The Republican War on Science, yet again

by John Q on May 7, 2008

Kevin Drum points to this piece by Michael Gerson, denying the existence of a Republican War on Science. As Drum points out, Gerson doesn’t even mention the major battlegrounds like global warming denialism, creationism and intelligent design, and the Gingrich-era shutdown of the Office of Technology Assessment, focusing on a much narrower set of issues including stem cell research and abortion.

Moreover far from refuting the claim of a war between Republicanism and science, Gerson spends most of the article fighting on the Republican side. Most obviously the obligatory, and in this case, lengthy discussion of eugenics, tied in Jonah Goldberg fashion to contemporary liberalism.

There’s an even more fundamental problem here. Gerson is so focused on the political/cultural/ethical war he is fighting that he doesn’t even consider the question of whether there are any scientific facts that might be relevant to the question.

In relation to stem cells, he ignores the central point made by critics of the Republican War on Science such as Chris Mooney. This was not, as Gerson supposes, that ethical opposition to stem cell research is anti-science. It was that the Bush Administration, in pushing its side of the debate, falsified the scientific evidence regarding the (in)feasibility of stem cell research under the rather bizarre compromise policy it pursued (for more of the details, see Stem Cell Century by Russell Korobkin. This was, and remains, Standard Operating Procedure for Republicans on all topics – science is just another arena for political debate, in which reality is what you make it.

Gerson is so enmeshed in the War on Science that the idea of science as a process of inquiry by which we might make some findings, admittedly fallible and provisional, about the reality of the world in which we live, seems totally alien to him. The idea that someone might, for example, oppose embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds but, based on the available evidence, reject the hypothesis that research adult stem cells will provide the same benefits, simply does not enter his mental frame of reference.

{ 21 comments }

1

Steve LaBonne 05.07.08 at 12:49 pm

This is only a minor facet of Gerson’s overall, utter hackdom.

2

Harl Delos 05.07.08 at 3:43 pm

The great thing about the “war on science” is that science never loses. You are *supposed* to question everything. That’s how we end up with better explanations for what’s going on.

For instance, from certain data, it appears that earth has actually been cooling since 1998. Maybe the data is misleading for one reason or another; maybe the problem is with the concept, and it turns out that human activity isn’t causing the earth to warm through higher CO2 levels.

No matter which is true, and which is false (and conceivably, it could be both), scientific study and experimentation will tell us the answer – and we’ll all be better off at that point.

There are a lot of wars in which bullets and bombs are used. Those are the wars we need to worry about. A war on science? No. Science has proven over the centuries that it can take care of itself. Galileo 1, Torquemada 0.

3

Uncle Kvetch 05.07.08 at 3:44 pm

4

Christopher Colaninno 05.07.08 at 4:30 pm

Gerson is so enmeshed in the War on Science that the idea of science as a process of inquiry by which we might make some findings, admittedly fallible and provisional, about the reality of the world in which we live, seems totally alien to him.

I actually think conservative ideology has the potential to play a positive role in regulating science and making our scientific advancement follow moral guidelines. (By contrast I think conservative ideology is a negative force in almost every other field)

But recently they’ve made their moral critiques of science so heavily political and generally nonsensical that I’m afraid by the time scientists do start doing immoral things no one will paying attention as they will have thoroughly discredited the entire movement’s stance on science.

5

noen 05.07.08 at 5:28 pm

Science has proven over the centuries that it can take care of itself.

This is utter nonsense. Galileo was placed in house arrest for the rest of his life and his findings were successfully suppressed for quite some time.

6

jcasey 05.07.08 at 5:39 pm

Gerson’s article amounts to two rather obvious red herrings. The first shifts the focus from the war on empirical science to a discussion of the disagreement over the policy recommendations consequent upon scientific findings. The second red herring turns ones attention to outrageous (Goldberghian) confusions of fact and value. Just because nature may not yield the equality of all species exemplars hardly means that we should to. Hackery in extremis.

7

F 05.07.08 at 5:57 pm

For most of the population, science is just another ideology, to be fought on the same battleground as liberalism and socialism. These people are incapable of separating the scientific method from its political consequences. Gerson is just a higher profile example.

8

Barry 05.07.08 at 6:14 pm

Posted by Harl Delos: “For instance, from certain data, it appears that earth has actually been cooling since 1998. Maybe the data is misleading for one reason or another; maybe the problem is with the concept, and it turns out that human activity isn’t causing the earth to warm through higher CO2 levels.”

And here comes a lying warrior on science in the flesh.

