The Boundaries of Science
Kevin, you’ve stirred up quite a spat with the left-wing blogosphere concerning how much we should care about the scientific views of politicians, with specific reference to the cases of global warming and evolution. I’m very sympathetic with your frustrations, but I’d put a similar objection somewhat differently. What I think would be most helpful in this discussion is rigor in defining the boundaries of science.
Physical science has enormous, justified prestige as an intellectual discipline that has created vast improvements in our material standard of living. Progressives routinely attempt to drape the label “science” over assertions that do not have the same reliability as physical science in order to create political advantage. This occurs in two dimensions.
First, scientific findings in some area are used to justify some related political or moral opinion. Key examples are exactly the topics you touch upon: global warming and evolution. In one example, the indisputable scientific finding that CO2 molecules redirect infrared radiation is used to argue that “science says” we must implement a massive global program of emissions mitigation, when in fact, the argument for this depends upon all kinds of beliefs about the growth of the global economy, Chinese politics, technological developments and so on for something like the next couple of hundred years. In the other example, the incredibly powerful scientific paradigm of evolution through natural selection is used to argue that “science says” we have just eliminated the need for God in the creation of the human species, when in fact, as a simple counter-example, the genetic operators of selection, crossover and mutation require building blocks as starting points, and therefore leave the classic First Cause argument unaddressed.
Neither the left nor the right is guiltless here. The left attempts to stretch science to justify what are really non-scientific viewpoints, but conservatives often react by attacking the underlying science, rather than making the more complicated, but more accurate, point that the actual scientific findings published in peer-reviewed journals (i.e., “the science”) don’t really imply the political assertion.
In the second dimension, fields such as economics that lack the reliability of physical science are often treated by partisans on both sides of the aisle as if they should speak with scientific authority. Macroeconomics is not valueless, but we should not grant its assertions the same rational deference that we grant to those made by physical chemistry.
The role of rational politicians, then, is to have an understanding of the boundaries of actual scientific expertise, and accept consensus scientific findings within these fields as practical “givens” in determining policy – but not to be snowed by everybody with a bunch of equations into accepting their personal politics as indisputable by any rational human.
(Cross-posted to The Corner)
Regarding the third paragraph, it’s true that evidence of climate change caused by carbon emissions is used by some politicians— almost exclusively ones on the left— to push for massive, expensive initiatives, the success of which is far from certain. Such a push is justified, in their minds, by what the “science says.”
However, it’s not as though anybody powerful on the right present a robust counter-appraisal of what actions are warranted by what the “science says.” Jim Manzi makes this effort, but almost no conservative politicians do so. They typically disregard what the “science says.” Of those few who take a nuanced view, Rick Perry— the subject of Williamson’s post— is certainly not one of them. He doesn’t even bother to quote the handful of scientists who are disproportionately cited on the WSJ editorial page and who are badly out-of-step with vast numbers of their peers. Perry trucks with those who speak of climate change as a “hoax.”
So, in this case, the Texas governor proudly resists the consensus out of ignorance, Williamson apologizes for him, and Manzi sympathizes. Yet, last year Manzi laid into Mark Levin for a nearly identical hostility to and ignorance of scientific findings. I see very little difference between Levin’s view and Perry’s. Doesn’t Perry, a figure with far greater influence than a cranky disc jockey, deserve the same rebuke?
— RPH · Aug 24, 10:02 PM · #
We don’t need a discussion on the boundaries of science. We need a discussion on the limits of ideology. I mean, does anyone seriously believe that Rick Perry’s views on things like global warming or evolution have a blessed thing to do with his scientific education?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 24, 10:28 PM · #
lol!thank u 4 your post.i like it!
— nfl jerseys · Aug 25, 02:03 AM · #
I find the Williamson comment and its responses frustrating because it seems like the various interlocuters are choosing the extreme cases which avoid the interesting ones (atypically, for Manzi). Look: Perry’s views on evolution just aren’t interesting. The only thing for which it might matter, is his control over school curricula, and pretty much the evolution-haters are in a camp that says the President shouldn’t have any control over curricula, plus really he’s just not going to go around mandating that local school boards teach creationism as President, so, so what? Meanwhile opinions on anthropogenic global warming matter surprisingly little too. For Democrats mostly it’s a cudgel to beat on anti-science Republicans — but when actual policy comes up, whether it’s Kyoto or cap-and-trade or banning offshore drilling, they wholeheartedly vote it down, probably because they take into account, when the actual chips are down, the same issues about what other countries might do and long-term economic effects that Manzi references. The only major policy outcomes at the federal level end up in subsidies for alternative energy vehicles or in fuel economy standards and surprisingly Republicans get behind that stuff occasionally too, probably for wacky “energy independence” reasons.
