Both science and religion have a place in the classroom and in public life. But not in every classroom, and not in every aspect of public life.
It isn't only liberals who think that religion should be kept out of the science classroom. I've made this case myself in "The Politics of Science and Religion," where I argued that the Biblical story of creation is more properly viewed as a matter of faith, not science. Because of this,
the laws of science have nothing to do with validating or debunking it. Whatever judgment science makes about the Earth being created according to the Book of Genesis is irrelevant, since the scientific method is not the standard by which the Bible is evaluated. But this also means that the concept of Creationism has no business being taught in a science classroom since a literal belief in the Book of Genesis is a matter of faith, not science.
Now to avoid misunderstanding, I am not arguing that only the accepted, mainstream scientific view of something should be permitted in the public school system. Rather,
I have absolutely no problem presenting Creationism as a theory to compete with other theories about the subject. Knowledge is not advanced by suppressing beliefs, but rather by subjecting them to scrutiny. If Creationists want to have their faith evaluated as a scientific fact, then that's fine by me. Compare and contrast their evidence with that of Darwin and his successors, and see who's left standing.
My point is, if religious views want to compete with scientific explanations in a science classroom, they're going to fail every time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed a public hearing or public debate; only that the science classroom is not the venue for this.
In this same vein I think that the other side of this same issue needs to be raised. What I'm referring to here is the tendency for science to intrude into the non-science classroom. It's one thing to propose a scientific explanation for man-made global warming. It's quite another to use this proposed theory to influence how other subjects are taught, or how other issues are discussed in a non-science classroom. Economic policy as viewed through carbon credits as viewed through man-made CO2 expenditures as viewed through wealth redistribution as viewed through existing petroleum vs. theoretical green energy sources, and so on, and so on.
This isn't even taking into consideration that "settled," "consensus science" is neither "settled," nor even a real "consensus." I could make the argument on this ground alone — as I have previously http://intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/ – that the global warming issue has become so politicized that the science is subverted by a political agenda. And, every day the number of dissenting members of the scientific community grows who challenge the central assumptions behind man-made global warming.
For those of you whose eyes are already glazing over at the thought of another global warming debate, this is the last I need to say about this subject here. Instead, I've used this example to set the stage for a broader discussion of the issue I've just raised, focusing now on a passage from Michio Kaku's work of a few years back, Hyperspace.
Kaku, as those of you know who watch the Discovery Channel and Fox News in the morning, is one of the premiere scientific minds of this era. My path crossed with him a few years back, and I found him to be an upstanding guy; incredibly bright, and not "political" in the sense that many members of the scientific community have become today. I have no idea of his personal politics, and don't really care to be quite frank. My purpose in making this observation is to say that, from my limited contact with him and from what I've read of his works and seen him say on TV, he doesn't appear to wear a political agenda on his sleeve.
This is why what I'm about to write is all that more significant. What Kaku has done in one part of Hyperspace is to apply a scientific theory/methodology to a socio-political situation, and use this "science" to form non-science opinions and judgments. In short, he does the exact same thing (albeit more subtlety, since this approach reflects current "mainstream" thought) that vocal proponents of Creationism do when inserting themselves into non-science issues.
Here's the basis of the issue I had with Hyperspace, as an illustration of the main point of this thesis. It begins with a reference Kaku made to the Kardashev scale, described by wikipedia as:
A method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement. The scale is only theoretical and in terms of an actual civilization highly speculative; however, it puts energy consumption of an entire civilization in a cosmic perspective. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. These are based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonization. In general terms, a Type I civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
So far, no complaint here. This scientific theory doesn't seem to impinge on any non-science issues, except perhaps for those who think the moon landing was faked because space travel is impossible, or who think that "mastery" over a planet's resources mean keeping them in the ground and never using them.
But Kaku didn't stop at relating Kardashev's theory. Instead, he used it to assess the state of our current civilization, with an eye toward advancing a social and economic agenda. In doing this Kaku made two related errors, both examples of using "science" to evaluate non-scientific issues.
First, in talking about the requirements to move from a Type I to II to Type III civilization, his perspective was so grounded in a present-day understanding of economics and politics that he over-estimated the difficulty attached in making this change. My reference here is to the scientific and technical requirement Kaku raised to meet the power-demands, etc. to advance to the next level. These scientific/technical requirements were linked to such things as "social cooperation on a planetary scale."
Based on Kardashev's definitions of Type I-III civilizations, the Earth today is not even at a Type I civilization. As Kaku expounds, "by definition, a Type I civilization requires a cohesive social unit that is the entire planet's population." Further, "the social organization of a Type I civilization must be very complex and advanced, or else the technology cannot be developed."
This may seem reasonable to a theoretical physicist, but it is patently untrue from a social and political perspective as backed up by the actual historical record. Kaku even cites one individual who said that, in his time, "the very thought of large ships capable of placing humans on the moon and planets was universally considered to be the thinking of a madman." And yet, within half a century from the time this view was stated, man landed on the moon.
I use this as a way to illustrate a basic point. Based on what we understand today, Kaku's conclusion about the need for a planet-wide social cohesion seems reasonable from an abstract point of view. And it may even seem reasonable from a purely scientific point of view. But as a real-world social and economic theory informed by actual practice, it's pure bunk. The entire planet does not need to be mobilized to make significant scientific or social advances. One superpower alone can lead the charge, with others filling in discrete niches here and there as necessary.
This is how the International Space Station is being built, to use it as a representative example. Russia provides the power source, Canada the robotic arm, the US the science lab, and other countries other discrete parts. But nowhere is the participation of Cuba, Iran, Syria, or even China required to make these significant technological advances. It hasn't even been 50 years since the Russians put a man in a cramped, phone booth-sized capsule and shot him into space. Technology — and civilization — can make dramatic advances without "worldwide social cohesion." In fact, the more "cohesive" the world is (think the UN), the less likely anything significant is to be done.
This is Kaku's second major error. I suspect that within another 50 years "what it takes" to accomplish everything needed to be a Type I civilization will seem considerably less daunting than it does today. And, as significantly, I think we'll all find that much of the impetus to advance to a point where we have the technical capabilities identified with a Type I civilization will come precisely from fragmented — not cohesive — government, as well as through individual capitalistic impulses rather than any implicit socialization of world resources.
To illustrate my point further, I'd like to refer to another social/political issue where science wants a voice at the policy-making table: the possibility of nuclear war (or, in its most basic form, the possibility that at least one nuclear bomb would be fired in anger).
