National Journal: Who Turned Out the Enlightenment?
July 31st, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
In this week’s National Journal Paul Starobin has an extremely thoughtful cover story on the politicization of science. He appropriately finds that the pathological politicization of science occurs on both the left and the right, but astutely also recognizes that the scientific establishment itself bears some responsibility for today’s hyper-politicization of science:
. . . the modern professional research scientist is not, by any stretch, a blameless figure — in this tale, that scientist emerges as an increasingly partisan and self-interested figure, dependent on government grants and largely an inhabitant of Blue America.
Starobin does a nice job characterizing how science is used as a tool of politics from the political Left and Right. He registers complaints similar to those that we have expressed about those who would politicize the politicization of science by labeling it only a problem of the Right, or at least, only a problem worth worrying about from the Right. Starobin expresses plenty of concern across the political spectrum, which will likely inevitably mean that his analysis will be dismissed by most partisan observers. But this is good news as the side he aligns with is that of science and democracy. Of the scientific community, Starobin has some strong medicine to offer, and I pull the following excerpt at length:
It is tempting, in this tale, to take pity on the scientist. Assailed from all sides, he — yes, most top scientists are still men — may appear to be just as much a casualty as the Enlightenment mind-set itself.
Alas, it is not that simple. Inevitably the scientist has been dragged, or has catapulted himself, into the values and political combat that surround science and has emerged, in certain respects, as just another (diminished) partisan.
This is plainly the case in the matter of the Religious Right’s mugging of evolution. Darwin, anticipating just such a beating, had a ready response in the true spirit of science, which was that there was nothing in his scientific observations, nor could there be in any scientific gathering of evidence, that proved or disproved the existence of God. But that sort of agnostic caution seems to have lapsed as an example for today’s scientists.
Among neo-Darwinian biologists on both sides of the Atlantic, a kind of counter-militancy has gathered force. Prominent evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins of Britain are proudly proclaiming their atheistic beliefs — even suggesting that anyone who believes in God is a fool. “Of course it’s satisfying, if you can believe it,” Dawkins has said about faith in God. “But who wants to believe a lie?”
But it is Dawkins who looks dim for seeking to claim more from science than science can, by definition, provide. “He is an evangelical atheist” and “he is killing us,” Alan I. Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in an interview.
If modern scientists were the classical liberals that they like to say they still are, then they presumably would not be clustered on one side of the partisan divide. In fact, they display a deep-blue orientation. A Pew Research Center survey last year found that 87 percent of “scientists/engineers” (representing a random sampling of members of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering) disapproved of the way Bush was handling his job as president. In the fall of 1997, by contrast, 78 percent of scientists/engineers approved of Bill Clinton’s performance.
What gives? The answer, in part, is that scientists have a long-standing tendency to believe that some societal problems — global warming is a current example — demand collective solutions of the sort that laissez-faire Republicans tend to be reluctant to support. In the 1930s, scientists widely embraced FDR’s New Deal, and a number of researchers, blind to Stalin’s crimes, were in fact Communist sympathizers or party members.
Today’s Lab-Coat Liberal, as opposed to a Jefferson-style classical liberal, is also a product of the 1960s. Leading research scientists, as National Academy members generally are, inhabit an academic environment that was radicalized by the Vietnam War protest movement and civil-rights struggles. Although most scientists balk at the New Left’s fixation on identity politics, science academia, even as it subsists on government grants, tends to take an anti-establishment posture that embraces a false view of science’s own purity.
“Through its actions in Vietnam our government has shaken our confidence in its ability to make wise and humane decisions,” the Cambridge, Mass.-based Union of Concerned Scientists declared in its founding document in 1968. Never mind that elite research scientists — members of a secretive government-connected team dubbed “The Jasons” — advised the Pentagon on certain Vietnam war-fighting strategies.
This mind-set, pitting the purportedly apolitical concerns of scientists against the connivers who wield political power in Washington, endures. In a recent Web posting on the prospect of a confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, the Union of Concerned Scientists declared that Iran “does not represent a direct or imminent threat to the United States.” That is a policy judgment, not a scientific conclusion, and it is a dubious one at that, given the clear signs that Iran, a backer of Shiite militias in neighboring Iraq and of Hezbollah in Lebanon, is complicating the mission of U.S. forces in the Middle East.