Whereas, there are a whole lot of really interesting cases involving science and policy and these tend to be exactly the kinds of mushy, statistically fine cases Manzi references. I think looking at Democrats, Republicans and science would be much much more interesting if you tried to generalize looking at say bans of pollutants or phthalates or stuff like that —- stuff where there is ambiguous scientific evidence, and tried to see how ideas break down. Or adult stem cells is another weird one — promise is ambiguous, Republicans seem to boost the stuff ridiculously and Democrats to pooh-pooh it unjustifiedly, both hoping to justify their stances on the use of embryonic stem cells. Liberals seem generally more eager to seize weak data over consensus science in “precautionary principle” type settings e.g. with genetically modified crops, conservatives in some types of missile defense. Anyway — what I’m wanting to hear isn’t discussions of cases where the science is clear-cut but the policy responses are more or less not a function of the science, but rather cases where the science should be more tightly tied to policy but the science is itself not really definitive, and I think there’s a lot of those, so that would appear to be the right frame, no?
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 25, 02:53 AM · #
The issue here has nothing to do with whether Perry or anybody else has the qualifications to assess scientific evidence and arrive at conclusions, because frankly, as Williamson says we don’t rely on politicians to do that.
No, the question is whether a politician prioritizes empirical evidence over ideology. These issues make it abundantly clear that Perry does not – that there’s no empirical evidence that could possibly convince him that a portion of his ideology was wrong. That is, frankly, disqualifying in a president. Or should be.
The “First Cause” thing is just dumb.
— Ch3t · Aug 25, 03:43 AM · #
Hah, I’m trying to stay away from that first cause argument my damn self. Evolution itself implies that creation myths are just that, myths. To me, that’s a powerful enough statement.
As for the overall post… is this one of those “conservatives aren’t as stupid as you think” topics? Things like this are how we end up with Michele Bachmann as a possible president.
— Console · Aug 25, 05:51 AM · #
The idea that somehow Perry’s stance on evolution tells you about whether he “prioritizes empirical evidence over ideology” is a wacky smokescreen that’s come up on this issue. Politicians say lots of factually nuts but ideologically driven stuff, sometimes in stuff where policy matters (should we ask Barack Obama about a “strong dollar,” Chet?) What I get is, Perry’s quite smart with empirical evidence: he looks at polling data and knows he better say he doesn’t believe in evolution. As I described, Perry’s “anti-science” views have electoral but not policy consequences so the hell with them.
If you want to know whether, when policy can be affected, Perry will go with data over ideology, you have a really good data point in the HPV vaccine, where Perry jumped in early and well and did something wise from a public health standpoint but, from a small-government or libertarian standpoint, terrible (and he then climbed down when the pushback from those groups was going to kill the thing anyway). That pretty much definitively answers the question. Taking a policy irrelevant topic and saying,that proves Perry ignores science for ideology, is goofy.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 25, 12:16 PM · #
One instance of Perry pushing policy based on data does not “definitively” reveal his typical willingness to follow data. Perhaps it definitively shows he’s not a full-blown evangelical caricature. However, his stubborn attachment to abstinence education shows just as clearly that he’s a capable creature of ideology, when he decides to be.
— Boris · Aug 25, 01:55 PM · #
Um, sure, why shouldn’t we?
Oh, right! Sorry, I had to look up conservative conspiracy theories for a sec. You’re one of those nutters who thinks Obama is out to devalue the dollar, right? (You understand that nobody believes that but people like you, right? We’re not all over here on the left talking about Obama’s plans to devalue the dollar, though we are paying attention to the fact that the dollar, in fact, is not devaluing. But only because the nutters keep saying that it is.)
No, I disagree profoundly. Taking a subject, such as evolution, where all scientific agreement is on one side of the issue and his ideological community is on the other is exactly the situation you want to look at. It’s a perfect laboratory case because there’s no confounding policy implication. It’s exactly the kind of case you want to look at it because it tests precisely what we want to know – whether Perry and the rest of the GOP are willing to be driven by verifiable evidence or by ideology and mythology.
— Ch3t · Aug 25, 02:27 PM · #
I am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty blog with me. I am appreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great blog. Good luck to the author! all the best!
— Uth Video · Aug 25, 02:47 PM · #
Devaluing the dollar’s a good idea. At least for Americans.
Comparing creationists with people who think evolution-by-natural-selection disproves Thomas Aquinas is comparing two groups who differ in political importance by at least 8 or 9 orders of magnitude.
— Pithlord · Aug 25, 06:43 PM · #
Jim says:
“In the other example, the incredibly powerful scientific paradigm of evolution through natural selection is used to argue that “science says” we have just eliminated the need for God in the creation of the human species, when in fact, as a simple counter-example, the genetic operators of selection, crossover and mutation require building blocks as starting points, and therefore leave the classic First Cause argument unaddressed.”
No, this is precisely the counterexample NOT to give when confronted by raw scientism.
The proper response is to ask the proponent of the “Evolution=No God” thesis:
1) How they have empirically quantitated a threshold “need for God” from existing data; and
2) How theological content unrelated to reliance on literal interpretation of the Old Testament (which is to say, most of it) fits into that empirical model.
In other words, ask questions that reveal the initial scientismic statement to be what it is: religion.
When science acts like religion, the proper response is to point out that science has thereby exceeded its capabilities; it is not to acquiesce in playing that game by coming up with ID-like scientismic “counterarguments” that attempt to make religion into a laboratory notebook.