"Common sense" in 1984, as generally reported, was that the world was a highly dangerous place and nuclear war was a real possibility. The "doomsday clock" showed almost no time left, and Ronald Reagan was fast pushing us toward midnight . . . or so conventional wisdom went. With the fall of the Soviet Union, this same conventional wisdom reversed itself. The world was now much safer from nuclear weapons.
However, if you look at the situation dispassionately, the risk of a nuclear bomb going off today is considerably greater than it was in 1990. The perceived tensions may have been higher in 1984, but the availability of the bomb was limited to a few nations, each with tight controls on its use and dispersement. Today, tensions between the world's great nuclear powers are reduced, but the threat of a bomb being used (through illegal proliferation or technical advancements like in Pakistan and Korea) is much greater. Beneath the verbal tirades and political maneuverings of both the US and Soviet Union was a structured command and control apparatus designed to prevent nuclear war. That apparatus, on the part of the Russians, has been seriously weakened, and less stable countries have (or are about to acquire) the bomb. Thus today there is a higher likelihood that someone will set off a nuclear bomb or two.
This is exactly where I fault Kaku's logic as representative of the scientific community's intrusion into social, economic, and political policies. Kaku has accepted the conventional "common sense" notion that enormous technical progress is only possible through world harmony, just the way most people believed that nuclear war was a very immediate threat. The only way to truly understand what did/is happening is to stand the original argument on its head. Not only was the world actually safer from nuclear war in the 80's, but (again getting back to my original point) we are advancing toward a Type I civilization precisely because we are not a cohesive social unit. The social/political aspects Kaku cites as essential ingredients to a Type I civilization may, in fact, be detriments instead. Precisely what is thought to limit scientific progress advances it. The socially and politically fragmented world we live in acts like an impetus to scientific advancement (the "space race"), rather than an impediment.
A world government based on "democratic" principles would tend to drive scientific advancement to a standstill. Because of the great disparity between large segments of the world's population, the impetus would be toward remedying the deficiencies, not advancing science. And the deficiencies between "us" and the poorest/most illiterate parts of the world are so enormous that it would probably take generations to correct (if ever), combined with substantial social spending, if our own mixed-history of domestic results are any indicator of success. Why build a better space shuttle when we have so many illiterate people who need to be given a basic education? Why go into space at all?
A world government based on totalitarian principles would certainly have the ability to focus resources on a global scale to advance science, but would it have the desire? The Soviet Union et. al. collapsed, in a very real sense, because the scientific advancements of the West made it impossible to continue on. I speak here first and foremost of advancements in communication, without which science advances marginally. The Soviets tried to limit communication, and it weakened them. In East Berlin, the TV signals from the West were easily picked up, showing the widening gulf between the two political systems, and increasing pressures for fundamental political change. In a totalitarian world government, most of the world's resources would end up being devoted to limiting/controlling/circumscribing information and communication, as well as reinforcing a global security apparatus to keep those in power, in power.
Therefore, as counterproductive as I believe it is to inject religion into the science classroom, it is just as counterproductive to allow science to shape public policy — either in the classroom, or the halls of government.
I don't want religious leaders using the schools to teach creationism in the science classroom, any more than I want well intended people to promote religion (Jesus) through the government and courts. Religion can have a place in public life, including the schools; but not in every aspect of public life, and not in every class taught in school.
This is the true meaning of the Constitution, not the cartoon version we've been led to believe is true that religion must be "separated" from government.
And I don't want scientists using their theories and assumptions to teach public policy in the classrooms, any more than I want well intended scientists to promote their "scientific consensus" through the government and courts to the exclusion of competing ideas. Science has a place in the science classroom, and in public life; but not in every aspect of public life, and not in every class taught in school.
This is the true meaning of scientific inquiry and education, not the cartoon version we've been led to believe by agenda-driven "scientists" and their supporters who intrude into areas outside their expertise by proposing "solutions" to social, economic and political issues they don't fully comprehend.
Phil, I’d read kaku’s “Hyperspace” some time ago, and noticed the same thing you did.
It’s nowhere implied in Kardashev’s energy-usage scale that there must be some sort of lock-step social cohesion of the magnitude Kaku suggests. All that is required is that the energy is available and you have the ability to utilize it, whether you’re the entire world, a large nation, or consortium of nations.
the risk of a nuclear bomb going off today is considerably greater than it was in 1990.
Only sort of. The “possibility that at least one nuclear bomb would be fired in anger” is definitely greater now than in the 1980′s… but the odds of hundreds of such bombs being fired at once are far lower. We came awfully close several times back in the day, because everyone was on a hair trigger.
And I don’t want scientists using their theories and assumptions to teach public policy in the classrooms, any more than I want well intended scientists to promote their “scientific consensus” through the government and courts to the exclusion of competing ideas.
Can you illustrate with some examples? What is the proper role of science when applied to, say, pollution, or vaccination, or fluoridation?
Well, yeah. I guess. The Ruskies would probably have fired more than one nuke if they fired any at all.
The question is, how likely were they to have fired a nuke in the 1980s? We came close in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that was 1962 not 1984. By then the hotline was well established to mitigate against miscommunications leading to nuclear war. MAD also helped keep tensions from reaching the point where weapons would be launched. And command and control was dramatically tightened in the USSR following the bifurcation of responsibility between the Soviet Military and KGB that almost caused a missile launch in Cuba. Moreover, there were redundant systems built into both USSR and USA nuclear weapons systems to guard against an accidental launch triggered by computer error or aberrant flashes of radiation from outer space. And these systems worked flawlessly (there were no accidental launches).
This is why I said “The perceived tensions may have been higher in 1984, but the availability of the bomb was limited to a few nations, each with tight controls on its use and dispersement. Today, tensions between the world’s great nuclear powers are reduced, but the threat of a bomb being used (through illegal proliferation or technical advancements like in Pakistan and Korea) is much greater. Beneath the verbal tirades and political maneuverings of both the US and Soviet Union was a structured command and control apparatus designed to prevent nuclear war. That apparatus, on the part of the Russians, has been seriously weakened, and less stable countries have (or are about to acquire) the bomb. Thus today there is a higher likelihood that someone will set off a nuclear bomb or two.”
The proper role of science is to provide unbiased, non-agenda-driven information about pollution, vaccination, etc, so policy makers can factor this into the real world considerations that accompany policy making, and make an appropriate decision given all the other issues confronting society. It is not to propose the actual solutions itself, or to present only one side of the so-called “consensus”.
