interesting comments...
Aug. 31st, 2005 10:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyear...from a discussion led by (half of) a review of Chris Mooney's Republican War on Science.
I'm not going to discuss the book now (obvious criticisms of its partisanship are common, as is the fact that most of the "evidence" that the current Republican party seems anti-science comes from the fact that they just happen to be in charge and as such their actions get more easily noticed).
However, some interesting discussions came about from it, with the following excerpts among the most interesting (apologies for not citing each individual author).
...
It is not “one side” that has become “the” epicenter of these things. I agree that the “right” has attracted a rare Perfect Storm of Antimodernism... and the real fault lies in honest conservatives who are not (yet) doing their duty by denouncing it. (If the AFL CIO could denounce socialism in 1945, men like Newt Gingrich must do their country a similar service in this time of need!)
...
I don't think I need rehearse the grotesque attrocities that flowed from the Left's fatal infatuation with Statism. ... Post Trinity, science was seen as too important to be left to the scientists. Indeed, the notion of Scientific inquiry as a field independent from politics and the State ceased to have any real substance. The stick applied to Oppenheimer and the Carrots generously supplied to the likes of Teller made it abundently clear that, thence forward, Science was to be wedded to the State. To speak of "pure research" became an exercise in Orwellian linguistic subterfuge.
...
Yeah, maybe they're sneaking in a statement of faith. But what the other side ignores is how completely they believe Evolution-origins, ignoring all of its own unprovables.
[JWS: This ignores a key aspect of science. Evolution is not science because it can be "proven" (that would make it mathematics). It is science because it CAN be DISproven. At this point, however, all attempts to disprove it have come up short, and assertions that simple little details can break the over-arching concept of mutational changes + natural selection are increasingly futile except maybe to show that *some* particular aspect of life came about slightly differently. Even this has not been shown in the unsupported assertions of "Irreduceable Complexity" or other such garbage coming from Behe and Dembski.]
...
So, can we say that the Right is, all other things being equal (which, of course, they never are), hostile to rationality and science? My answer is a qualified yes. The qualification being that we take Conservatism as the characteristic posture of the Right.
Whatever positive attributes Conservatism may be said to possess, an enthusiasm for change and innovation cannot be counted among them. It is everywhere and at all times the defender of entrenched modes of thought and systems of power. How could it be otherwise since its essential belief is that the status quo represents the unchanging verities of human existence? How this plays out in reality depends on the character of the status quo being defended. Once upon a time it was Church and Monarch. In another instance it is God and Country. In yet another, Race and Nation or even Class and Party.
In such a worldview, anything that challenges the fundamental precepts and certitudes upon which the ruling order (or disorder) is based is seen as the enemy. Any disruptive force must either be brought to heel or liquidated.
...
But let me turn this around for another guy. Crichton spreads junk science and you guys call him anti-junk science? The whole PREMISE of every novel is secrecy, scientific hubris, endless lectures that "man should not know" this or that...
His Climate Change rant was utter drivel, in the service of monsters.
...
Before I go, consider this. If YOU were an enemy of the United States, and you looked across the last 60 years, what would you call our most devastating mistake? The thing that wrecked our confidence and unity and military readiness and economy...
...An idiotic, incompetently waged foreign war in a futile setting and low priority locale, guaranteed to raise insurgent resistance, demolish our alliances and leadership position, and to set our culture aflame, while wasting the surplus that might be spent on research and other investment.
If you were our ENEMY, you'd look for our achilles heel and come up with a plan... to get us to do what we are doing right now.
[inner ellipses are author's original]
...
Kyoto may not please you. But it is the proposal on the table and America has enough clout to come up with alternatives and put THEM on the table. Instead, obstruction by diversion (like State of Fear) is the policy of our innane ruling troika.
(Well, one of the legs of the troika - the apocalypts - actually WANTS the end of the world... so....)
...