— Biomuse · Aug 25, 09:03 PM · #
There is no such thing as “theological content.”
— Ch3t · Aug 25, 09:42 PM · #
Ch3t blurts out:
“How theological content unrelated to reliance on literal interpretation of the Old Testament (which is to say, most of it) fits into that empirical model.”
Of course there is. If my belief system posits that there is an undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster somewhere in the universe who showers us with blessings, the theological content of my belief system is the description of the presence and role of said Monster.
— Biomuse · Aug 25, 09:49 PM · #
Sorry, I intended to quote the blurting thus:
“There is no such thing as “theological content.””
— Biomuse · Aug 25, 09:51 PM · #
(I note as well with some interest that if I speak in the Holy Language of New Atheism, Ch3t is appeased, even though his point is thereby refuted.)
— Biomuse · Aug 25, 10:36 PM · #
Chet, you ignorant slut. I’m a liberal who thinks Barack Obama should try to get a little inflation. Everybody wants China to strengthen the renminbi relative to the dollar. A weaker dollar would be, well, a pretty good thing. Barack Obama knows that too.
That I was pointing out was that if you ask him, or ask his administration, and they will extol the awesomeness of the “strong dollar,” because it sounds great to the people the vote for. But they don’t want it, not because (I think) he’s some closet America-hater trying to make us Weimar Germany, but because a “strong dollar” would sort of suck right now. Still, he says something completely off-the-wall loopy and anti-rational, because he has to, because — my point — that’s what politicians do.
Man, you really can’t read, can you? It’ll be interesting to see how your ganglion processes this.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 25, 11:58 PM · #
that there’s no empirical evidence that could possibly convince him that a portion of his ideology was wrong. That is, frankly, disqualifying in a president
We have a President who fits that description right now and we seem to be doing al… Well, I guess you’ve made a good point.
— The Reticulator · Aug 26, 02:25 AM · #
Anyway — what I’m wanting to hear isn’t discussions of cases where the science is clear-cut but the policy responses are more or less not a function of the science, but rather cases where the science should be more tightly tied to policy but the science is itself not really definitive, and I think there’s a lot of those, so that would appear to be the right frame, no?
Tied? That term sounds rather McCarthyite, doesn’t it?
BTW, here’s what I wrote about Rick Perry and science in one of the WSJ forums:
“Let’s not make Rick Perry the chairman of the biology department, then. He may be dumb about science, but most politicians are dumb about science. Even some scientists are dumb about science, especially when it comes to politics. (Anyone who thinks it is possible to have a public policy based on science needs to take remedial epistemology.) But if Perry understands humans and what government can and cannot do, that will make up for any defects in his science background. I don’t care if he thinks the world is flat, as long as he understands the corrupting nature of power. (Not saying he knows about that, just that it’s more important.)”
— The Reticulator · Aug 26, 02:44 AM · #
Why is “tied” “McCarthyite”? Clearly there are simpler cases where the science does more directly feed into the policy (e.g. you have a policy in place to stock trout in some artificial reservoir, you hire a bunch of biologists to go find out what it can support, or you design a system to monitor outbreaks of unknown diseases. In both cases there are other considerations but the scientific constraints can be easily and directly linked to aspects of the final policy.)
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 26, 10:38 AM · #
Why is “tied” “McCarthyite”?
I’m trying to prod you to be more precise about the possible and proper relationships between science and politics. (Ol’ Tailgunner Joe and his followers used to do the guilt-by-association thing and condemn people as “fellow travelers” on account of some vague links (or ties) between them.)
In prodding you to be more specific, I’m trying to prod you to agree with me that there is no such thing as public policy being “based” on science. There is always some system of values at the bottom of it all, and that system of values cannot be determined or evaluated by science.
— The Reticulator · Aug 26, 11:45 AM · #
Well, of course, what you do is a product of a whole lot of history and habit and aspiration and interests and values. But that’s a bit of a dodge. The point is there are very, very many cases where you decide (for all those reasons) to do a thing, and then basically the policy outputs are determined by science, and it would be nice to see such things used in evaluating “scientific” inclinations of politicians rather than the things we used. It sounds like all you did was take a weirdly nefarious view of the word “ties.”
Evolution is not one of those cases because there’s no policy output. AGW is not one of those cases because the problem is so large affects so many areas that it gives you an incredible diversity of policy outputs and how you sculpt policy will depend on so many of them — some discussed by Manzi above — that it’s really harder to tie the details of the policy to the specifics of the science without those other considerations dominating.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 26, 02:19 PM · #
That’s a singularly bad example for you to have chosen, since the FSM was created by internet wags to highlight the fact that propositions in theology are content-free.
The issue is this – if you simply skip over the part where you actually establish the existence of the figure your ology means to study, then you’ve created something as content-free as unicorn science or dragonology. Because there’s no such thing as God, theology is content-free. By definition it contains no knowledge.
@Kid
Well, hey. Maybe if you’d said any of that the first time!