It seems to me that government somehow ought to be able to angage in any and all activities, whether based on science or a particular view of science, ought not pass unchallenged. So much of what government does rests on the assumption that government has the authority to act regarding them.
However, constitutionalists and others will contest the idea that government has the constitutional authority to regulate pollution or fund vaccinations, as well as a whole host of other issues.
While it is true that science ought to be separated from agenda-driven recommendations, the government ought to be separated from unconstitutional activities.
The proper role of science is to provide unbiased, non-agenda-driven information… It is not to propose the actual solutions itself…
Good luck finding an unbiased, non-agenda-driven human. And considering vaccination is a solution, how could one propose vaccination without proposing it?
Science should not “propose vaccination”. That’s how you avoid proposing vaccinations without proposing it.
Science should give policy makers the benefits, and risks, associated with a particular vaccination. If government wants to require mandatory vaccination as a law, then the role of science is to provide basic facts, and allow policy makers in a representative democracy to make policy regarding it.
This involves evaluating resource allocation, economic issues, legal considerations, cost-benefit analyses, and other similar components without the “you’ll die tomorrow if you don’t do it” hysteria of present day agenda-driven science. If the facts are there, they will speak for themselves without scientists becoming policy advocates too.
If you don’t think that elected officials should have the right to make policy, then you should work to overturn the Constitution and install the AMA as the new rulers of America, complete with their lobbyists and researchers who feed at the public trough and just coincidentally benefit from advocating certain policies based on their scientific and research interests.
When did I say that? Even in the worst possible misreading of what I wrote, proposing something is not deciding to carry it out…
> When did I say that?
It was a rhetorical question directed at someone who said he didn’t understand how to propose vaccination without proposing it. I thought a basic lesson in policy making was appropriate.
Dr. Jackson – Should scientists not be permitted to lobby for policies like any other citizen? If so, can they not argue for them from their experience and expertise?
For example, in the case of vaccination, how would the government get the idea for mandatory vaccination as law, prior to any scientific input on the benefits and risks thereof?
(Oh, and what if a scientist thinks that the risks of a particular situation are exceptionally high? Should they not say so?)
Raymond: Another basic lesson for you.
Scientists are/should be permitted to lobby for anything they want. They can lobby for a a law requiring a mandatory vaccine, or a law requiring everybody to wear their baseball caps sideways. Just like religious people can/should lobby for prayer in school, or any other issue they hold dear. This is what a democracy is all about.
This of course is not the question I posed in my essay — whether scientists “should be permitted” to lobby for policies.
Rather, I dealt with the policy-related implications and therefore appropriateness of teaching religious ideas in a science clasroom and/or making law based on religious tenants, as well as using “science” (which as you agree in comment 7 is inherently agenda-driven, and today particularly is politically-correct consensus driven), to make public policy, rather than have it be one of several a factors in a policy making decision.
It’s the difference between “science” telling us that the man-made global warming issue is “settled” because there’s a so-called consensus that it is, and then having these same scientists argue for carbon credits, de-industrialization, wealth transfer, and other social policies as a consequence of their “consensus”, and taking their conclusions — and those who might disagree — into consideration as elected officials evaluate the proper course of action.
Science supposedly deals with facts. Let them present these facts without the policy-option baggage instead of becoming advocates for policies that just happen to dovetail with their research funding needs and personal political philosophies.
If the facts are there that without a vaccine there will be a worldwide pandemic, then no scientists need to tell any policy makers that immediate action of a certain nature is required. But if these “facts” are actually assumptions, and these assumptions are in fact disputed by others, then all of this information should be presented in as neutral a manner as possible so elected officials can decide the best course of action, given the other demands we face.
It’s why science telling us in the 1970s that the earth was cooling, then in the 1990s that it was warming, then in the 2000s that it’s simply changing, should confine itself to giving us the best data possible, rather than attach policy prescriptions to each “conclusion”. The presumed remedy for cooling (assuming it’s man-made, which requires another level of evidence) is not the same as it is for warming.
When science advocates policy instead of presenting facts, it loses credability if the policy predictions are flawed, or shown to be agenda-driven. This is why many otherwise intelligent people today ignore a lot of what comes from the scientific community. They see the agenda attached to the science, are suspicious about the agenda, and therefore reject the science. As a result, they are now conditioned to suspect a hidden agenda in every new scientific pronouncement. And if a scientific agenda-driven policy prescription is shown to be flawed, not simply biased, compound this suspicion a hundred fold. The earth has gotten cooler, not warmer, since the Kyoto treaty was first proposed.
Keep science in the science classroom, and when it is an important component of public policy, like Dragnet, just give us the facts without the hyperbole or policy suggestions. If the facts are really there, the policy will follow.
Or, like I said earlier, we can just get rid of the Constitution and empower the AMA to rule our lives because science is too important to be left to our elected officials.
I was a proponent of vaccinations until 1995 when I came down with an illness called Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which nearly killed me. Recalling that, under the Ford administration, we had an outbreak of swine flu and the incidence of GBS went from one per 100,00 per year to two per 100k, I have sworn off vaccinations and fortunately not had the flu for 14 years. Truly, there are some good arguments for vaccinations, but making them mandatory will certainly kill someone.
Ivan: This is precisely my point with Raymond. Science develops a vaccine. But instead of these same scientists or the scientific community proposing a policy along with it (mandatory vaccination; shifting social expenditures from program X to this mandatory vaccination program; mandatorily altering other lifestyle or economic practices, etc.), the arguments for/against its use should be presented in a neutral manner. Policy makers can then use this information (both from scientists who support and scientists who question aspects of the vaccine) to make policy.
A couple of years ago a drug company persuaded the governor of Texas to use his executive authority to require mandatory vaccinations of all female school children against cervical cancer. Maybe this is a good idea, maybe it isn’t. But science by executive fiat isn’t. When the legislature intervened, some detrimental aspects of the vaccine that weren’t made public were revealed, and a different policy was put in place.
That’s how the process should work. It has nothing to do with “permitting” scientists to lobby, which is a legal/constitutional question. It has everything to do with what I said in my article:
Therefore, as counterproductive as I believe it is to inject religion into the science classroom, it is just as counterproductive to allow science to shape public policy — either in the classroom, or the halls of government. …
I don’t want scientists using their theories and assumptions to teach public policy in the classrooms, any more than I want well intended scientists to promote their “scientific consensus” through the government and courts to the exclusion of competing ideas. Science has a place in the science classroom, and in public life; but not in every aspect of public life, and not in every class taught in school.