BTW, the hypocrisy of people who were elected with AT BEST 51% majority of votes, then claiming super MANDATES to enforce weird policy (or do a huge pokr raid), while disparaging "consensus" majorities of scientists that exceed 90%... That doesn't stink?
...
relatively little climate research is done with NSF funding; funding comes from NASA Earth Science division (now amalgamated and cut to make room for exploration); US Geological Survey and NOAA. All have taken major cuts in the last 4 years, and would have taken bigger cuts had Congress (Senate generally) not restored proposed Presidential and House cuts.
...
But these reasonable Republicans we're supposed to be trying to convince, where are they? None of the "moderate" Republican leaders have criticized any of these hack attack books. People have called for "liberals" to be rounded up, called us sub-human, and worse. Why should we try and be reasonable with these people, and the people who carry their water? What's the point? Some of them have even come out and said they would be happy to see "liberals" all dead.
So, maybe it's not the most reasonable modernist position around or anything, but sometimes reasonable doesn't work. Maybe there's a point to trying to stick the Republican leadership with the positions and consequences of their most extreme elements, especially since they're the ones calling the tunes now. And it's hardly just a few bloggers or radio hosts (even radio hosts with millions of listeners). Some of this crap has come from elected officals.
...
(back to Joe: )
ok, that's enough for now. but 2 of the comments really struck home. If there *are* moderate republicans not bound entirely by a party policy set by the extremists, where are they and what are they doing? The most we've seen from them is their half of the "gang of 14" (that promptly got condemned as "traitors" by the religious right within minutes of their decision).
Even reasonable McCain, who's views on global warming (and international relations) thorougly annoy the hell of out his party leaders suddenly this week gave lip-service to the crapola that is "teach the alternatives".
So what can one do? How can one have any assurance at all at their representatives when they represent the party line (even as after they vote, they say they didn't feel that way, like nearly a third of the schavo yes-voters) more than their true constituants, or for that matter, themselves?
I'd have no problem living under a parlimentary government if only I'd been involved in the decision to turn this country into one. ;)
I'm not going to discuss the book now (obvious criticisms of its partisanship are common, as is the fact that most of the "evidence" that the current Republican party seems anti-science comes from the fact that they just happen to be in charge and as such their actions get more easily noticed).
However, some interesting discussions came about from it, with the following excerpts among the most interesting (apologies for not citing each individual author).
...
It is not “one side” that has become “the” epicenter of these things. I agree that the “right” has attracted a rare Perfect Storm of Antimodernism... and the real fault lies in honest conservatives who are not (yet) doing their duty by denouncing it. (If the AFL CIO could denounce socialism in 1945, men like Newt Gingrich must do their country a similar service in this time of need!)
...
I don't think I need rehearse the grotesque attrocities that flowed from the Left's fatal infatuation with Statism. ... Post Trinity, science was seen as too important to be left to the scientists. Indeed, the notion of Scientific inquiry as a field independent from politics and the State ceased to have any real substance. The stick applied to Oppenheimer and the Carrots generously supplied to the likes of Teller made it abundently clear that, thence forward, Science was to be wedded to the State. To speak of "pure research" became an exercise in Orwellian linguistic subterfuge.
...
Yeah, maybe they're sneaking in a statement of faith. But what the other side ignores is how completely they believe Evolution-origins, ignoring all of its own unprovables.
[JWS: This ignores a key aspect of science. Evolution is not science because it can be "proven" (that would make it mathematics). It is science because it CAN be DISproven. At this point, however, all attempts to disprove it have come up short, and assertions that simple little details can break the over-arching concept of mutational changes + natural selection are increasingly futile except maybe to show that *some* particular aspect of life came about slightly differently. Even this has not been shown in the unsupported assertions of "Irreduceable Complexity" or other such garbage coming from Behe and Dembski.]
...
So, can we say that the Right is, all other things being equal (which, of course, they never are), hostile to rationality and science? My answer is a qualified yes. The qualification being that we take Conservatism as the characteristic posture of the Right.