The Bush administration as a whole, not just its military policies, is in the Cambridge outfit’s gun sights. Citing climate change, childhood lead poisoning, reproductive health, drug abuse, and other issues, the group declared in 2004: “When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.” Signatories included Edward Wilson, the Harvard entomologist once taken to task by the New Left.
In an interview, Cornell physicist Kurt Gottfried, chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a drafter of that founding declaration, denied that the group, or scientists generally, had a pronounced partisan disposition. “I do not believe that 77 percent or 87 percent of scientists vote Democratic normally,” he said. But the available data, as scientists like to say, suggest otherwise. In 15 years of polling, scientists “have always stood out as among the most Democratic of the elites,” Michael Dimock, associate director of the Pew Research Center, said in an interview.
Thus the science community, even if at times a reluctant warrior, is itself contributing to the polarization that afflicts America’s political culture. Viewed by the Founders as part of the glue that binds American democracy, the scientist is in danger of becoming a force for its increasing fragmentation.
The last sentence is exactly the dynamic I was referring to when I criticized scientists at RealClimate last week for serving as agents of divisiveness in political debates.
Starobin, like many of us, loses momentum when talking about what might be done to address the pathological politicization of science. But from where I sit, that means there might be a good audience for The Honest Broker 
Jokes aside, Starobin has written an extremely thoughtful article. It will certainly appear on my fall syllabus.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:34 am
Interesting article, thought-provoking.
To me though, it seems bizarre to insist that scientists reflect the political makeup of the American electorate at large…after all, half of said group believes the world is ten thousand years old and that Genesis is literally true. Obviously we don’t want molecular biology departments across the nation to reflect this viewpoint. (It’s also interesting to note that most of these people vote Republican…)
As for Richard Dawkins et al, if Francis Collins / Paul Davies / Ursula Goodenhough / Ken Miller / Freeman Dyson can write books saying science makes their religious views plausible, why can’t Dawkins and company make the opposite claim? Is the point of the article that scientists can praise but not criticize religion? Surely it’s not wrong to say that evolution makes unnecessary (not impossible) the existence of a god meant specifically to design life on earth.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:28 am
“As for Richard Dawkins et al, if Francis Collins / Paul Davies / Ursula Goodenhough / Ken Miller / Freeman Dyson can write books saying science makes their religious views plausible, why can’t Dawkins and company make the opposite claim?”
It has to do with falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of science, and which separates science from religion.
In order for something to be science, it must be falsifiable. (That’s why the IPCC Third Assessment Report’s “projections” of temperature increases in the 21st century are not science.)
Religion is not falsifiable, and therefore is not science. It is simply not possible for Richard Dawkins to prove that God does not exist. That’s why Paul Starobin’s comment is so perfect:
“But it is Dawkins who looks dim for seeking to claim more from science than science can, by definition, provide.”
Richard Dawkins can’t know much about science, if he thinks that science can be used to prove that God doesn’t exist.
P.S. The above does not mean that science can’t be used to falsify (prove false) many religious beliefs, e.g. that the earth is ~6000 years old, and that a great flood killed all life on earth (except inhabitants of an ark) ~4000 years ago.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
I will agree that it is an interesting article and very thought provoking, but it in no way argues that the scientific community reflect the political make-up of the American electorate. It is arguing against the politicalization of science, but when the community is dominated by people that share a similar political mindset, a seperation of science and state becomes almost impossible.
Would you feel comfortable with a scientific community that was 75% Republican? Would you argue that this body would operate without any political motivations? I don’t think so!
That said, I do not accept your statements that 50% of the US electorate believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and/or that Genesis is a literal description of creation. I also do not accept your assumption that anyone holding those beliefs would necessarily be a less effective molecular biologist. Any evidence to support these statements?
