Comments on: War on Science

By: Darwiniana » RWOS: index

Darwiniana » RWOS: index — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 02:48:26 +0000

[...] War on Science by Ted Barlow [...]

By: Functional

Functional — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:34:02 +0000

I had to be on guard while reading Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science, because it’s a sterling example of a book that tells me what I want to hear. For the lion’s share of the readers of this blog, it’s what you want to hear, too. So take this with a grain of salt

This is a great intro. In fact, I believe it’s the first blog post that I’ve ever seen—anywhere—where the blogger has enough self-awareness to acknowledge that maybe he’s too willing to believe a book that tells him what he wants to believe.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:00:07 +0000

That’s why it’s called ‘war on science’. The GOP has figured out that, if the facts were laid out (to the extent that science can determine them), people wouldn’t support GOP positions. Therefore, the facts are biased, and must be destroyed.

By: Brandon Berg

Brandon Berg — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 04:35:22 +0000

The Republican leaders in question could have made arguments for their positions by arguing that moral or economic criteria sometimes trump science.

It’s not that economic or moral criteria sometimes trump science—-it’s that science isn’t designed to tell us what we should do. All science can do is help us to understand how the world works and what consequences will follow from any given course of action. The rest depends on our values and preferences.

By: greensmile

greensmile — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:55:16 +0000

“I had to be on guard … because it’s a sterling example of a book that tells me what I want to hear. “
I appreciate the maturity of this self imposed caveat. I had the same reaction to “American Theocracy”…so much so that I essentially concluded from reviews and descriptions of the book that I didn’t even need to read it because it only confirmed and detailed what I already accept as the unfortunate truth.

Starting when I was in the 6th grade, in a small college town, I absorbed the notion that science is neutral about religious and political matters and sticks to its theories as tentative and its measurments as difinitive only in a certain context and only to a certain precision. As such science was trustworthy, benign and above sect, faction or party in its conclusions…an ideal referee for policy. My view now is a bit more nuanced but not essentially different.

The demise of science as a force in policy seems to me to coincide with and be related to a capitulation, or maybe just a realization that we do no live in a meritocracy. Money and power are what they always were since kings roamed the earth and our brief infatuation with real democracy has passed.

By: Crooked Timber » » Man, You Guys Worked Me Hard….

Crooked Timber » » Man, You Guys Worked Me Hard…. — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:23:34 +0000

[...] First I’ll touch upon what I view as the argumentative overview posts. Ted Barlow provides a useful and accurate review of my book’s main thesis, and then John Quiggin’s first post goes into more detail, expanding the argument’s applicability beyond the U.S. to Australia, and beyond the issues I discuss to related ones like DDT. (Quiggin’s first post also helps me out with some of my critics, and I fully endorse his rebuttals.) My brief reaction to these posts will comprise phase one. [...]