This is the true meaning of scientific inquiry and education, not the cartoon version we’ve been led to believe by agenda-driven “scientists” and their supporters who intrude into areas outside their expertise by proposing “solutions” to social, economic and political issues they don’t fully comprehend.
Dr. Jackson says….
——Therefore, as counterproductive as I believe it is to inject religion into the science classroom, it is just as counterproductive to allow science to shape public policy — either in the classroom, or the halls of government. …—-
Really? Encouraging scientists to have a strong voice – personally and collectively – in the complex social and technological issues of the day is *just as counterproductive* as injecting religion into science classes? Doesn’t look equally problematic to me. The latter is a lot more asinine than the former.
I don’t think you can so cleanly separate ‘presenting the facts’ from ‘proposing policy’, for a lot of reasons.
The ‘correct’ policy that should arise from a complex area is not always clear, and may be counter-intuitive. It may in fact require specialized knowledge and training to understand. I can envision circumstances when scientists may feel a strong need to ‘advocate’ a policy (collectively) because the lawmakers and general public don’t really understand the issues involved. Why shouldn’t they do this? We should want them to do this.
They may be wrong. Scientists have been wildly wrong before. We don’t have to accept their policy prescriptions, just like we don’t have to accept any group’s.
Scientists are passionate people. I don’t see how it is realistic to ask them to blandly present ‘facts’ and express no opinions on what should be done about those facts, particularly if the stakes are high.
Say a group of scientists, after decades of study, believe that near-Earth asteroids present an existential threat to the Earth, and expensive countermeasures are crucial to prevent a potential disaster. They present the ‘facts’, but the public doesn’t get it and the existing lawmakers decide to ridicule the idea to score political points.
Why shouldn’t these scientists band together and express a strong policy recommendation? Should they say, “Oh well, I guess our facts were not persuasive. Nothing we can do”? Be realistic.
(In case it’s not utterly obvious, my example about near-Earth asteroids was an illustration. I have no opinion about the merits of any particular policy regarding near-Earth asteroids.)
Can scientists be ‘agenda-driven’? Do they sometimes promote policies that represent their interests over others? Are they sometimes wrong? Do they fall prey to groupthink?
Sure. Life is messy, and so is science.
Oz
Thank You Mr. Jackson
One of the interesting things I learned during my recovery from GBS, is that very few people really know about rare illnesses. I saw a minimum for seven doctors before I received a diagnosis of my condition and the one that did understand what was happening to me apologized for his colleagues saying “They just don’t have time to learn about something that only happens to one per 100k.” I started feeling pretty good after 10 days in ICU and I spent the next three months researching the condition, so I probably know more about auto-immune conditions than many MD’s. My father died of West Nile and I found a similar situation. It makes me wonder about all these experts on Global Warming. Do they really know what they are talking about? Living near the Atlantic Ocean and watching the tides go up and down each day I tend to doubt that they do.
Ivan says:
—-Truly there are some good arguments for vaccinations, but making them mandatory will certainly kill someone.—-
Ivan, an epidemiologist might look at that statement and respond, “yes, you’re right, but only a tiny number will be killed, and multitudes will be saved, particularly children and the the elderly.”
Now, I don’t want to get into the merits of that policy (don’t know enough about it), but wouldn’t it be reasonable for epidemiologists to ‘advocate’, strongly, for a policy that they think would save numerous lives, over one that will cost many lives?
After all, they became medical scientists for a reason–most of them want to help people, fundamentally. I think putting a gag on them about their policy recommendations is short-sighted (not to mention utterly unrealistic).
Oz
Ivan, Guillain-Barre is a b*tch. Did you ever read Joseph Heller’s book “No Laughing Matter”, about his experience?
Oz
Oz
Yes, I’ve read NLM. I loved it!
But, the idea that saving many by killing a few has been tried through out history. Most noteably between 1941 and 1945 by Doctor Josef Mengele. If you were the one selected to die, would you be in favor of a program designed to save others?
Come now, Ivan, it’s nothing like that. When we give a mass vaccination we know that some people will have adverse effects, and probably some will die (although a thousand-fold more may be saved). That is far different than selecting certain people to die, intentionally. It is random.
Anyway, I wasn’t really intending to debate the merits of mandatory vaccination–not sure I have a settled opinion and adequate command of the facts/stats. I was just saying that if group of scientists believe, based on their data, that a certain policy will save thousands of lives, why shouldn’t they advocate for that policy?
Oz
Sorry Oz, but it is exactly like that. I don’t have a problem with advocacy. I have a problem with government mandating that I get a flu shot. I’m pro-choice on living a while longer. Now with kids, I’d say it’s up to the parents. If the schools don’t want to take kids that have not been vaccinated, that’s OK. But then the truancy laws must be changed.
Again, I am not trying to carry the banner of mandatory vaccination, but I think you have to consider all of the complexities. You may be risking more than your own life.
I don’t know much about flu shots and the government – are those shots mandated in schools? Where I live, they are encouraged but still voluntary. Can’t speak to that issue, really.
In other cases beyond the flu, you may risk others’ lives, if you make the wrong choices on vaccinations. If groups of people forego vaccinations of previously-deadly diseases that are now under control, they could potentially kick off a mini-epidemic. Since some of these vaccines wear off over time, elderly people could die from a resurgence of a nasty disease, because *some* refused to get the vaccines.
My comments are largely hypothetical in the previous paragraph, because I haven’t researched the issue. Just going on vague recollections of things I’ve read about the possible resurgence of diseases due to unfounded autism fears, etc.
I am totally in favor of autonomy, if you can make a credible case that you are risking only your own life and health, and not others’ lives.
Oz
Dr. Jackson – Are you familiar with the science of “herd immunity”? Some people do have bad reactions to vaccines – but if enough other people are vaccinated, even ones who don’t get or can’t be vaccinated (or in whom the vaccine is not effective) can still be protected from the disease.
Facts like this are important, and play very directly into what a vaccination program has to look like in order to be effective. I again ask, how should vaccination be presented without suggesting a wide a dissemination as possible – because of the effect of herd immunity?
They’re working on getting approval for Gardasil – the HPV vaccine that helps protect against cervical cancer – for boys, and once it’s approved, our sons will be getting it. I’m confident because I actually looked into the detrimental aspects of the vaccine – and they were made public, they just weren’t made part of a negative publicity campaign until people with an agenda – who feared that such a vaccine would “undermine support for efforts to promote chastity” – played them up. Were they acting in a “neutral manner”?
Even “mandatory” vaccines are not truly mandatory – parents can and always could opt out. I’ve never seen a bill to the contrary. That’s not “science by executive fiat”.
