The Leftist War on Science

[Mona]

Originally posted by CBL4
Chris Mooney has written a book called "The Republican War on Science."

CBL

It would be an error to ascribe all attacks on science as coming from the American right, or from the Bush Administration. (Opposing embryonic stem cell research is not accurately characterized as "anti-science." The objection there is moral, not epistemological.) Frankly, Bush's isolated remark in support of so-called Intelligent Design is as nothing compared with what some anti-science leftists are wreaking. Let me explain.

Dr. Paul R. Gross recently authored "Intelligent Design and the Vast right Wing Conspiracy," in the publication _Science Insights,_ an organ of the National Association of Scholars -- NAS is an entity dedicated to exposing left-wing nuttiness on campus. Gross, as some here might know, in '94 authored (with Norm Levitt) the book "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science." That examination on how post-modernist theory, so popular in so many leftist academic enclaves, is a threat to science. NYU physicist (and lefty) Alan Sokal read Higher Superstition, and that led to his famous '96 hoax when he published sheer mathematical and scientific bullspit -- that sounded good politically from a left-wing, po-mo perspective -- in one of the trendy po-mo, left-wing journals, _Social Text._

Gross, who is something of a conservative, has defended the integrity of science, of its methods, from attacks coming from both left and right. There are plenty of others like him on the "right."

But the po-mo, left-wing attacks on science, based as they are in a view that it is ethnocentric, patriarchal and etc. ad nauseum to "privilege" the truth claims of science, is having disastrous consequences in the world's largest democracy, India. Indian scientist and journalist (and secular humanist) Meera Nanda has begun a campaign against the po-mo nonsense that is facilitating and celebrating the establishment of official "Vedic Science" in her nation. Left-wing "multiculturalists are aiding and abetting this scandal. Nanda has written a book denouncing the Vedic Science campaign; as one reviewer says of her work: "In this courageous and important book, Meera Nanda shows in dispiriting detail how postmodernist-oriented Indian intellectuals have unwittingly helped pave the way for the rise to power of right-wing Hindu nationalists. A must read for anyone who still doubts that abstract philosophical debates can have real-world consequences." Nanda's arguments are excerpted here:

Indeed, postmodernist and multiculturalist critics of modern science are re-discovering and restating many of the arguments Hindu nationalists have long used to assert the superior scientificity of Hindu sacred traditions.Under [reactionary] BJP rule, superstitions started getting described as science. Hindu nationalists started invoking science in just about every speech and policy statement. But while they uttered the word 'science'--which in today's world is understood as modern science--they meant astrology, vastu, Vedic creationism, transcendental meditation or ayurveda. This was not just talk: state universities and colleges got big grants from the government to offer post-graduate degrees, including PhDs in astrology; research in vastu shastra, meditation, faith-healing, cow-urine and priest-craft was promoted with substantial injections of public money.... Presenting India as a source of alternative universals that could heal the reductionism of Western science became the major preoccupation of Indian followers of science studies. Vandana Shiva wrote glowingly of Indian views of non-dualism as superior to Western reductionism. Ashis Nandy declared astrology to be the science of the poor and the non-Westernized masses in India. Prayers to smallpox goddesses, menstrual taboos, Hindu nature ethics which derive from orthodox ideas about prakriti or shakti, and even the varna order were defended as rational (even superior) solutions to the cultural and ecological crises of modernity. All this fitted in very well with Western feminist and ecologists' search for a kinder and gentler science. The deep investment of these philosophies in perpetuating superstitions and patriarchy in India was forgotten and forgiven.

Read the rest of Nanda's plea for rationality and real science for India, as against her fellow secular leftists here.


Further, when I was studying the "scientific creationism" movement in the late '80s, I did encounter po-mo leftists who thought the creationists had a point. That science as a "way of knowing" should not be "privileged."

In sum, the left and right both include anti-science cohorts who need to be smacked down.

 

[corplinx]

People with a political agenda suspend or attack rational thought when it suits their political agenda. Imagine that....

 

[Mona]

People with a political agenda suspend or attack rational thought when it suits their political agenda. Imagine that....

Right. And in the Dover, PA ID case being litigated in federal court now, the IDists have explicitly defended the right to present their "theory" in public schools with resort to pure leftist, po-mo rhetoric about "other ways of knowing."

Swell, but whatever they think they "know" is not adduced from the "patriarchal, Euro-centic" scientific method.

 

[CBL4]

Mona,

For what it is worth, I was originally to ask if anyone had read the book to decide whether it was worth it to go to Mooney's lecture in Seattle. Once I looked at the book on Amazon, I realized that it had not been published yet.

In my opinion, the greatest current attack on science is the Christian Right's attack on evolution, geology and cosmology due to their rigid attachment to a literal reading of an ancient book. I think the Academic Left you describe are idiots but see them as less damaging to basic science because they are not preventing the teaching of science only denigrating it.

