The Poisoned Debates Between Science, Politics and Religion

[rug]

By Keith Kloor | December 27, 2012 8:37 am

Two long-running debates involving the supposed purity of science have flared anew.

A recent editorial in the UK’s New Statesmen that cautioned against the politicizing of science (using climate change as a prime example) kicked up a Twitter storm and has provoked numerous responses, including this one from a science policy expert in the Guardian headlined (probably to the author’s consternation): “Science and politics need counseling, not a separation.”

For an overview of the New Statesmen editorial and the heated, conflicting interpretations over it, see this post in the Guardian by Jon Butterworth. His takeaway from the New Statesmen piece is that it argues not for

the supremacy of science, nor complete separation between science and politics, but is an attempt to direct political debate to the areas where it can be fruitful.

.
At this juncture, I would be remiss in not bringing to your attention a must-read 2004 paper by ASU’s Daniel Sarewitz, which science journalist John Fleck helpfully reminded me of several months ago. The bottom line, according to Sarewitz:

In areas as diverse as climate change, nuclear waste disposal, endangered species and biodiversity, forest management, air and water pollution, and agricultural biotechnology, the growth of considerable bodies of scientific knowledge, created especially to resolve political dispute and enable effective decision making, has often been accompanied instead by growing political controversy and gridlock. Science typically lies at the center of the debate, where those who advocate some line of action are likely to claim a scientific justification for their position, while those opposing the action will either invoke scientific uncertainty or competing scientific results to support their opposition.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/12/27/the-poisoned-debates-between-science-politics-and-religion/

[IDoMath]

1. The poison is ignorance of science

Science is dragged into debates by those with no clue what they are talking about.

[rug]

2. Science is not a person.

It is composed of humans who are as much political animals as anyone else and its resources in large measure come from governments and corporations, each of whom have their own agenda.

It is not an abstract ideal.

[IDoMath]

3. It is a process

Which ultimately overrides personal politics and foibles. Science is based in objective, reproducible experiments not personal ideology.

[rug]

5. The catch there is "ultimately".

Many of these scientific disputes have been going on for decades.

[IDoMath]

7. That depends on whether you are within or without the scientific community

While politicians and religious zealots blindly "debate" scientific issues for decades, scientists share far greater consensus amongst themselves. Politicians and moralists twist scientific ideas to their own ends. Evolution has been used to justify both communism and capitalism when it has little to do with either.

Actual long term scientific debates like quantum mechanics vs general relativity do not effect the general public and do not drive politics. No one pretends to be certain of the "truth" because all participants are aware of and accept the challenge of reconciling the paradoxes. Evolution and climate change are huge "controversies" in the general public and amongst politicians but have very little if any dissent in scientific communities where the members actually understand the issues.

[rug]

8. The scientific community is entirely linked to the military/industrial/academic community.

There is no monastery of pure science.

[IDoMath]

9. No it is not.

And even those that are don't make up fairy tales.

That's for marketing, politics and religion.

[rug]

10. Who funds it?

[IDoMath]

11. Depends on who is doing it.

Sometimes it is self-funded. Sometimes by charitable donations. The girls in Africa who figured out how to turn urine into electricity weren't funded by DARPA. Science goes on around the world because scientists have a passion for understanding how the world works. If the money weren't there, science would continue, albeit maybe a bit more slowly. I wonder if the same can be said for churches and politicians.

[tama]

12. Scientific community

It is questionable if the "fringe" situations you describe belong to scientific community. There also enormous self-defining efforts to keep the scientific community pure and closed and "orthodox", using labels of "pseudoscience", "crackpot" and publication policies etc. politically for that end. That's a huge discussion and complex problem and best I can say that there is open border zone instead of clearly defined border. And according to permaculture wisdom, border zones are most fruitful areas.

But back to the establishment and funding. All who work inside the academic hierarchies know that they are funded and governed by the neoliberal orthodoxy, whether from corporate states or corporations, neoliberal orthodoxy that fails scientific critical scrutiny and could be more accurately described as cult of greed and power. Though there are no doubt happy exceptions, the academic freedom is beautiful dream of past and academic hierarchies and work and education policies at large have been turned into worship of Mammon. Here in Finland according to surveys most people working in universities in "science jobs" (instead of the multitude of administrative etc. jobs) are very unhappy with their job and want to get out.

All in all its a very fucked up situation and idealizing it does not help.

[IDoMath]

16. Problems exist, yes

But then, our entire economy is driven by those forces.