Dr. Jackson – I didn’t agree that “science” is inherently agenda-driven, I stated that humans – which include scientists – are inherently agenda-driven.
Science supposedly deals with facts. Let them present these facts without the policy-option baggage instead of becoming advocates for policies that just happen to dovetail with their research funding needs and personal political philosophies.
Look at the vaccine example above. How should scientists present vaccines – to lawmakers who by and large are not epidemiologists or doctors – without making any policy recommendations? What would your ideal vaccine report look like? Would it be solicited or unsolicited?
How should nuclear engineers present plans for nuclear power plants to lawmakers without a physics or engineering background without recommendations about policy?
(Oh, and BTW – no, there wasn’t anything like a consensus in the 1970s “that the earth was cooling”. That’s a myth, but don’t feel bad – it’s a well-promoted one by people with an agenda.)
There’s that pesky little issue known as liberty, however.
It’s one thing to extoll the benefits of vaccination, preventing near asteriod hits, or a host of other issues that science might have a hand in, but quite another to force people via government to do things.
Liberty includes the right to refuse to do what others think is good for you.
Raymond: If science is produced by scientists, and scientists are human beings, and human beings are inherently agenda-driven as you expressly stated, then science is inherently agenda-driven. I’m simply using your stated premise “Good luck finding an unbiased, non-agenda-driven human” to produce a logical conclusion.
If you really want to maintain that “’science’ is [not] inherently agenda-driven,” only human beings are, then you need to show us how you can conduct non-agenda science without involving biased, agenda-driven people. As Thomas Kuhn among others have showed, the conduct of science is more about protecting vested interests (paradigms) than advancing the free, unfettered, unbiased exchange of ideas.
Again, I’m simply using the comment you felt compelled to offer that all people are agenda driven and biased (something I happen to agree with). Now that I’ve agreed with you, you want to disagree with my use of your premise. So, either show me how to conduct science without scientists, or retract your original statement (at which point I’ll again resurrect Thomas Kuhn and others to support your original contention), or stop disagreeing with my agreement with your original premise just to disagree.
As for Gardasil, I happen to live in Texas, and my daughter was one of the group that would have been compelled to take this vaccine by executive fiat, so instead of just reading about it as you apparently have, I lived through the experience. As proposed by the governor, there was no “opting out” of the vaccine. When the state legislature overrode the Governor — and by doing so the rest of the facts came out that had nothing to do with chastity but everything to do with associated health risks (again I lived through this actual issue; and since cancer runs in my family, paid particularly close attention to it) — the policy was altered. As it happens, with full information and through that intelligent, informed consent, my daughter eventually chose the vaccine in her early 20s.
This is how science should interact with public policy. Not by fiat, not by giving only one side of the story, not by avoiding regular channels of policy making to circumvent a chastity/non-chastity debate or any other issue that might get in the way of advocacy science, but by putting the facts forward in as comprehensive, open, unbiased and straightforward manner as possible, and letting the appropriate individuals decide.
Cervical cancer is not “contagious”, so there were no additional public health risks where a young girl might infect other people. If it was, then that fact (not hysteria) would be part of the policy calculation.
In presenting facts, policy makers may (and probably will) ask knowledgeable people how to best implement a policy — that is, a policy that the policy makers decide without being steered to a conclusion through a scientific/political agenda. This is the proper role of science. To use your nuclear power example, it’s really not that difficult to understand the difference between scientists giving policy makers the data they need (and helping them understand that data if necessary) to consider nuclear power as an option, and advocating that society’s resources be changed or directed to build a nuclear power plant. Is it?
As for the myth that the earth was cooling in the 1970s, of course it was a myth. I know about it first hand. I lived through that era as a young adult, and later as someone involved in national policy issues where these findings were presented as legitimate, encompassing data. But even though the idea was a crock, as you read the mainstream accounts of the time, you’ll see that it was presented to the public and policy makers as “we must do something now before it’s too late”. These are the policy-shenanigans of scientists and their sympathizers who try to make policy instead of simply present the evidence, which is what I’ve been arguing about.
I suspect as history gets re-written a few years from now, we’ll also be told that the “we must do something now before it’s too late” consensus of global warming was a myth too. And we’ll see that it was built on similarly selective or sloppy science, and we’ll be told to ignore that too (or that it was never really an actual scientific idea, just a “consensus” based on admittedly after-the-fact incomplete data) because the real culprit is now the ubiquitous, means-everything-and-nothing “global climate change”.
This is what I alluded to in an earlier post when I said that agenda-driven science has the consequence of rendering all scientific pronouncements with suspicion. If advocating/promoting policies is as much “science” as giving us the facts of an issue, then it’s impossible to tell where the line between the two is drawn. This leads to sloppy, histrionic pronouncements about global cooling, warming, or just plain climate change, that are then used to promote specific economic and social policies. Or promote certain vaccines that benefit certain drug companies. Or promote or discourage nuclear power as an alternative energy source. Or help remedy the disparity between have/have-not nations by a carbon credit scheme that exempts developing nations, and so on, and so on, all in the name of “science”.
Finally, to address the last straw man, nothing I’ve said suggests that “science” can’t make policy makers aware of facts, or that scientists must remain silent until asked for facts/data. We have a number of national institutions already in place that are set up to produce scientific reports, not to mention non-profits and private companies. We instinctively know that a tobacco study by the R.J. Reynolds Company undoubtedly has an agenda behind it, and that their “facts” are probably tainted by an agenda. If we can all intuitively recognize that this not something to be used for policy making to the exclusion of all other competing ideas/analyses, why is it so difficult to accept the judgment that other groups who produce advocacy science need to be regarded the same way?
Well said Mountain Man!
Mountain Man – Exactly. And people are perfectly free to lobby against such things, and present whatever case they can muster to convince lawmakers and citizens that they are bad ideas.
The last paragraph didn’t make it in my previous comment —
So, either we must continue to regard all science as agenda-driven and be suspicious of it (which I think is a bad thing for humanity in general, and our country in particular), or do what I’ve advocated in my article:
Stop using science to advocate policies and promote agendas, and restore some inherent credibility to their findings.
MM: To knock down another straw man of Raymond’s, no one is saying that scientists should be prohibited by law (i.e. not be “perfectly free” to lobby). This is what a democracy is all about.
The question on the table is, what are the real-world implications of advocacy science, and do they help or hurt the nation?