Please start with Deltoid:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/no_global_warming_didnt_stop_i.php
and then go on to Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/

“No matter which is true, and which is false (and conceivably, it could be both), scientific study and experimentation will tell us the answer – and we’ll all be better off at that point.”

The point of the concept of Republican War on Science is that the republicans aren’t doing that. They’re putting out lies, and trying to prevent experimentation. Odd, that you can’t tell the difference.

“There are a lot of wars in which bullets and bombs are used. Those are the wars we need to worry about. A war on science? No. Science has proven over the centuries that it can take care of itself. Galileo 1, Torquemada 0.”

And the Khmer Rouge collapsed after only ~20 years; the USSR after ~70. No consolation to those living during those periods.

9

Barry 05.07.08 at 6:26 pm

The basic fact concerning Gerson is that he was the Wh*reson’s chief lie-smith. When the Wh*reson wanted some lies prettied up in an attractive shape with a nice paint job, he called up on Gerson.

After that service, Gerson should be assumed to be lying until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

10

gmoke 05.07.08 at 7:53 pm

I’ve been in a small group situation with Gerson when he was a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School. It seemed to me, from that encounter, that it was only the issue of abortion that moved him. That is what pushed his button. Nothing else did.

11

Marc 05.07.08 at 8:09 pm

Climate data is complex to analyze because there is real noise in the system. Volcanoes and changes in ocean currents (El Nino, for instance) induce real spikes. 1998 was an unusual average not only because of a strong El Nino effect; it also happened that the warmest 12 month anomaly was a calendar year rather than being split between a couple of years.

However, we now have so many indicators that point in the same direction that this is simply moot. The collapse of Arctic sea ice is only the most visible, but there are many more. The scientific debate at this point is about how much we have underestimated climate change, not whether it is occurring. And we’re quite worried that we have discounted phase shifts.

12

John Quiggin 05.07.08 at 8:16 pm

Hari, I appreciate your comparison of Republicans to Torquemada (apt literally as well as figuratively), and I share your hope that they will soon be nothing more than a bad historical memory.

Still the other commenters are right on the science of climate change, and in their calls to avoid complacency based on an assumption of inevitable victory.

13

Barry 05.07.08 at 9:12 pm

john, good snark, but Hari is probably on the side of Torquemada.

14

Down and Out of Sài Gòn 05.08.08 at 1:06 am

I’d really like to see a debate between Michael Gerson and John Quiggin. Mr. Gerson (like a lot of opinion columnists) seems very good at ignoring adverse comments – like the 400-odd comments attached to his speech. A debate may shake him up.

(Another reason I want John to be in the debate – Gerson’s talking points about “Liberals” would fall flat on his face against him. I doubt John has voted Liberal for the last couple of decades.)

15

Barry 05.08.08 at 1:13 am

“I’d really like to see a debate between Michael Gerson and John Quiggin. Mr. Gerson (like a lot of opinion columnists) seems very good at ignoring adverse comments – like the 400-odd comments attached to his speech. A debate may shake him up.”

The trick about these guys is that they thrive in a broadcast environment. They aren’t one-on-one conmen, but rather dishonest advertisers for the actual conmen. Smart guys like that don’t get into a format where anything that they say can be analyzed, reviewed and rebutted. If they do, they’ll revert to the ‘Gish Gallop’.

16

PersonFromPorlock 05.08.08 at 1:24 am

Tomás de Torquemada (1420–1498)

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

17

bi 05.08.08 at 3:44 am

Delos:

You are supposed to question everything.

Utter bullcrap. Science isn’t about “questioning everything”, it’s about falsifiability and falsification.

Questioning whether Barack Obama may be a Muslim, despite every indication that’s actually observable — that isn’t science, that’s cloud-cuckoo woo universe.

18

bi 05.08.08 at 3:53 am

Down and Out of Sài Gòn:

Debates with these guys are an utter waste of time. Even if they lose, they’ll just throw a hissy fit, give a ton of after-the-fact excuses to ‘explain’ why the debate was rigged, and then ask for another debate.

 – bi, Intl. J. Inact.

19

John Quiggin 05.08.08 at 4:39 am

Like Brendan Nelson “I have never voted Liberal in my life”. I’ve voted for quite a few parties but, as Billy Hughes said, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere.

(Non-Oz readers please ignore this comment).

20

bernard Yomtov 05.08.08 at 10:35 pm

Torquemada 0

I was under the impression Torquemada actually ran up quite a high score.

21

DS in NJ 05.09.08 at 2:16 am

Conservative are right…..Reality does have a liberal bias.

Comments on this entry are closed.