My original assertion was that any poison in the discussion between politics, religion and science was due to ignorance of science. Problems with scientific funding and orthodoxy really don't change that assertion.

Clergy constantly make false claims about science. They misrepresent what the current state of science teaches and how it works. Politicians use science and scientists like every other person and thing they step on in their climb to power. Scientists have no need to misrepresent politics or religion but politics and religion have a need to misrepresent science and they do every day.

[tama]

19. In favor of naturalism, of sorts,

I favor to discuss science as it appears in phenomenological world instead of idealized versions (that according to you we are ignorant of ; just like it's more fruitful to discuss capitalism-as-we-know-it and socialism-as-we-know-it etc. instead of purely ideological and idealized thought constructs.

"If everyone would just...." seldom leads to anywhere but nagging frustration.

[IDoMath]

20. My favorite phrase! (Sarcasm)

We certainly agree on the phrase "If everyone would just..." I HATE that phrase. It reveals a lack of strategic and tactical thinking.

To your main point... I wonder if the discussions you have are somewhat different than in the US. In the US we have the religious right constantly demanding that religion be taught alongside science in the biology classroom when discussing Darwin's theory. We also have a broad range of religious and capitalist forces denying the possibility of human-influenced climate change despite worldwide scientific consensus on the matter.

These issues are coloring my views. To the best of my knowledge, Europe is not dealing with these idiocies.

Europe IS dealing with important questions about Genetically Modified Organisms, loss of biodiversity in our food sources and other issues. (Europe is also showing leadership on issues of anti-trust but I digress).

From what I can tell, Europe is doing better dealing with scientific questions upon which scientific consensus is less certain. Americans can't even handle arguing about the existence of gravity. If my perception is correct, we are experiencing two very different problems and my complaints go to the American versions.

[tama]

21. Yes

From this side of the pond, the American juxtaposition seems often tiresome and ridiculous. In many ways the American version of separation of church and state is causing more problems of inflammatory situations than many European state churches.

[IDoMath]

22. In that case, I concede your point. I wish it were so here. n/t

[IDoMath]

18. nesting limit

Is there a limit on the depth of replies? I guess there is

[rug]

14. That is an idealistic view of science that does not comport with the evidence.

Science goes on around the world because scientists have a passion for understanding how the world works. If the money weren't there, science would continue, albeit maybe a bit more slowly.

And why do you feel the need to compare that to religion? A strong bias makes weak science.

[IDoMath]

15. Because that is where this argument began.

[okasha]

23. There are few environments more political

than a University department. No, Virginia, scientists don't all sit around the campfire singing "Kumbaya." I've seen both personal and professinal feuds that ripped departments apart.

[IDoMath]

24. So? That has no effect on the 2d law of thermodynamics

Or many other principles of science which politicians and clergy *should* be familiar with. But no, every decade or so a bunch of bankers gets swindled by a perpetual motion machine scam or a more-out-than-in engine scam and they wonder why. It's because they know nothing about basic science and, in the case of classical economics, they refuse to reconcile their desires for economics with reality. (e.g. the myth of perpetual growth.)

[okasha]

25. Just addressing your idealization

of the scietific community. That has no effect on the 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics, either.

[IDoMath]

26. But my original point

is that politicians and clergy misuse science due to their ignorance of the subject matter. Not the lack of consensus in the field.

[tama]

4. Obviously it's also abstract ideal

and there are people who have replaced personified God (and Church hierarchy) with personified Science (and Academic Hierarchy). Of course it is difficult to see such attitude as freedom from religion and from authoritarian power hierarchies, and more closely resembling cult hopping.

[IDoMath]

6. Those that do, fail to understand

When people say "I believe in" evolution, big bang, climate change, science, etc, they demonstrate that they do not actually understand what science is. Its unfortunate. Our science education is woefully lacking.

[tama]

13. Better formulation of that question

would be "how science is done".

[intaglio]

27. Obviously Mr Kloor regards Accommodationism as being the heart of science

I disagree.

[rug]

28. Accommodationist is an epithet not an argument.

[intaglio]

29. Please read. Accommodationism is the word used

Accommodationist is the epithet describing people who hold that view but I did not describe Mr Kloor as such. However he is such a person because he holds that science should accommodate views from, so called, "non-overlapping magisteria" but those views do overlap and attempt to control the things that science does and describes.

Mr Kloor is a fairly good technical journalist but he attempted to use literary arguments from Bellow and Atwood to support an argument about science and how it should view religion. He got called over it and did not like the fact.