I personally believe that elective abortion is morally wrong, and that human beings are being killed. But I recognize that we also live in a democratic society (actually, a representative republic). I do not advocate for an end to abortion by executive fiat. I promote genuine education about what is actually happening to the baby (not the “tissue mass”), and seek a legislative remedy in accordance with the Constitution that governs us — not creating another fictitious constitional right imposed on us by the courts.
Policy should be made in full view of the facts, not imposed on the people by fiat. And the facts upon which policy is made should be inclusive, not exclusive.
We know that interest groups by nature will advocate policies. That’s what they do, and how they do it. The question is whether it’s helpful or hurtful to have “science” operate as just another an agenda-driven advocacy group.
Exactly right, Phil.
It has been written on this website that science is not immoral/evil, the real issue is how science is used. If that is true, then advocacy science is science that has a value judgment attached to it. Such science has left the realm of discovery and has entered politics. This is a bad thing.
If the tide of science turned so that my issues were suddenly in vogue, I would still object to its use as a tool to set political agendas.
Science, and scientists, have obtained (or perhaps, aspire to) a status of quasi-diety. That is to its detriment.
MM
After just agreeing with you, I hate to question you, but isn’t it the politicians who aspire to quasi-deity status? It’s true that scientists can be good or evil, but even Mengele could not do what he did without the approval the state. I think it’s the Al Gore’s and Barney Frank’s that need our disapproval most.
I’m stil working on how science can be conducted without scientists.
Would that be somehting like teaching without teachers?:>)
How about political “science”?
As anyone who’s followed what I’ve said in the past, I’ve long maintained that the term “political science” is a fraud designed to disguise opinions as facts. The only truly quantitative aspects of poli-sci are things like statistical voting analyses, and even these are encumbered by value-based assumptions in creating the voting behavior models. Concepts like “justice” cannot be quantified.
I prefer the term “government studies,” but that description is no longer used.
Back to flipping burgers.
Ivan: You have to ask Raymond about that one.
Dr. Jackson – You don’t need to “conduct science without scientists” for it to, overall, converge on (at least a good approximation of) reality – the same way you can build a reliable system out of probabilistic parts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm). (That does not mean that what gets researched, or how scientific results are reported, will avoid bias, of course.)
If all you took from Kuhn was that “the conduct of science is more about protecting vested interests (paradigms) than advancing the free, unfettered, unbiased exchange of ideas”, I feel bad for you. Kuhn addressed how and why science advances in stages, with relatively discrete, identifiable jumps – but did not equate paradigms with vested interests. I can’t find that in my copy of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, can you provide a cite for me?
And those jumps are not in random directions, particularly overall. As Isaac Asimov put it, “[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”.
Take, for example, your own misreading of what I wrote. I was referring to the very notion that there was a consensus in the 1970′s that the Earth was cooling – that, itself, is a myth. I’ll make the link I included before more prominent: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf (“During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers.”)
It’s true that some people – mostly in the media, whom scientists continually complain about for misrepresenting their findings – presented the notion that the Earth was entering another ice age as a critical problem. But the answer to that was… more science. Even then there was plenty of evidence that that was highly unlikely, and most climate scientists of the time disagreed with it – quite unlike the situation today with regard to overall global warming. (I’ve already noted that the conclusion that the warming is anthropogenic is less established.)
To address another of your errors, I cannot find any support whatsoever for your contention that “As proposed by the governor [of Texas], there was no “opting out” of the vaccine [Gardasil].” A quick Google search turned up, in the first few results, contemporaneous reports of the controversy noting that “Texas allows parents to opt out of inoculations by filing an affidavit objecting to the vaccine on religious or philosophical reasons.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093 http://www.blogher.com/node/15259) I’m actually not aware of any state where that’s not the case. Can anyone direct me to one? I’d be interested. (BTW, it’s technically true that “Cervical cancer is not “contagious””… but that’s misleading since the family of viruses that cause the overwhelming majority of cervical cancers are contagious. The same family of viruses, further BTW, appear to cause the majority of penile cancers and anal cancers, and – in non-smokers – the majority of oral and throat cancers.)
Raymond: It’s a pretty straightforward issue.
1. You said “Good luck finding an unbiased, non-agenda-driven human.”
2. Scientists are humans.
3. What humans (even scientists) do is therefore agenda-driven.
4. Scientists/humans therefore produce agenda-driven science.
Show me the flaw in this reasoning. Or show me how science is produced without humans producing it.
None of what you offered about “probability” addressed this issue. If you want to contend that agenda-driven humans, once they become scientists, somehow suppress their agenda-driven basic nature (you know, the one you said people have as a constituent part of being human), say this. [You won’t hear the laughter, but it will be there]. And, if you want to further contend that agenda-driven humans can somehow create statistical models whose assumptions do not reflect their agendas, I’d be curious to know exactly how this works.
As far as Kuhn goes, part of his book is about how individual scientists protect their theories (and the assumptions behind their theories) by ignoring, or silencing alternative theories that challenge them. They do this because they have a vested interest in protecting their own intellectual turf. If a scientist spends his life believing X, and X is shown to be deficient or wrong, it elevates the person holding the alternative theory and diminishes him (and his power/position). This isn’t even arguable.
Eventually, a new paradigm arises (Quantum physics replaces Newtonian physics), and the process begins anew. Kuhn showed that these paradigm shifts are not the product of steady, honest, dispassionate analysis and inquiry. It’s one side eventually winning out over the other. Just look at the way Einstein was treated when he first proposed his theories for evidence of this. Again, none of this is arguable. That Kuhn’s book is about more than this is correct. But to pretend that this is not what Kuhn said is just silly.
Since you don’t believe me, here’s what Wikipedia says. “Based on a historical review of the development of certain scientific theories, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions scientist and historian Thomas Kuhn raised some philosophical objections to claims of the possibility of scientific understanding being truly objective. In Kuhn’s analysis, scientists in different disciplines organise themselves into de facto paradigms, within which scientific research is done, junior scientists are educated, and scientific problems are determined. The implicit social hierarchy of a scientific paradigm ensures that only scientists who are thoroughly immersed in the intellectual construction of the paradigm acquire the reputation and status to pronounce authoritatively on matters of dispute, and those scientists have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (which confers on them this de facto position of authority)”.
By the way, since we’re on the subject, no one said that advances in science were “random”. This is another Raymond straw man, much like taking the phrase that “Science has a place in the science classroom, and in public life; but not in every aspect of public life, and not in every class taught in school”, and using it to pose the question “Should scientists not be permitted to lobby for policies like any other citizen?” I think Obama’s actions and policies are wrong, to which Raymond would reply ‘So, people should be prohibited from voting Democrat?’ This is grade school level debate. Or, a deliberate attempt to dissemble rather than debate.
