one aspect of the more general Republican war on reality.) This IS happening, Mooney documents it carefully, and I for one think it was damn well about time to start calling a spade a bloody shovel.

By: stuart

stuart — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:49:03 +0000

I get the impression sometimes that many authors in in the field of politics (or anything the overlaps it heavily) seem to be writing books to sell books, and that equally many readers are reading these books to reinforce their own belief systems.

This work, from some of the stuff noted above, seems to be in the worst of both worlds – it gives the impression of being something like this from it’s title and to some extent the style taken within the book, but seems to have been properly research and investigated, rather than just being a rehash/pastiche of existing opinion warmed over and retitle in a short time period.

By: shinypenny

shinypenny — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:35:40 +0000

While I found the book enlightening, the people who really need to read it (i.e., my Republican/Libertarian friends) won’t. One look at the title and they’ll write it off as more “Michael Moore-type liberal propaganda” without even cracking the cover. If there’s any chance that Mr. Mooney would consider moving the “Republican” bit of the title down to a subtitle, I’d strongly encourage him to do so. The book is clearly written, and Mr. Mooney’s evidence and arguments are persuasive. It would be a pity if his book’s only achievement was to document the atrocities. As it stands now, however, the title guarantees that the people who most need to read what he’s written will simply pass by.

By: soubzriquet

soubzriquet — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:25:23 +0000

10. Brett, even given your (debateable) point about a few particular policies, you don’t address the larger claim, which was (if I understand it correctly) that although we all know that bad science has been thrown around on both sides of this fence before, the problem being addressed is of a fundamentally different order (and much worse).

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 21:55:19 +0000

“Public policy is driven by statistic which show, e.g., blacks are underrepresented in top academic positions, illegal handguns kill many young innocent people, and many women get the crap beaten out of them on a regular basis by their husbands.”

Bad social science consists of, for instance, demanding that no cause save invideous discrimination be considered for blacks being under-represented in a field. Or Bellesiles’ work of fiction being awarded the Bancroft prize after his fraud had been exposed.

The point isn’t, of course, that there’s no good social science. It’s that bad science to advance policy goals isn’t a uniquely right wing activity.

By: paul

paul — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:22:38 +0000

The idea that desire for the products of technology translates into respect for science is, sadly, baloney. Heck, the idea that respect for—or even participation in—one branch of scientific or technical endeavor leads to respect for the findings of other branches is similarly naive. The ability of the human mind to compartmentalize beliefs is such that even those who do groundbreaking work in materials science or electrical engineering or who knows what else can hold completely anti-scientific beliefs about biology and the origins of life. (Consider that fundamentalist engineers and technicians were a large part of the backbone of the Iranian revolution, for example.)

If anything, technocupidity makes people like this (the “enterprisers”) more hardened in their underlying anti-science beliefs, because the tension in their heads has to chatter out somewhere. And better yet, having learned to live with their implicitly conflicting beliefs, conservative tech-lovers are among the best at attacking science under the guise of purifying it of “liberal” (wasn’t it “jewish” in the last iteration?) infuence.