I will admit that the small percentage of the electorate who do believe that Genesis is a literal description of creation likely vote Republican. Also, the small percentage of the electorate that worship Gaia likely vote Democrat. Today’s scientific community seems to be more influenced by Gaia worshipers than by Biblical literalists. Neither influence is likely to be particularly healthy to science.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
“I do not accept your statements that 50% of the US electorate believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old…I will admit that the small percentage of the electorate who do believe that Genesis is a literal description of creation likely vote Republican”
My apologies. The true figure is closer to 45% (and 34% of all Americans believe the Bible as a whole – and not just Genesis – is literally true):
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp
If you think anything like 45% of Americans as a whole or scientists in particular take Gaia mother goddess stuff seriously, um, you can go on thinking this.
“Richard Dawkins can’t know much about science, if he thinks that science can be used to prove that God doesn’t exist.”
A red herring. If you read his work, he says modern science makes creater-designer gods less useful / insignificant / irrelevent by explaining life and its evolution without needing to invoke such concepts. He also makes several angry statements about how awful religion is. He does not, at any point, say “QED! hence (does not exist) (God).” In fact, one of his points IS that the very idea of that you need to disprove the existence of God to be an atheist is absurd and akin to having to disprove the existence of ghosts or gremlins or teapots orbiting Pluto in order to not take such claims seriously. You can like him or dislike him or critique his views. But to say he thinks science “disproves” the existence of god is just plain absurd.
“It has to do with falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of science, and which separates science from religion.”
Falsifiability is wonderful and all, but entirely beside the point. I compared (for example) Francis Collins, the human genome guy who says science makes his Christian worldview convincing / *more* likely, with Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, who says the it makes it *less* plausible. If one is acceptable (and of course it is!) so too is the other.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:25 pm
I wrote, “Richard Dawkins can’t know much about science, if he thinks that science can be used to prove that God doesn’t exist.”
“D responded, “A red herring. If you read his work, he says modern science makes creater-designer gods less useful / insignificant / irrelevent by explaining life and its evolution without needing to invoke such concepts.”
All I need to do is read his quote, “Of course it’s satisfying, if you can believe it,” Dawkins has said about faith in God. “But who wants to believe a lie?”
If that’s an accurate quote, he clearly doesn’t know what science can and cannot address. His characterization of God as a “lie” is not science…it’s his opinion.
“He does not, at any point, say ‘QED! hence (does not exist) (God).’”
Didn’t you read the quote? Or do you deny it’s an accurate quote? Richard Dawkins said believing in God is believing a lie. That’s NOT a statement of science.
“Falsifiability is wonderful and all, but entirely beside the point. I compared (for example) Francis Collins, the human genome guy who says science makes his Christian worldview convincing / *more* likely, with Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, who says the it makes it *less* plausible.”
His quote doesn’t say knowledge of evolution makes the existence of God seem less plausible. His quote says God is a lie. That’s not a statement of science. That’s a statement of his (anti-religious) belief.
Richard Dawkins should stick to science. There are plenty of places where the literal words of the Bible (provided the translations from ancient Hebrew to English are accurate!) can be shown by science to be false.*** But to say that God is a “lie,” is simply NOT a statement of science.
***P.S. I was debating with some folks on Free Republic a several years ago. I’m too lazy to try to find the exact exchange, but it went something like this:
1) I said that the story of Noah’s Ark was obviously false, because no one could gather several of ALL the animals of the world…especially in Noah’s time.
2) The response was that maybe the animals came to the Ark themselves.
3) I then noted how unlikely it would be, for example, for penguins to swim across thousands of miles of oceans, and then walk hundreds of miles across land. If the Ark was in Turkey, for example, I wondered why no one reported large numbers of unusual animals converging on a particular location.
4) The response was that maybe the animals were made invisible (by God).
5) I stopped there, but I could have gone on to point out that the distribution of animals at present doesn’t match the idea that all the animals in the world came from one point only 4000 years ago. (For example, polar bears are in the Arctic but not anywhere else in nature.)
6) But a supernatural explanation could be given. For example, God flew the polar bears from wherever the Ark landed up to the Arctic (while they were invisible, of course).