As for your impressive Google search about Gardasil, citing the equally impressive MSNBC source, did you ever ask exactly what “religious and philosophical objections” means? A written affidavit (which is a legal document carrying legal penalties for being untruthful) was required testifying to this. My religion does not prohibit vaccination, and I have no philosophical objection to vaccination, so it would be mandatory for my daughter (a minor at the time) to be vaccinated! There was no opting out because I wanted more information about associated health risks. You have to go beyond the cartoon world to understand the political process, and not look up the dictionary definition of a word to insinuate its real-world policy implications. Instead of “mandatory” meaning 100%, let’s say it means 99%. But somehow now that maybe 1% can exempt themselves for narrowly defined religious or philosophical reasons that carry legal penalties for incomplete or erroneous statements about their “religious” or “philosophical” beliefs, you want to maintain that the vaccine isn’t mandatory.
This discussion, of course does nothing to address the point I actually made in my essay, that advocacy science (implemented in this case by executive fiat) is wrong-headed. Instead of addressing this concept, you want to divert the discussion to whether Rick Perry — as the executive ramming the advocacy-science policy down our throats — was magnanimous to float the idea of some potential exceptions to a dictionary-definition of “mandatory” which were theoretically but not practically available to the public.
And yes, I know what you actually said about re-writing the 1970s global warming myth (that you read about and that I actually lived through as an adult) so as to make believing in global cooling less stupid in retrospect than it was actually embraced at the time. But I also said that regardless of this revisionist history, “even though the idea was a crock, as you read the mainstream accounts of the time, you’ll see that it was presented to the public and policy makers as ‘we must do something now before it’s too late’. [I was one of the policy makers it was presented to.] These are the policy-shenanigans of scientists and their sympathizers who try to make policy instead of simply present the evidence, which is what I’ve been arguing about.” So whether you stopped reading after my first sentence or not, I went on to address the substance of the issue
Raymond, your positions carry no credibility because you do two simultaneous things. You offer a statement (like the one on agenda driven people), and when someone agrees with it and its implications, you then disavow it or backtrack on it. And when you take a fairly straightforward issue like paradigm shifts, you want to somehow maintain that there are no vested interests being protected by people opposing the new paradigm, just like you did with taking my statements about unwise actions and turning them into prohibited actions.
I gave you a 4 step logical process to turn “Good luck finding an unbiased, non-agenda-driven human” into science produced by humans is agenda-based.
Now let’s see the same intellectual process you used to turn “Science has a place in the science classroom, and in public life; but not in every aspect of public life, and not in every class taught in school”, into scientists should not be permitted to lobby for policies like any other citizen
Ivan,
You are right as usual, of course. For many who have no religion, either science or politics takes the place of religion. This “new religion” is embraced with a fervor that puts Jehovah’s Witnesses to shame.
Secularists love to accuse religious people of intolerance, hate, etc. But where the real textbook examples of intolerance and hate are found are amongst the ranks of the political and science religionists.
Burgerfliper says political “science,” I would say politics/science as the juggernaught religion of the irreligious.
P
Another great article as usual & I have nothing to add to your main points, but I would add the following regarding the issues raised in the comments about the politicization of science(from Instapundit:
RON BAILEY: Yielding to Ideology Over Science: Why don’t environmentalists celebrate modern farming on Earth Day?
Yeah, I thought once Bush was gone everyone would just follow the science.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132997.html
Simplest things first. Dr. Jackson wrings his hands and proclaims, “My religion does not prohibit vaccination, and I have no philosophical objection to vaccination, so it would be mandatory for my daughter (a minor at the time) to be vaccinated!”
The actual law talks about “exclusion for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief” (emphasis added). The form for the affadavit is not available online, but the discussion here indicates that specific vaccines can be refused, as opposed to vaccination in general, and all you have to indicate is (a) you don’t want those vaccinations, and (b) you understand the risks of not vaccinating. You don’t even need to indicate a reason – it’s contrasted with the Louisiana form that actually gives an option for listing the reason.
So, all you need to do is send a letter requesting the form, fill it out, and send it in. You don’t even need to provide a reason, or be opposed to vaccination in general – though apparently you’re philosophically opposed to vaccines that haven’t been shown to meet your personal standards for safety. (Of course, if you can’t be arsed to do that much, I’m afraid I must diffidently question how strong your objection really is.)
I’m not aware of any case of such a request for exemption being refused in any state, but I’d be very interested if you could provide an example.
If you object to the current vaccination scheme in your state, you’re free to lobby against it, too. Be prepared to make a good case, though.
By the way, just another small, but important example of how Raymond and I approach an intellectual debate.
Here is Raymond’s comment on something I said: “it’s technically true that ‘Cervical cancer is not “contagious””. To which he expounds “the family of viruses that cause the overwhelming majority of cervical cancers are contagious. The same family of viruses, further BTW, appear to cause the majority of penile cancers and anal cancers, and – in non-smokers – the majority of oral and throat cancers.”
So WWRD (what would Raymond do) if he made the “Cervical cancer is not “contagious”” statement, and I gave his reply above. Based on his dissembling about non-agenda driven science, it would go something like this: I didn’t really say that. You’re putting words in my mouth. You can’t say other things based on what I said. And do on, and so.
Now for my actual response to what Raymond went on to say after acknowledging that my original comment was “technically” correct: Okay. My statement was correct. I stand by it. If you want to go on and discuss other cancers besides the specific one that we were discussing, you can just continue quoting the rest of my original statement. “Cervical cancer is not ‘contagious’, so there were no additional public health risks where a young girl might infect other people. If it was, then that fact (not hysteria) would be part of the policy calculation.
So, if we’re talking about other cancers — not just one specific cancer — then as a policy maker I’d want an objective presentation of facts about the degree to which someone might ‘catch cancer’ unless we vaccinate the population against it.
There’s nothing inconsistent or contradictory about what I said. In fact, it’s a simple recognition of how real, non-agenda policy should be made, as I described in my essay. [And it’s also how a real discussion takes place]
I’m, er, a bit older than you might think I am, and followed science from a very early age. Your objection here is to how some people argued their case to you rather than against science itself – which, as I note, never really supported that position anyway, whatever impression those arguing might have tried to present.
Your basic point is correct, so far as it goes – people with an agenda will put forth the most convincing argument they can, and present only confirming data, and downplay opposing arguments. Of course this is true.