In my opinion, the greatest current attack on the US developing new technology is the Christian Right's attack on biological technology. (I would put the environmentalists' attack on genetic modification of food second.)

In my opinion, the greatest ecological threat is global warming which conservatives dispute with shoddy (IMO again) science. For decades, one of my prefered actions has been an increase in nuclear power which has been opposed by leftists. I am not hysterical on global warming. I think it is real and solvable. I think the longer we delay, the more expensive the solution will be.

To sum up my opinion, I think the Christian Right (which is currently leading the Republican party) is the worst anti-science offender. That evolution can be denied by presidents of the US is amazing and sad. I agree that leftists have many anti-science views but I do not think they are as influential in the Democratic party as the Christian Right is in the Republican.

ETA: If someone who had written a book called the Leftist War on Science was appearing in Seattle next month, I would have started a thread on that book as well.

CBL

 

[crimresearch]

Different tactics, same agenda...keeping people from thinking for themselves.

The directly confrontational approach from the right of legislating and litigating for inclusion of anti-science curricula is perhaps more visible and attention getting, but no less harmful than the insidious 'all beliefs are equally valid' New Age clap-trap of midwifery, alternative medicine, magical energy, past life regression, ESP, and so forth from the left.

 

[Mona]

CBL, I don't think we are in significant disagreement. I take most of the views you do, but came late to accept that global warming was happening, as a result of human activity, primarily because I do not trust certain areas of science to be free from politicization. But in the past few years a critical mass was achieved, and it would be unreasonable to hold that such a large consensus of sober scientists should be ignored.

But I'm not really persuaded that the ID flap is a horrible threat to science, at least not per se. There is no "there" there; no content to any ID that can be taught. All they have is criticisms of evolution and an interest in saying "goddidit" about any gaps -- real or imagined -- in evolutionary theory.

That the IDists are driven by a purely religious agenda is clear from the most casual perusal of the Discovery Insitute's papers and pronouncements, so it is highly unlikely that our courts will allow them to "teach the controversy." Their goal is religious indoctrination, and that just isn't science.

Where I do think ID is a threat is in the same way our universities are churning out humanities majors who have been exposed to a completely false understanding of science, and encouraged to denigrate it. Promoting either ID or post-modernist anti-science crapola confuses people as to what the scientific method is, and what it can do for humanity. And, it leaves people gullible so that all manner of woo-woo flourishes.

Just for humor's sake, I'll leave you with this. Most here prolly also know that Richard Dawkins has long been defending science against creationists of all stripes, including their recent incarnation in ID. He is no less scathing, however, in his assessment of post-modernist leftists in humanities depts who misuse and/or diss science. You can see that in his review of Sokal and Bricmont's book "Fashionable Nonsense" ( who knew the human male's erectile organ is equal to the square root of minus 1, or that patriarchal, male physics privileges solid over fluid mechanics ?). This stuff would be funny, except that it is an industry in whole academic disciplines where it is seriously peddled. Still, I did giggle reading Dawkins blistering smack down
here.


{Edited to give the RIGHT link here. }

 

[crimresearch]

"But I'm not really persuaded that the ID flap is a horrible threat to science, at least not per se. There is no "there" there; no content to any ID that can be taught. All they have is criticisms of evolution and an interest in saying "goddidit" about any gaps -- real or imagined -- in evolutionary theory."

Except that the creationists have gone from demanding the right to believe in 'goddidit', to legislating that schools must teach it, to suing colleges for accepting something else (science) as valid.

Under the theory of not opening a door partway, does anyone really believe that the next step will not be taken..and the next?

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Mona
I don't think we are in significant disagreement.

I think you are right.

I find the creationist BS much more threatening because it affects most fields of science and much of history as well. Young Earth Creationists demand equal time for the view that the earth is 10,000 years old. This disagrees with most of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, etc. Their views are wrong in so many ways that it negates teaching most scientific disiplines even in elementary schools.

I do not see a real difference between ID and creationism. They both pretend that there is contraversy when it is absent. They both want to teach completely discredited views. At least creationists are honests in their views if not their arguments.

The leftist academia is almost as absurd but they mostly affect liberal arts graduate students. I sympathize with these victims but they are a much smaller group of people and they have enough education that they should know better. Many have been (mis)educated beyond their capabilities but someone going for a graduate degree in anything is less susceptible to pressure than a junior high student. If they are gullible in graduate school, then it is too late for them.

I love Dawkins and have seen him lecture twice. His put downs of creationists are wonderfully funny and accurate. Unfortunately, I could not follow your link - even your edited one.

CBL

 

[pmurray]

In my opinion, the greatest current attack on the US developing new technology is the Christian Right's attack on biological technology

Naah. The greatest attack on the US developing new technology is the outsourcing of manufacturing. Necessity is the mother of invention - innovation comes from the people who work with the materials.

