The Limits of Science
Wow.
Yuval Levin pens one of the most thorough book review takedowns I’ve seen in some time.
Leave a Reply
Commenting is closed for this article.
Wow.
Yuval Levin pens one of the most thorough book review takedowns I’ve seen in some time.
Commenting is closed for this article.
I am simply not going to read that.
The truth is, and all real scientists know this, that hASCR and hESCR are complimentery, not competitive.
hASCR is superior for replacement tissues because of non-rejection, and hESCR is superior for disease-modelling and anti-scenescene research( because of telomere length and near-immortality of cell lines).
Levin is throwing chaff in an emotional appeal to his low information base, ie republicans.
The underlying bond that holds the GOP together is the lowermiddle IQ of the base and the stealth elites that exploit it.
— matoko_chan · Jun 20, 01:23 PM · #
I am simply not going to read that. Republicans are silly geese!
— Clyfford · Jun 20, 02:15 PM · #
The critical, unstated conceit here is that President Bush somehow accessed a wider, more encompassing scope of wisdom than “mere” science; when the truth, in fact, is that the President’s decision was short-sighted, approached from a mindset of parochialism, and narrowed by his refusal (and inability) to appreciate and comprehend the scientific consensus.
True of conservatism, and true of every ideology that purports to explain reality but doesn’t consider itself “limited” to scientific knowledge. Science is the best, and broadest, tool we have for understanding the world. Anything outside those borders is just making it up as you go along and pretending that’s just as good.
— Chet · Jun 20, 02:20 PM · #
matoko, opposition to ESCR and emergency contraception is a position I have basically no respect for (unless the opponent is also a Jainist), but DeGette’s book still looks pretty stupid.
— Consumatopia · Jun 20, 02:24 PM · #
The basic and consistent dishonesty of the conservative position on this, as expressed by TAS’s own PEG recently has rendered me permanently deaf to any thing Yuval Levin writes or says.
He is utterly discredited.
A stupid takedown of a stupid book is just doubling down on teh stupid.
Waste of spacetime.
This is what the GOP has devolved to…you can only persuade the stupid.
The party of the leftside of the bellcurve.
Mistah Buckley…….he daid.
…the horror….
— matoko_chan · Jun 20, 03:34 PM · #
From the review:
She speaks of “the 110 million Americans suffering from diseases who stood to gain from potential applications” of stem-cell science—asserting, it seems, that every third American is dying of a terrible illness.
110 million may be an exaggeration. But it’s obvious that the set “Americans suffering from diseases” is larger than, and encompasses, the set “Americans dying of terrible illnesses.” Levin’s claim about what she is “asserting” seems very dishonest.
— Barry Deutsch · Jun 20, 06:07 PM · #
My greatest challenge with stem cell issues is that my mind seems to have forgotten all but the most basic scientific concepts learned in school. It’s a little scary to try making judgements about something I don’t understand very well.
— Joules · Jun 20, 07:27 PM · #
In fact, she may be including the Alzheimers Nation of Our Future.
One half of all americans over 65 are at risk for Alzheimers.
36.3 million — The number of people 65 and over in the U.S. on July 1, 2004. This age group accounts for 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Between 2003 and 2004, 351,000 people moved into this age group.
86.7 million — Projected number of people 65 and over in the year 2050. People in this age group would comprise 21 percent of America’s total population at that time.
147% — Projected percentage increase in the 65-and-over population between 2000 and 2050. By comparison, the population as a whole would have increased by only 49 percent over the same period.
Jobs
— matoko_chan · Jun 20, 07:51 PM · #
No, it’s not. The crucial unstated assumption is that scientific statements of the form “X would accomplish Y” amount to no argument in favor of X unless it is established that (1) Y is a good thing and (2) X isn’t worse. Which is just to say that making policy requires considering the larger public good as one understands it.
— John Schwenkler · Jun 20, 09:59 PM · #
Understanding the public good is a scientific problem. It’s either one of polling – what does the public want – or it’s a function of various questions in epidemiology, sociology, anthropology, and so on. There’s not a source of knowledge deeper or broader than the scientific method; there’s just making it up as you go along. Jumping to whatever conclusions you want.
— Chet · Jun 21, 03:38 PM · #
DeGette’s book sounds silly, if so Levin was right to take it down.
But I don’t see why we should take conservative ethical premises seriously on this issue. She may have been haphazard in ignoring them, if so it was just a missed opportunity to take them down. They have no argument, AFAICT, against the existence of fertility clinics. Their “ethical premises” would be more interesting and credible to the rest of us if they were proven out in a debate that’s less politically “safe”.