I can – just not minds. Do you think it’s unreasonable to come to a conservative blog and assume that the people who are arguing with me are conservatives? Especially if they don’t say? I mean, geez, look at the stupid stuff I have to deal with from Reticulator.
@Reticulator
Oh, do we? I thought we had a Kenyan anti-colonialist flip-flopper (yet somehow also a product of Chicago machine politics.) I can never keep track of conservative caricatures of Obama.
— Ch3t · Aug 26, 02:49 PM · #
“they will extol the awesomeness of the “strong dollar,” because it sounds great to the people the vote for. But they don’t want it, not because (I think) he’s some closet America-hater trying to make us Weimar Germany, but because a “strong dollar” would sort of suck right now. Still, he says something completely off-the-wall loopy and anti-rational, because he has to, because — my point — that’s what politicians do.”
This sort of cynical hand waving really serves no purpose.
1. There is plenty of evidence that a great many conservatives actually believe the crazy stuff they say.
2. There is no comparison between advocating a belief in a strong dollar and attacking the validity of evolution. That’s because there aren’t tens of millions of Americans demanding that the country follow a strong dollar policy even when such a thing is actually harmful to the national economy. There are tens of millions of Americans demanding that scientific theories and non-scientific theories be taught side-by-side and given the same consideration.
3. You do realize that the President “talking down the dollar” would not just have political consequences but financial ones?
It’s sort of funny that liberals are in so much of a funk today when they should be celebrating to see conservatives embrace postmodern relativism. “Rick Perry casting doubts on evolution is exactly like Obama saying the dollar is strong!” What’s next? “Perry saying global warming is nothing more than a worldwide hoax is just like Obama saying we should get rid of tax breaks for corporate jet owners!”
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 26, 02:59 PM · #
Oh, do we? I thought we had a Kenyan anti-colonialist flip-flopper (yet somehow also a product of Chicago machine politics.) I can never keep track of conservative caricatures of Obama.
Obama is accused of being a flip-flopper? I thought that was Kerry. I hang around in some conservative forums and don’t recall that criticism being leveled against Obama, though I’m sure if you look hard enough you’ll find it. Maybe you’re thinking of leftwingers who are disappointed that Obama STILL hasn’t hasn’t instituted the Cambodian-style killing fields they were expecting. Or maybe your problem is that you think conservatives think together in the same lockstep conformity that one finds in the leftwing hive. Or maybe you let the divine revelations in your head drown out the empirical evidence. Hard to say. This might be something you need professional help with.
— The Reticulator · Aug 26, 03:41 PM · #
“Or maybe your problem is that you think conservatives think together in the same lockstep conformity that one finds in the leftwing hive.”
So, we all now know that Ol’ Recy has never actually spent any amount of time either with actual lefties or on any leftwing blog.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 26, 03:53 PM · #
So, we all now know that Ol’ Recy has never actually spent any amount of time either with actual lefties or on any leftwing blog.
Aside from spending the last 32 years of my working life in a leftwing (university) environment, being exposed to leftwing ideology from the MSM on a daily basis, having to deal with leftwing family members, friends, and other associates, and having done time as a McGovernite (following which there was a slow healing process until I learned to do my own thinking again), I suppose you’re right.
— The Reticulator · Aug 26, 04:09 PM · #
1. Get a real job.
2. Repeating a universally held rightwing canard is not exactly the way to establish your individualism.
3. If your real world interactions are anything like your posts here, none of those folks are probably all that leftwing and the only thing they’re likely all in agreement about is that you’re just an ass when it comes to any political discussions.
4. Aside from doing a poor job picking his running mate, what was McGovern so wrong about that you totally changed your perspective on the world?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 26, 04:34 PM · #
Mike, you’re pulling a Chet and reading stuff that wasn’t writte. Obama calling for a “strong dollar” is just like Perry saying he doesn’t believe in evolution in exactly these ways: it doesn’t much affect what he actually does, and it’s somethign he must say for political reasons. With which of those ideas do you have an issue?
— Kiselguhr Kid · Aug 26, 06:27 PM · #
1. If Bernanke succeeds in stealing all our retirement savings I may have to get a real job. But I’d prefer not to. If I do, I’ll be redoubling my efforts to remove leftwingers from their positions of political and social hegemony.
2. I don’t have to establish my individualism. You, on the other hand, do.
3. After Denial comes Bargaining and Anger. Are you prepared to take those steps?
4. I didn’t say McGovern was so wrong. I still prefer him to a RINO like Nixon who faked right and ran left, and to the Kissinger realpolitik. I was opposed to Nixon’s abuse of power for the same reasons that I was later opposed to the Clintons’ abuses of power. McGovern came from an era when leftwingers still had some intelligence and integrity, if you can believe that there ever were such people. But I couldn’t stand the leftwingers program of obnoxious self-righteousness, their belief they had a right to rule, their supercilious sneers, and their habit of ramming their morality down people’s throats. It was apparent even back then in the days before they ceased to be liberal, though it was not quite as obvious then as it is these days. Some of the liberal parts are things I still agree with, which is why I sometimes say I’m not sure whether I’m a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal. But the left is no longer liberal.