August 1st, 2006 at 12:04 am
There is a difference between saying ’so-and-so scientist thinks religion is false’ and saying ’so-and-so scientist thinks science proves religion is false’
The first statement is what being an atheist is all about, and unless you think scientists have no business being atheistic I don’t know what the problem is. On the subject, I said if religious scientists can write books on their perspective regarding science / religion, so can irreligious ones.
The second statement – which you made of Dawkins – is simply inaccurate. First, Dawkins has repeatedly criticized the notion THAT you must “disprove” an idea to not take it seriously. Second, like all minimally competent scientists he has quite nuanced views on the role of ‘proof’ in the empirical sciences. Reading that he thinks ‘evolution disproves all religious views’ is bizarre to anyone who’s read his work. What he has said, and repeatedly, is that when science can test a factual claim a specific religion makes, it usually finds that the religion was wrong (a stronger statement of the sort you’ve yourself made in this thread). A deeper point he’s made is that evolution makes a life-god unnecessary, sort of like understanding nuclear fusion or meteorology make sun and wind gods unnecessary. Again, this is a statement with a distinguished intellectual pedigree – think Laplace saying ‘I have no need for that hypothesis’.
The statement also differs from ‘evolution disproves the notion of gods, makes the notion of a creater logically impossible’. You can be an atheist without believing that. Most atheists don’t make that very strong statement.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:49 am
It’s unfortunate that people treat global climate change as just another science.
In Paul Starobin’s cover story on the politicization of science he mentions evolution, global warming and other subjects. Global climate change research means much more to the world than other sciences. Global warming may lead to the end of the world by itself or through human conflicts that develop as a result of global warming.
Author Pielke Jr., R. wrote on July 28, 2006:
“I criticized scientists at RealClimate last week for serving as agents of divisiveness in political debates.” …
… an internal memo from the Inter-Mountain Rural Electric Association that details, among other things, that the IREA have donated $100,000 to support the activities of Patrick Michaels, a long-time political advocate on the climate issue.
But the response to this memo, at RealClimate and elsewhere, suggest to me that many involved in the climate debate would much rather bash their opponents than work with them to find common ground. In a democracy, action occurs most often through compromise rather than complete annihilation of one’s opponents. Until this point is realized by those calling for “action” expect gridlock to continue.”
The point is that Pielke Jr., R. does not understand, believe or care that global climate change research means much more to the world than other sciences. That global warming may lead to the end of the world by itself or through human conflicts that develop as a result of global warming.
For Pielke Jr., R. to suggest that RealClimate.org scientists fail to see that in a democracy action occurs most often through compromise rather than complete annihilation of one’s opponents, and then for Pielke Jr., R. to blame RealClimate scientists for contributing to gridlock (which is happening but is not in any way a result of the efforts by RealClimate scientists to educate the public on global warming), is unacceptable in this world created by God.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:09 am
Not all those who believe the Bible take the view that the earth was created ex nihilo 6000 years ago, but translate the Hebrew to “organize” rather than “create”. Nor do they take a simplistic view with regard to other events recorded in the Bible. For example, if Noah was not aware of any landmass not covered by the flood, nor of any animals not saved by the ark, might Noah not have related his experience as described in the Bible, and might it not have been an absolutely true account from his perspective?
If one were to dig into the meaning of “the Bible is literally true”, I suspect you would find more nuances than have been suggested.
A number of religious people hold the view that there is one and only one reality, and thus science and religion will eventually be reconciled. They believe the Dawkins position to be a violation of Einstein’s advice to “make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In the meantime, they keep an open mind with regard to science, recognizing that today’s scientific truth might well end up as tomorrow’s scientific embarrassment. They also understand that some aspects of today’s religious orthodoxy might also end up on the trash heap. They are capable of reserving final judgment on a great number of issues, recognizing that contradictions between religion and science are temporary.
Not all religious people are irrational, thank you very much.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:40 am
D writes, “There is a difference between saying ’so-and-so scientist thinks religion is false’ and saying ’so-and-so scientist thinks science proves religion is false’…”
What I objected to, and still object to, is Richard Dawkins not making it clear that his atheism is a *religious* belief. He *believes* “God is a lie” because of his FAITH (in lack of a God). He does not, and can not, falsify God using science.