Until then, Kinsley is right in his general thesis that conservatives are at best unserious and can be safely ignored, at worst they may be judged to be disingenuous or willfully ignorant.
— Steve C · Jun 21, 04:45 PM · #
She speaks of “the 110 million Americans suffering from diseases who stood to gain from potential applications” of stem-cell science—asserting, it seems, that every third American is dying of a terrible illness.
Senescence is terrible.
That’s not to give credit to DeGette, whose book suffers its own kind of terrible illness.
More? Okay. (I’ve been in a pedantic mood all day…sorry.)
But DeGette’s most egregious factual errors are on matters of science…for instance, that the word “abortifacient” was made up by pro-lifers and is not a medical term.
That’s a matter of etymology, not science.
Quoting DeGette:
Levin’s responds, “Of course each of these arguments applies also to therapeutic cloning, and in most cases even more emphatically.”
Even more emphatically? Really?
That said, Levin’s criticism (mostly) hits the mark.
— Sargent · Jun 22, 03:13 PM · #
I’m just not going to read Matoko’s posts. Can someone let me know if she posts something particularly good?
I’ve never seen a foundation for medical ethics that went much beyond the “ick factor.” I appreciate that people apply different ick values to (1) harvesting aborted embryos for scientific research; (2) harvesting leftover embryos from IVF for scientific research; (3) cloning humans for various purposes; and (4) harvesting death penalty convicts for medical products or research.[*]
IMHO, pretty much everyone other than Jack Kevorkian and maybe me is privileging their own ick factor over everyone else. It doesn’t make much sense to say that the conservative position is irrational, so we will only outlaw things that liberals find icky.
If you’re absolutely pro-science, then let the scientists create a race of mutant pig-men to act as our domestic servants and organ banks. If not, you just have a different irrational viewpoint than the conservatives, and we might as well let the democratic process sort out which one to privilege.
[*] I saw Jack Kevorkian speak back in the 90s – he went on for 5 minutes about how irrational and anti-science it was that once we convicted someone to die, we didn’t kill them in a way that would allow us to harvest the maximum amount of blood and organs for use in medicine or science.
— J Mann · Jun 23, 02:48 PM · #
Larry Niven had a pretty good counterargument to that, and it was basically that once executed criminals become considered a source of resources for life-extending care, basically every crime becomes a capital crime – gotta keep the organ banks full!
Niven’s a little crazy, or maybe a lot crazy, but I’m not sure he’s wrong. It’s not hard to imagine a mostly-white electorate expanding capital punishment for predominantly minority crimes if they suspected they themselves might get another 10-20 years of life out of doing so.
— Chet · Jun 23, 10:15 PM · #
Niven’s a little crazy, or maybe a lot crazy, but I’m not sure he’s wrong. It’s not hard to imagine a mostly-white electorate expanding capital punishment for predominantly minority crimes if they suspected they themselves might get another 10-20 years of life out of doing so.
It’s not hard to imagine a mostly liberal electorate expanding abortion to harvest stem cells if they suspected they themselves might get a more comfortable life out of doing so.
Oh wait. We don’t have to imagine it; they’re here.
— jd · Jun 24, 01:00 PM · #
Chet, I agree that in addition to the “ick factor,” people who have some medical ethics stand (against harvesting fetuses for human use, against harvesting condemned prisoners, against cloning a compliant servant race of pig men, or what have you) usually believe that the practice will have long term social consequences. In fact, intuitions about these long term consquences are probably at the root of many such taboos, from cousin marriage or non-procreative sibling incest to anti-cloning and anti-fetus harvesting.
Still, they’re untestable. The lefties reject the social conservatives’ intuitions about long term consequences as rationalization or panic, but cling to their own without thinking about it.
On the specific issue, I don’t think Niven was right – the Gil the Arm stories are great, but they’re practically a twilight zone twist. They grossly overestimate the utility of harvested organs and underestimate the constitutional limits on the courts. I’m against it for other reasons, but I don’t think that harvesting condemned criminals for research and medical purposes would lead to any significant increase in the number of condemned criminals.
— J Mann · Jun 24, 01:35 PM · #
I’m just not going to read Matoko’s posts. Can someone let me know if she posts something particularly good?
Don’t hold your breath for anything particularly “good.” Sudoku Chan is one bitter little human being and brings nothing but ugliness to the debate. I have long since quit reading her posts.
— jd · Jun 24, 01:48 PM · #