— The Reticulator · Aug 26, 06:40 PM · #
“That’s a singularly bad example for you to have chosen, since the FSM was created by internet wags to highlight the fact that propositions in theology are content-free.”
Which, as I pointed out above, is the exact reason I chose it. It’s such a pleasure to show that it doesn’t do the work you think it does.
And, just so you know, it wasn’t so much “invented” by internet wags as it was a riff by those wags off of Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot.
“The issue is this – if you simply skip over the part where you actually establish the existence of the figure your ology means to study, then you’ve created something as content-free as unicorn science or dragonology. Because there’s no such thing as God, theology is content-free. By definition it contains no knowledge.”
Oh, it thinks it knows some Greek! So cute…
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
-logy
“a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science,” from Gk. -logia (often via Fr. -logie or M.L. -logia), from root of legein “to speak;” thus, “the character or department of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject)”
Oops, looks like we God-infected types get to keep using our word…
Of course, if what you mean is that “There is no such thing as ‘theological content’ to atheists,” then we’re in complete agreement! I don’t intend to disparage your religion. Some of my very best friends and family are atheists, after all.
But since your point of view is “scientific,” of course, I await your proof of the nonexistence of God. As a scientist myself, I’ll be happy to consider your evidence.
(Hint: don’t get on the ‘burden of proving a negative / Occam’ merry-go-round with me. Won’t help you.)
— Biomuse · Aug 26, 07:37 PM · #
@Kid
Just so we’re on the same page – what specific example of Obama “calling for a strong dollar” are you referring to?
@Bio
Except that it does do the work I think it does, and doesn’t seem to do the work that you require of it.
You use quotes but “invented” was not the word I used.
I don’t really know any Greek, and I wasn’t claiming to – just riffing on the suffix.
Well, but that’s not at all what I mean. (Why am I the one who gets accused of not being able to read? That’s two reading failures on your part in just this single post.) What I mean is that God doesn’t exist. God can’t exist for you and not exist for me; one of us has to be wrong, and the ample evidence is that it’s you. Even if there was absolutely no evidence and the existence of God remained a completely unsettled proposition, theology would still be content-free simply as a result of claiming to have knowledge about which nothing can actually be known.
You have to have a God before you can have a theology about it. Like almost all “theologians” you want to do it in reverse, which is why theology by definition is devoid of content.
Hint: don’t get on the “redefining the established terms of the discussion” merry-go-round with me. Won’t help you.
— Ch3t · Aug 26, 09:21 PM · #
If this is all your “own thinking” then why is it indistinguishable from the regular conservative talking points, right down to the regular invocation of “the left”?
I don’t think it. All I have to do is read your nonsense, and I know it.
— Ch3t · Aug 26, 09:26 PM · #
I know that very few really take Ol’ Recy seriously or pay attention to him, but even guys like him can be put to use. Specifically by looking at these two quotes…
1. “having done time as a McGovernite (following which there was a slow healing process until I learned to do my own thinking again)”.
2. “I didn’t say McGovern was so wrong.”
Before ideology or policy, the fundamental idiocy/insanity on the right is in their rhetoric. Statement #1 is undeniably a negative slam and the things McGovern stood for and the people who agreed with his views. There is literally no other way to interpret or understand those words. Statement #2, however, has Ol’ Recy explicitly denying the that he meant the only possible thing he could have meant with statement #1.
Frankly, I’d bet a lot of rightwingers like Ol’ Recy don’t even comprehend what they supposedly believe because the words and concepts they use to explain those views to themselves and others have lost contact with reality to the point where it’s all practically gibberish.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 26, 09:38 PM · #
“What I mean is that God doesn’t exist. God can’t exist for you and not exist for me; one of us has to be wrong, and the ample evidence is that it’s you.”
I’m curious. What “evidence” are you talking about, given that the subject at hand is an omnipotent, omniscient entity to whom a human being is both physically and intellectually less than an amoeba? I wonder what an amoeba thinks about the existence of Rick Perry.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 26, 10:12 PM · #
Chet, your question is in bad faith because every time the Administration’s been asked about US currency policy — including this last spring — by Congress, it has asserted his commitment to a “strong dollar.” (Or, Geithner to CFR a couple months back: “Our policy has been and will always be, as long as I will be in office, that a strong dollar is in the interest of the country. We will never embrace a strategy to weaken the dollar.”) It’s something the Administration does, and all Administrations do, because Mike is simply, profoundly wrong: there is a huge constituency calling for a “strong dollar.” Basically everyone. They’re not sure what it means but dammit, they want their dollars strong. Show them graphs of the dollar declining against the yen and, man, they get unhappy knowing they can’t buy as much shit on the vacations to Europe they ain’t gonna take anyway.
Fortunately in general the politicians who give lip service to this crap know better: but Obama knows better. And, contra Mike, lip service to a “strong dollar” is worse than lip service to Creationism, because whereas it’s hard to figure out what a putative President Perry might actually do as a result of creationist beliefs, of any consequence — if the Administration actually follows through on what it says about currency it would be terrible. But it’s all crap people say, and for what it’s worth I like that politicians like Perry can pander on inconsequential stuff; thank God!