The problem with your presentation is that this applies to everyone. Scientists are no better – or worse – than anyone else when arguing for a policy. By singling out scientists, you seem to be holding them to much higher standard than you demand for anyone else. Is that, in fact, your intention?
Hey dumb guy…
So you don’t want suggestions from the people that spent the most time trying to understand the problem? Sounds kinda dumb.
Raymond. My wife is a teacher in the Texas school system. I understand legal affidavits, and lived through the whole debate (not just reading about it years later.) I’ll take my wife’s knowledge/experience, and my own first hand experience, over the informed musings of “larkedyflarp”, the source you cited.
When you look at the actual affidavit you linked to, it says “To claim an exclusion for medical reasons, the child or student must present a statement signed by the child’s physician (M.D. or D.O.), duly registered and licensed to practice medicine in the United States who has examined the child, in which it is stated that, in the physician’s opinion, the vaccine required is medically contraindicated or poses a significant risk to the health and well-being of the child or any member of the child’s household. Unless it is written in the statement that a lifelong condition exists, the exemption statement is valid for only one year from the date signed by the physician.”
Gardasil was a new drug. No such proven record of problems existed, and “fears” of problems based on a parent receiving only incomplete information does not count. I don’t abrogate my parental responsibility to know what is actually being given to my child just because the governor says it’s okay.
As for non-religious “reasons of conscious” a belief that “I am being sold a bill of goods by the Governor who has a sweetheart deal with the Drug company” is not a matter of conscious. Nor is “I don’t have enough information to make an informed consent because this thing is being rammed through by advocacy science.” This is Texas. We tend to take things seriously down here when people falsify legal documents. Affirming in an affidavit that my objection is conscious-based when it’s actually practical and pragmatic opens me up to prosecution. I had no reason of conscious to oppose vaccination. I support vaccination. I believe in vaccination. I think vaccination is a good thing. I just don’t like having things injected in my child’s body that I’m suspicious about, particularly when they’re rammed through by legal fiat. That’s not “conscious”, or “religious”.
Now that we’ve belabored this tangent of a tangent, I wrote a long response to several points you made. This is the only one you can respond to?
Once again I write an article stating a point of view about advocacy science, and all you can do is debate whether Gardasil was technically mandatory or not.
>Hey dumb guy. So you don’t want suggestions from the people that spent the most time trying to understand the problem? Sounds kinda dumb.
How vapid is it to take the statement:
“The proper role of science is to provide unbiased, non-agenda-driven information about pollution, vaccination, etc, so policy makers can factor this into the real world considerations that accompany policy making, and make an appropriate decision given all the other issues confronting society. It is not to propose the actual solutions itself, or to present only one side of the so-called “consensus”, and re-write it as
“The proper role of science is to provide unbiased, non-agenda-driven information… not to propose the actual solutions itself….” to try to make a point?
I’ll take fries with that burger, if that task isn’t too intellectually challenging.
Dr. Jackson – True, a girl isn’t going to infect someone else with cervical cancer. They’ll just infect someone else – boy or girl – with a virus that can cause cancer later, that we can vaccinate against with extremely low risk. That’s the “additional public health risks where a young girl might infect other people”. Not so hard to follow after all, was it?
Dr. Jackson – It’s “conscience”, actually, not “conscious”. The misspelling makes me wonder if you can actually provide a legal definition of the term “reasons of conscience”. It does not require a religious basis, simply a sincere opposition – e.g. conscientious objectors to military service. Your objection may or may not rise to the level of “reason of conscious”, but it certainly does meet the criteria of “reason of conscience”.
Oh, and I didn’t link to the affadavit form. I linked to the actual law itself – as I noted, the affadavit form itself is not available online, it must be requested by mail. Even so, according to the FAQ maintained by the Texas DHS, the information on the form consists of “the child’s name; date of birth; a list ofvaccines for which exemptions may be requested; a statement for the requesting parent or guardian to indicate their relationship to the child; and an acknowledgement that the parent or guardian has read attached information entitled The Benefits and Risks of Vaccinations. Parents or guardians will then have to sign the form in front of a notary public.”
It helps, when arguing against my position, to actually read what I write and understand it. I didn’t talk about medical exemptions, for example, but for someone who claims not to like “tangents”, you don’t seem to mind bringing them up. Ah, well.
> The problem with your presentation is that this applies to everyone. Scientists are no better – or worse – than anyone else when arguing for a policy. By singling out scientists, you seem to be holding them to much higher standard than you demand for anyone else. Is that, in fact, your intention?
Raymond: You are the one who set up your own observation by first quoting me: “The proper role of science is to provide unbiased, non-agenda-driven information… It is not to propose the actual solutions itself”, and then responding to this by saying “Good luck finding an unbiased, non-agenda-driven human.”
You made the observation about humans in relation to my observation about science. Now you want to ask whether I’m “singling out scientists”?
I’ve written 97 articles to date. Virtually every one talks about the political motives and agendas people have. The remedies I offer are ways to minimize the impact of these agendas, not eliminate them, because I agree with you that people are inherently biased and agenda-driven.
What I’ve dared to do here is suggest that scientists are also agenda-driven. And when scientists become advocates, their agendas (as with other people) tend to be pushed to the forefront. I no more want RJ Reynolds advocating policy than I do NRDC. And having actually worked with the national offices of the American Heart Association, Cancer Society, etc, I know how agendas can influence the science as well. Frito Lay was denied a heart check certification for Olestra not because there was anything wrong with it or it violated AHA scientific guidelines, but because the AHA board thought it would send the “wrong signal”. That’s politics, not science.
AHA is free to do what it wants within the confines of its own building. My objection is taking this same attitude into the dissemination of scientific information to policy makers. Give them the facts, not your political/social/economic beliefs shading the facts.
You’ll never eradicate agenda-driven decisions. Elected officials are by nature agenda-driven. But at least we elect them, so we have an indirect say in things. And the fight is on openly-acknowledged agenda-driven turf. There’s no pretense of unbiased, neutral, “objective facts” (settled science/scientific consensus) to steer the outcome of the debate.
This is how things work in the real world. Why is any of this even debatable?
By the way. I was 18 in 1970. How old were you, since you’re “a bit older than you might think I am, and followed science from a very early age.” By the mid-80s was SVP of government affairs (including national government) for a trade association that was repeatedly lobbied by environmentalists to pass anti-global cooling resolutions to influence legislation in Washington DC. So what exactly is your direct experience with this issue, other than what I said it was — you’ve read about it.
You made a point of reacting to this, so let’s have it.