Whatever positive attributes Conservatism may be said to possess, an enthusiasm for change and innovation cannot be counted among them. It is everywhere and at all times the defender of entrenched modes of thought and systems of power. How could it be otherwise since its essential belief is that the status quo represents the unchanging verities of human existence? How this plays out in reality depends on the character of the status quo being defended. Once upon a time it was Church and Monarch. In another instance it is God and Country. In yet another, Race and Nation or even Class and Party.
In such a worldview, anything that challenges the fundamental precepts and certitudes upon which the ruling order (or disorder) is based is seen as the enemy. Any disruptive force must either be brought to heel or liquidated.
...
But let me turn this around for another guy. Crichton spreads junk science and you guys call him anti-junk science? The whole PREMISE of every novel is secrecy, scientific hubris, endless lectures that "man should not know" this or that...
His Climate Change rant was utter drivel, in the service of monsters.
...
Before I go, consider this. If YOU were an enemy of the United States, and you looked across the last 60 years, what would you call our most devastating mistake? The thing that wrecked our confidence and unity and military readiness and economy...
...An idiotic, incompetently waged foreign war in a futile setting and low priority locale, guaranteed to raise insurgent resistance, demolish our alliances and leadership position, and to set our culture aflame, while wasting the surplus that might be spent on research and other investment.
If you were our ENEMY, you'd look for our achilles heel and come up with a plan... to get us to do what we are doing right now.
[inner ellipses are author's original]
...
Kyoto may not please you. But it is the proposal on the table and America has enough clout to come up with alternatives and put THEM on the table. Instead, obstruction by diversion (like State of Fear) is the policy of our innane ruling troika.
(Well, one of the legs of the troika - the apocalypts - actually WANTS the end of the world... so....)
...
BTW, the hypocrisy of people who were elected with AT BEST 51% majority of votes, then claiming super MANDATES to enforce weird policy (or do a huge pokr raid), while disparaging "consensus" majorities of scientists that exceed 90%... That doesn't stink?
...
relatively little climate research is done with NSF funding; funding comes from NASA Earth Science division (now amalgamated and cut to make room for exploration); US Geological Survey and NOAA. All have taken major cuts in the last 4 years, and would have taken bigger cuts had Congress (Senate generally) not restored proposed Presidential and House cuts.
...
But these reasonable Republicans we're supposed to be trying to convince, where are they? None of the "moderate" Republican leaders have criticized any of these hack attack books. People have called for "liberals" to be rounded up, called us sub-human, and worse. Why should we try and be reasonable with these people, and the people who carry their water? What's the point? Some of them have even come out and said they would be happy to see "liberals" all dead.
So, maybe it's not the most reasonable modernist position around or anything, but sometimes reasonable doesn't work. Maybe there's a point to trying to stick the Republican leadership with the positions and consequences of their most extreme elements, especially since they're the ones calling the tunes now. And it's hardly just a few bloggers or radio hosts (even radio hosts with millions of listeners). Some of this crap has come from elected officals.
...
(back to Joe: )
ok, that's enough for now. but 2 of the comments really struck home. If there *are* moderate republicans not bound entirely by a party policy set by the extremists, where are they and what are they doing? The most we've seen from them is their half of the "gang of 14" (that promptly got condemned as "traitors" by the religious right within minutes of their decision).
Even reasonable McCain, who's views on global warming (and international relations) thorougly annoy the hell of out his party leaders suddenly this week gave lip-service to the crapola that is "teach the alternatives".
So what can one do? How can one have any assurance at all at their representatives when they represent the party line (even as after they vote, they say they didn't feel that way, like nearly a third of the schavo yes-voters) more than their true constituants, or for that matter, themselves?
I'd have no problem living under a parlimentary government if only I'd been involved in the decision to turn this country into one. ;)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-01 04:05 am (UTC)