As in some examples I’ve given, there are cases where science and policy come close — in some (“precautionary principle,” GMO foods) liberals are more opposed to scientific consensus (in the GMO foods case, disastrously so with terrible consequences). In others (ecological protections, statistical census methods) conservatives often don’t much care about scientific opinion. But those cases are a bit boring in that they confirm that all over the political spectrum science is only interesting when it confirms our general agenda. So I’d like to hear Manzi opine on an interesting case (HPV vaccination being, I think, an interesting case, and the only interesting one anyone’s put down so far here).
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 26, 11:27 PM · #
@Ch3t:
“You use quotes but “invented” was not the word I used.”
Oh dear. You’re absolutely right, the word you used was “created,” not “invented.” That you think that was a point worth making doesn’t bode well for you…
You could at least have thanked me for filling you in on who it was that actually created that thought exercise. You’re welcome.
“I don’t really know any Greek, and I wasn’t claiming to – just riffing on the suffix.”
Nope! What you were doing was getting it wrong by using English incorrectly, and in a way that no invocation of synonyms will correct:
The content of an -ology does not need to contain proven facts about objects of study proven to exist. Example: “Astrology.” Astrology was not merely about stars, which are observable. It was about a relationship of stars and patterns in stars to human fate by an unseen mechanism. If its content regarding that supposed relationship and mechanism had no basis in fact, that indicates that its content is fictional, not that its content is not content. The next time you look at the night sky and its constellations, be sure to remind yourself that astrology had “no content.”
I see no trouble – neither etymologically nor conceptually – with Dragonology as something with content. Many RPG players will agree! Not gonna base my life around it, but that’s not because it might lack content; it would have more to do with the nature of that content and my estimation of it. That dragons (the full-sized, firebreathing sort) are exceptionally unlikely to exist will influence my estimation of the content greatly. But there will nonetheless be an object of my estimation.
In short, the fact that content is poorly or even utterly erroneously founded does not remove it from the category “content.” We are literally surrounded with such content. It covers the walls.
““Of course, if what you mean is that “There is no such thing as ‘theological content’ *to atheists,*”
“Well, but that’s not at all what I mean. What I mean is that God doesn’t exist. “
facepalm
If you’re playing dumb, you’re doing it fairly effectively. I know what you thought you meant. My entire point was that that’s all you ever could possibly mean by your tautology. I’m heartened that you now acknowledge it. But it’s also the plain meaning of my rephrasing of your statement. The one you say you don’t mean…
“(Why am I the one who gets accused of not being able to read? That’s two reading failures on your part in just this single post.)”
I’m not the one who accused you of not being able to read, so you apparently have more problems than you thought.
Although, come to think of it, you don’t seem to be able to. I made a quotation error by substituting a word resulting in no substantial meaning change; then I explained to you what your own sentence meant. Those aren’t reading errors.
“God can’t exist for you and not exist for me; one of us has to be wrong,”
That’s obvious. Just like “numbers are either out there in the universe, or they’e not.” Good luck proving it either way.
“and the ample evidence is that it’s you.”
Again, as a scientist (the hard type; molecular biologist), I would be happy to examine your data. Since you are speaking scientifically, of course.
“Even if there was absolutely no evidence and the existence of God remained a completely unsettled proposition, theology would still be content-free simply as a result of claiming to have knowledge about which nothing can actually be known.”
About which nothing can actually be proven. That’s where you get confused, you see.
“don’t get on the “redefining the established terms of the discussion” merry-go-round with me.”
Oh by all means I’ll see fit to help you understand the definitions of the terms you throw around. As for “established terms of the discussion,” I’m not sure what you’ve dreamed up, but we’ll muddle through.
— Biomuse · Aug 27, 12:12 AM · #
There is literally no other way to interpret or understand those words. Statement #2, however, has Ol’ Recy explicitly denying the that he meant the only possible thing he could have meant with statement #1.
I am not surprised that no other possibilities could occur within the narrowly constricted mind of a leftwinger.
— The Reticulator · Aug 27, 12:03 PM · #
@Kielselguhr Kid
and then basically the policy outputs are determined by science
Maybe, but I’m not so sure. Policy outputs are and should be informed by science, but I’m not having much luck thinking of how they can be determined by science. Did you have an example in mind?
— The Reticulator · Aug 28, 01:48 AM · #
Well, that’s what I’m talking about. I mean, are those the characteristics of God, or are those just the characteristics you’d like God to have in order to explain why it looks so much like we inhabit a Godless universe? And if those are really the characteristics of God, how is it that you come to know about them? How is it, in fact, that you can claim to know anything about God given that you’re proposing that everything about him is beyond the capacity of your intelligence?
It’s a very strange thing to go from “well, clearly God is completely beyond our understanding” to “but, I’m absolutely certain that he has the following characteristics…”. All the available evidence, in fact, is that you’re playing a kind of shell game with me.
