When I teach Philosophy of Science, one of the books I use is Martin Gardner’s excellent Great Essays in Science, with selections from Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and other greats.
The course has a unit on scientific fraud, including examples of the destructive effects of the politicization of science. Gardner’s anthology includes two from the history of politics and science — Stalin’s Soviet Union and Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
A sad thing about the “Climategate” or “Warmergate” scandal is that we will now have to revise the textbooks and add our own politicized scientific culture to that sorry list.
We learned successfully why and how to separate politics and religion.
Will we be able to learn the exact same lesson about politics and science?
The lesson is not only about politics. The core lesson is about the corruption of philosophy (especially epistemology), which has enabled an entire generation of journalists, activists, and politicians to be intellectually disarmed by a group of frauds — or to become enablers in disarming those who would challenge the frauds. A postmodern philosophical culture indeed.
There is a difference. Lysenko’s biological “theories” were accepted because they fit in with Marxist dogma. By contrast, the climate-gate scientists are being backed by political forces that want make the capitalist west (or what is left of it) pay “reparations.” Apparently they also want to set up some sort of “world government” to enforce this.
Here is what Lord Monckton had to say on the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/10/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-claims-british-lord/
Steven, great post! You pinpoint the key philosophical issue that all of the other commentary I’ve seen has missed: the role of postmodernism. I’ve provided a link to your post on my blog.
One of the biggest issues that is going un-discussed (from what I can see) is the direct hit this has on ALL scientific credibility. It is now a legitimate question to ask ANY scientist “How do I know you’re not fabricating data like the CRU guys? How can I TRUST you?” The standard answer of “I’m an expert, trust me” won’t fly anymore. This affects all sciences such as medicine (like vaccines), evolution, etc.
The damage the CRU guys have wrought goes way beyond the world of AGW.
To Henry and Andy: Great that we agree about the importance of philosophy here — postmodernism, with its disempowering epistemology, and the epistemological issues of scientific credibility in a division of labor culture.
To Bob: I agree with that difference — Lysenkoism was “science” in the service of an established political regime, while the Climategate people are “scientists” in the service of establishing a new political regime. My point was only the more general point of science corrupted in the service of politics.
Feyerabend wrote a wonderfully provocative essay arguing that just as we have a separation of state and church (to keep the church clean), so also we should have a separation of state and science (to keep the science clean). It would be a great paper to read for a discussion group.
Do you have the source for that Feyerabend essay, RJ?
I’d like to check it out.
Here is the Feyerabend reference:
“Starting from the argument that a historical universal scientific method does not exist, Feyerabend argues that science does not deserve its privileged status in western society. Since scientific points of view do not arise from using a universal method which guarantees high quality conclusions, he thought that there is no justification for valuing scientific claims over claims by other ideologies like religions. Feyerabend also argued that scientific accomplishments such as the moon landings are no compelling reason to give science a special status. In his opinion, it is not fair to use scientific assumptions about which problems are worth solving in order to judge the merit of other ideologies. Additionally, success by scientists has traditionally involved non-scientific elements, such as inspiration from mythical or religious sources.
Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that religion and state are separated in a modern secular society ( Against Method (3rd ed.). p. 160. ). He envisioned a “free society” in which “all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power” ( Science in a Free Society. p. 9. ). For example, parents should be able to determine the ideological context of their children’s education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards. According to Feyerabend, science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people.[citation needed] He thought that citizens should use their own principles when making decisions about these matters. He rejected the view that science is especially “rational” on the grounds that there is no single common “rational” ingredient which unites all the sciences but excludes other modes of thought ( Against Method (3rd ed.). p. 246. ).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
I believe this is it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4518798/How-To-Defend-Society-Against-ScienceP-Feyerabend
I don’t have the published citation at hand, but it shouldn’t be hard to track down.
Thank you Bob and RJ:
I read *Against Method* and “How to Defend Society…” back in the late 1980s focused on the epistemological issues. I’ll have another look with an eye to the political arguments.
I’ve ventured the following: what Kant was to philosophy, Climategate is to science: the end. Or is it too early for such a sweeping conclusion?
I’m hoping Climategate will be a cautionary tale about politicized science rather than the end of science.
Yeah, I hope so too. Thanks for all the wonderful classes, Stephen!
Dr. Hicks, I just viewed Nietzsche and the Nazis. Excellent work.
Separating politics and science requires that more of us think like scientists, which begins with a coherent philosophy of science (my science classes lacked this), and balk at taking “experts” at their word, the very opposite of empiricism.
Science has a long history of dealing with untruths of all kinds. It is the successful pursuit of absolutes.
While the AGW fraud has been unveiled to many eyes, it seems to me that an even more profound fraud may in need of exposure, despite political overtones that dwarf the AGW fraud exposure:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
This paper presents analysis of evidence that can be independently corroborated by anyone with the ability and access to the dust. So far, the government refuses.
If we are to fight Fascists, we must recognize them.
Hi Ed: Thanks for your comment on Nietzsche and the Nazis. I will check out your link on AGW.
Stephen
Stephen, that link was not about AGW (as I correctly stated). It’s about WTC. By the way, have you ever taken a physics course?