To put it in another way, my criticism of Richard Dawkins is that he does not, as Jesus (is alleged to have) advised, “Render under Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s…” (And render unto science that which is science’s.)
Here is another example of his lack of ability to see his OWN religious persuasion, and to confuse his religious persuasion with science. In an interview, he says:
http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_1.html
“Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don’t survive.”
His assertion that natural section is “guided not by any higher power…” is no more scientific than a statement that natural selection IS guided by a higher power.
The proper scientific way to explain it is that “natural selection can be explained with invoking a higher power.” (Or words to that effect.)
Here is still another example:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/41240;jsessionid=baa6gWCz81
“I think it was worth it, because if you do your history forwards, it looks as though evolution is aimed at the endpoint. And if the endpoint happens to be humans, as it is likely to be—because we are human and we are most interested in humans—then it looks as though history were aimed at humans from the start, and that’s positively wrong.”
His statement, “…then it looks as though history were aimed at humans from the start, and that’s positively wrong” is a statement of RELIGIOUS belief. It’s not a scientific statement.
If he’d said, “…then it looks as though history were aimed at humans from the start, but I don’t think that’s the case,” or something like that, then I’d have no problem.
It’s not a good idea when a scientist confuses his own religious beliefs with science. That’s what Richard Dawkins does. (Unless he is simply making mistakes in his interviews, which is certainly possible and understandable.)
August 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
“If modern scientists were the classical liberals that they like to say they still are, then they presumably would not be clustered on one side of the partisan divide.”
What!?
So before I, as a (hypothetically) classical liberal, can have an opinion on some matter, I have to establish where the middle ground is in order to avoid seeming too “partisan”. I live in New Zealand. Should I seek the local middle ground or that pertaining in the USA? (They are not the same.)
August 1st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
First of all, a tip of the hat to Dano (D) for his link to the gallop poll. While it makes no sense to me that 45% of the US population believes that God created humans sometime in the last 10,000 years, but only 35% think the Bible should be taken literally, I must concede his point. (Where these people live is beyond me, for I think I have actually met more who believe in Gaia than in a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis!)
Secondly, science is a human endeavor and subject to human weaknesses. While we may strive to see the world as it is without any preconcieved notions, there is just too much that remains unknown, and we can not help but fill in the gaps with bits and pieces of our own world view/cosmology. Anyone who says that they don’t do this should not be trusted.
While many here think that differences and partisanships are bad, I think it is part of a healthy process! Otherwise we would be unchallenged in our own little viewpoints and the quality of our decisions would likely be less.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:24 pm
“Global warming may lead to the end of the world by itself…”
How would the “end of the world” be caused by global warming?
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Mark,
I’ve expressed my views on that many times, for several years already. The problem for this century and beyond is the rapid rate of global warming, a result of power generation from billions of fossil fuel burning machines. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/
In other words, the “end of the world” by global warming will be caused by the rapid speed of anthropogenic global climate change, much too fast for plants and animals to adapt/evolve. My view or the “end of the world” is when plants and animals on earth have become extinct. Many people will be surprised at how quickly things change.
For example, see the excerpt below on the concerns expressed by glaciologist Roman Motyka on how glaciologists will be surprised when they learn that the glaciers in southeast Alaska have been vanishing twice as fast as previously expected.
–
“Motyka is concerned a runaway process – initially triggered by climate warming but now controlled by glacial calving dynamics – may
already be underway in Southeast Alaska.
More of the same could be in store for world’s other coastal glaciers, he said.
“We have a lot of ice (in Southeast Alaska), but Greenland has more,” Motyka said.
In Greenland, Motyka and other Geophysical Institute scientists are attempting to learn how dramatic loss of ice at the base of a large
tidewater glacier, the Jakobshavn, is affecting the ice sheet at the top.”
–
Excerpt from:
Ice in Southeast vanishing twice as fast as expected By ELIZABETH BLUEMINK
Web posted August 2, 2006
Text copy of juneauempire article was posted by Tim Jones today at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchiveDiscussion/message/885