— Ch3t · Aug 28, 03:42 AM · #
It’s not bad faith to ask you for supporting examples for your assertions. As you’ll recall, what I asked you was for a single example of Obama being asked about a “strong dollar”. Just so we could be talking about something that actually happened, instead of what you assume Obama would say when questioned on the subject. Rick Perry is very much on the public record in regards to his stance on climate change and evolution; when we talk about those stances, we’re talking in the context of concrete statements that he has made.
I’m aware. As a biochemistry student – started a few years ago, after the English thing didn’t pan out, in case anybody is keeping track – I do my best to push back. On the other hand, there’s no substantial GMO issues before the Congress, because anti-GMO stuff is a fringe position on the left. On the other hand Texas’s education policy de facto dictates textbook content to the rest of the country, so Perry’s thoughts on the matter are salient. As well, creationism and climate change denial are mainstream positions within the right. Crank GMO paranoia doesn’t have the same relevance.
— Ch3t · Aug 28, 03:48 AM · #
That’s a pretty classless way to own up to a mistake. There’s really no reason to talk to you.
— Ch3t · Aug 28, 03:51 AM · #
“That’s a pretty classless way to own up to a mistake. There’s really no reason to talk to you.”
Sorry, but it was a mistake on my part with literally zero-point-zero consequence to the argument.
That’s the kind of error that I never bother to point out in others because doing so demonstrates a picayune instinct to obfuscate instead of communicate.
— Biomuse · Aug 28, 06:05 PM · #
I’m sorry, did you make an argument? Because I read your entire boring message and it was all just “nuh-huh, says me.”
I don’t know what it’s like where you learned science, but in my molecular biology coursework they teach us to sweat the details. (You don’t want to be caught by my protein engineering professor saying something like “primary sequence” or “percent homology.”
— Ch3t · Aug 29, 01:43 AM · #
I thought we were no longer on speaking terms!??
By the time you have your doctorate you will have learned to distinguish those details with valence from those without. Correcting someone in the course of an argument for using a synonym without implications is both useless and rude. Live and learn.
— Biomuse · Aug 29, 03:58 AM · #
“All the available evidence, in fact, is that you’re playing a kind of shell game with me.”
Again, what “evidence” are you talking about?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 29, 10:59 AM · #
You, Mike.
— Chet · Aug 29, 12:59 PM · #
I would sign the spontaneous transformation of “3” into “e” certainly qualifies as a miracle and proof of God’s existence. I don’t know what you being an intollerant and not-nearly-as-smart-as-you-think dickwad proves.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 29, 05:16 PM · #
Strange – I don’t know why but I have this sense that you weren’t going to give my evidence against the existence of God the same benefit of the doubt. Funny how it works out that way, isn’t it?
— Ch3t · Aug 29, 06:26 PM · #
“I have this sense that you weren’t going to give my evidence”
for/against
“the existence of God the same benefit of the doubt. Funny how it works out that way, isn’t it?”
Yep, incredible. You’re so close to getting it, Ch3t, but just … not quite …
— Biomuse · Aug 29, 08:11 PM · #
See above about the shell game, Biomuse. Mike was much better at playing it than you.
— Ch3t · Aug 30, 01:45 AM · #
What he did was ask you a straightforward question. If that looks like a “shell game” to you, that’s pretty indicative.
— Biomuse · Aug 30, 07:35 AM · #
“I don’t know why but I have this sense that you weren’t going to give my evidence against the existence of God the same benefit of the doubt.”
The old saying is “You can only suspect others of what you are guilty of yourself”.
What is this evidence you keep harping on but are obviously afraid to present?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 30, 11:28 AM · #
Didn’t I just say it was you, Mike?
— Chet · Aug 30, 11:56 AM · #
I mean your supposed evidence as to the existence of God. I don’t need any more evidence that you’re an a-hole.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 30, 01:55 PM · #
That’s what I’m talking about, Mike – the evidence against the existence of God. Some of it is the fact that you call people names when they don’t believe in your superstition. That’s not how people act when they actually know something.
— Chet · Aug 30, 04:00 PM · #
I’m not calling you names because you don’t believe in my superstition, jackass. I’m calling you names because you won’t answer a simple question. When people know something, they don’t hesitate to explain what they know and how they know it.
Seriously, is there a reason why the asshole-to-reasonable ratio actually seems worse for atheists than it does for Christians? Even the most inbred bible thumper wouldn’t be a deliberately obtuse as you.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 30, 04:27 PM · #
In fact I’ve answered it three times now. I’m seriously not being evasive, here. You’re just upset because you have no idea how to grapple with the argument.
Sure. It’s that people like you are socialized to view any questioning of a religious proposition as assholish.
I’m seriously not the one with the problem, here. I’ve answered your question three times; you’re the one who’s getting upset. The change in tone here is entirely your doing.
— Ch3t · Aug 30, 09:08 PM · #
Sigh. Just like to every other Young Dawkins Fan Club Charter Member, everything old is new again to Ch3t…
Proposition: Ethical ideals are codified and expressed in the hope that their promulgation might result in ethical behavior on the part of one person towards another.
