Here are two statements that are worth bringing together:
"The anti-knowledge and anti-science sentiments expressed repeatedly during the U.S. presidential election threaten the very foundations of our society."
"The pronoun discussion is not simply about grammar or gender – it's about re-examining the very beliefs upon which our society is based."
The first is from "An open letter from women of science", which, according to Jessica Kirkpatrick at the Women in Astronomy blog, was written by "a group of women scientists who have been working in Washington as AAAS science fellows". It's sort of a vague affiliation, but I take it seriously because it is being promoted by the CSWA. The second is from an opinion piece for the CBC by Julian Paquette weighing in on the Jordan Peterson controversy.
I will presume that Paquette and the "500 Women" are natural allies in the current iteration of the culture wars. But the ideological contradiction is here quite glaring and very common on the Left. Depending on the issue, the ideologues are prepared to declare either that "the very foundations of our society" are threatened or that "the very beliefs upon which our society is based" must be questioned. I think it's fair to say that this ambivalence is itself foundational for "progressive" politics.
One way to resolve the contradiction is to assume that they are talking about the foundations, not of our society, but their society. That is, they are talking about the basis of the ongoing progress towards the utopia they imagine. And that utopia is indeed "science based", if you will. As the "Open Letter" put it: "Science is foundational in a progressive society, fuels innovation, and touches the lives of every person on this planet." What about a "conservative" society? we might ask. Perhaps innovation is there fueled by something like human ingenuity and initiative, and perhaps the state is there constitutionally restrained from building institutions that, somewhat creepily, propose to "touch the lives of every person on the planet".
These foundations need, precisely, to be conserved, not implemented after traditional beliefs about what people are and how they can most happily live together have been "re-examined"—a word that is almost certainly a euphemism for "overturned". I have to say that, given the state of science (and the science of the state, if you will) these days, I understand the anti-science sentiment. Many pro-science people seem to the think that science is simply epistemic authority: an institution that has the power to tell you what to think and to believe. I like to think of science as a protected space of free thought and inquiry—not a place where I'm forced to examine my beliefs, but where I'm allowed to.
6 comments:
Thomas:
Science is indeed a form of inquiry etc. as you state, but it's also a tool that can and has been used to build bridges and bombs and all sorts of other things that "touch the lives of every person on the planet"---a phrase which I think is pretty much true, even if it may feel creepy to you. So it seems reasonable to me for people of the left, right, and center to be concerned about science policy and its effects.
Good point, Andrew. Maybe it was the corporate-sounding idea that science "fuels innovation" just before it was also supposed "touch" my life that creeped me out. You're right that the effects of science policy are a legitimate concern. I just don't like to think of science as a unified force acting on our lives. I do believe that the pro-science crowd (the "I fucking love science" people) are sentimental about it in that way. I really, really don't like the idea of a science-based society. But more on this in part 2.
Thomas:
To paraphrase you-know-who, you may not be interested in a science-based society, but the science-based society is interested in you. This is true whether we're governed by the left or the right. The left will tell us what we can put in our gas tank, thus affecting our lives. The right will not tell us what to put in our gas tank, but if the result is melting of arctic ice and rising sea levels, that will affect our lives too. We live in a science-based society, like it or not.
While a carbon tax is certainly a science-based policy, I don't think actual climactic changes can be considered "science based". I might say they're "nature based". I don't think science gets to take credit for the impressive things nature is capable of.
Thomas:
Science gets credit for H-bombs and also for cars, roads, planes, factories, etc., which can result in climate change.
Maybe I'm more forgiving there, Andrew. I don't blame science for bombs and cars and such. That is: I don't think we should try to prevent things like H-bombs by preventing knowledge of the atom. I think the idea of preventing knowledge in any form (out of fear of what knowing how things work will allows us to do) is misguided. Knowledge is always better than ignorance. (There are of course ethical limits on research, however.)
I think leaders (in business or politics) should take direct responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. To blame science for, say, the Cold War lets a number seriously implicated non-scientists too easily off the hook.
My worry about (what seems to be) your line of thinking is that what we should know becomes a political question (to be answered by science policy) motivated by the "impact" that science has on society. But that impact itself only happens because what we should do has become a scientific question (science-based policy).
Post a Comment