Observation: Throughout history and to the present, human beings have failed to live up to ethical ideals in their treatment of one another.
Ch3t’s Conclusion: Ethical ideals are erroneously founded, of no use and, indeed, evil in their outcome; as such, they are to be discarded in their entirety.
“I’m seriously not the one with the problem, here. I’ve answered your question three times; you’re the one who’s getting upset. The change in tone here is entirely your doing.”
And passive-agressive jujitsu is entirely unheard of on, and completely novel to, the Internets…
Look, Che3t: your larger point, that religious people sometimes behave like assholes (and they do) is a good one. At least superficially. But abundant cogitation goes on by the religious about what to do about this – if things are working properly, most if not all of that cogitation should be inwardly directed to oneself.
In the specifics, though, I’m not sure whinging that “you’re not nice to me on the internets,” particularly by someone who deploys your rhetorical style, can really be taken with the deep moral seriousness you’re asking.
— Biomuse · Aug 30, 11:33 PM · #
“In fact I’ve answered it three times now. I’m seriously not being evasive, here. You’re just upset because you have no idea how to grapple with the argument.”
No, you haven’t answered my question and you haven’t made an argument. You’ve resorted to the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” To the extent I’m upset, it’s because you’re offering non-responsive responses.
Let’s review, because you’re clearly not as clever as you think you are.
1. You suggested the evidence stacks up against the existence of God.
2. I asked what evidence you’re talking about, given that God is GENERALLY ACCEPTED BY ALL BELIEVERS to be supernatural force that is quite a bit beyond normal human existence or conception.
3. You refused to offer your evidence and instead resorted to sophistry.
And that’s pretty much it.
Dude, you don’t know if I believe in God or not, if I’m a Christian or Buddhist or a pantheist. All you do know about me is that I’m not a fan of your pretentious bullshit. It’s also pretty clear that you don’t understand the concept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 31, 01:51 AM · #
Mike, dude…. I stopped because right now you and Biomuse look dumber than Chet, which is, if you think about it, an accomplishment, and I didn’t want it. Get a throw rug or something and talk to that. At some point you realize the style, no? Manzi blows him off, which is wise.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 31, 02:30 AM · #
I was just headed to Ikea right now to purchase an ottoman that looks like a good listener.
I’m new to this site (via AS) and didn’t know the record. To me, Ch3t seemed a plausible, if jejune, example of that run-of-the-mill Nuevo Atheismo whose reach exceeds its grasp. But thanks for the heads up.
— Biomuse · Aug 31, 02:51 AM · #
“At some point you realize the style, no?”
Hey, do I tell you how to amuse yourself?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 31, 03:04 AM · #
“Manzi blows him off, which is wise.”
And just to be completely over-the-top, folks spent years blowing off Rush Limbaugh and his ilk because they weren’t worth dealing with either. How’s that worked out for our political discourse?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 31, 03:06 AM · #
And just to be completely over-the-top, folks spent years blowing off Rush Limbaugh and his ilk because they weren’t worth dealing with either. How’s that worked out for our political discourse?
My hero, Rush, is whiny, tiresome, uneducated, and ignorant. He has done much to improve the level of political discourse in this country. (You should have seen what it was like before he came along.)
— The Reticulator · Aug 31, 05:25 AM · #
Biomuse, that’s brilliant, the ottomans at IKEA will have names like “Bjorn” or “Sven” or “Viola.” Hell, you just go in, tell ‘em, “I want a ‘Chet.’ I don’t care if it’s a rug or a lamp or an eggbeater, just give me one of those” and you’re good to go!
— Kieselguhr Kid · Aug 31, 11:56 AM · #
Biomuse, could you please quote where I made any of these arguments? Because I’ve never in my life reasoned that, because people fail their ethics, we should dismiss with ethics. I actually consider myself a highly ethical individual. (I don’t, however, recognize you as one.) I realize you’re having a grand ol’ time arguing with the Strawtheist, but this is a new level of error even for you.
— Ch3t · Aug 31, 05:19 PM · #
Right, Mike, and then I asked you whether that “general acceptance” was something believers actually think they know about God – since, it would be impossible for them to know that by their own formulation of God – or whether that’s just a kind of dodge that they have, to dismiss any contrary evidence.
Your response was to tell me what an asshole I was. Question answered, I guess! You want to know the evidence against God? For the fourth time, Mike: it’s you.
When you advance beyond a freshman level of natural philosophy, you’ll understand what an erroneous canard that truly is. Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence – it’s just not proof of absence. (But I’ve never said anything about proof.)
— Ch3t · Aug 31, 05:23 PM · #
Biomuse, that’s brilliant, the ottomans at IKEA will have names like “Bjorn” or “Sven” or “Viola.” Hell, you just go in, tell ‘em, “I want a ‘Chet.’ I don’t care if it’s a rug or a lamp or an eggbeater, just give me one of those” and you’re good to go!
— air max 2009 · Sep 6, 06:21 AM · #