 

[Theodore Kurita]

PoMo = Probably one of the dumbest philosophies ever conceived.

Existentialism = Probably one of the most rational philosophies ever conceived.

Why PoMo supporters still rely on Existentialist arguments still remains a mystery to me. There isn't a whole lot of difference between the philosophies, except for the fact that Existentialism of the Secular variety, relies on materialism in order to emphasize its points. PoMo is the closes philosophy to Solipsism I've seen in a very long time.

I want my existentialist proponents back!


PostModernist Leftists are generally of the Anarchist variety. When I say Anarchist, I mean take every damn structure in society down kind of anarchism.

Also, there is debate among Anarchists as to whether PostStructuralism (PoSo) and PostModernism (PoMo) should be seperated and have PoSo as a leading idea for Anarchism instead of PoMo.

In fact, PoMo makes quite a convenient Strawman for PoSo.

Anyways, all in all, Political Fundamentalists and Religious Fundamentalists do have an AntiScience and AntiSecular agenda that they aren't afraid to promote.

 

[Beerina]

Naah. The greatest attack on the US developing new technology is the outsourcing of manufacturing. Necessity is the mother of invention - innovation comes from the people who work with the materials.

Oh, no. The US engineering is just fine. I'm an engineer, and fully half my colleagues are from other countries. We can't get enough engineers here. It's just that as soon as stuff is engineered, it's shipped to China for manufacturing.

 

[Orwell]

I wouldn't worry too much about pomo horse manure: this kind of crap is mostly confined to certain types of university departments. Also, I think that it has recently fallen a bit out of fashion, since most of the people who thought this bunk up are dead or on their way to retirement. The Sokal hoax probably helped with this going out of fashion, I think...

What do gets me worried is all the New Age crap: it's much more popular and it's not confined to a pretentious elite. Although... I have heard some new agers invoke pomo arguments to support their views.

 

[Orwell]

Oh, and I don't believe that all republicans are engaging in a war on science. that book should have been called "The Bush administration's war on science". But I wish more republicans would criticise the administration on this, instead of defending it systematically out of a misplaced sense of loyalty... Or something...

 

[Mona]

I think you are right.

I find the creationist BS much more threatening because it affects most fields of science and much of history as well. Young Earth Creationists demand equal time for the view that the earth is 10,000 years old. This disagrees with most of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, etc. Their views are wrong in so many ways that it negates teaching most scientific disiplines even in elementary schools.

I do not see a real difference between ID and creationism. They both pretend that there is contraversy when it is absent. They both want to teach completely discredited views. At least creationists are honests in their views if not their arguments.

The leftist academia is almost as absurd but they mostly affect liberal arts graduate students. I sympathize with these victims but they are a much smaller group of people and they have enough education that they should know better. Many have been (mis)educated beyond their capabilities but someone going for a graduate degree in anything is less susceptible to pressure than a junior high student. If they are gullible in graduate school, then it is too late for them.

I love Dawkins and have seen him lecture twice. His put downs of creationists are wonderfully funny and accurate. Unfortunately, I could not follow your link - even your edited one.

CBL

(sigh) I seem to be software-challenged with the tag thingie here at JREF. Here is the url address for Dawkins' article: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

 

[Mona]

Oh, and I don't believe that all republicans are engaging in a war on science. that book should have been called "The Bush administration's war on science". But I wish more republicans would criticise the administration on this, instead of defending it systematically out of a misplaced sense of loyalty... Or something...

Well, some voices on the right are dissing ID and Bush's remarks about it. Charles Krauthammer has, and more recently National Review published a withering put-down by John Derbyshire here: http://nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200508300823.asp

There is no doubt, however, that a lot of prominent Republican elected officials have recently been saying nice things about ID, and how "all points of view" should be taught and such. The reason is simple: it is politically expedient for them to do this.

Bill Clinton, who I am quite certain is very gay-friendly, nevertheless instituted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for our military, and worse, signed into law the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. During the'04 campaign, Kerry came out against same sex marriage -- I am 99% certain that is not the position he really holds. No doubt, Clinton and Kerry's pollsters told them the postitions they publicly took were politically necessary.

Well outside of the ranks of the theocratic plotters at the Discovery Institute, many mainstream Americans, having only a superficial understanding of the scientific method in general, and of evolutionary theory in particular, think it sounds just and fair that there should be a little bit of God tossed into any instruction about origins. Bush, McCain and the rest are pandering to this huge swathe of the voting public, just as Clinton and Kerry had to accept the political reality that they would lose more votes than they could gain by supporting equality for gay people.

At the end of the day, I do agree the solution here is for Republicans, or people perceived to be friendly to them, to carry the message that ID isn't science, and why it is corrupting of that actual discipline. The problem may be, however, that the truth cannot trump political expediency. Still, I expect our courts will save the day wrt the public schools. (The IDists cannot survive scrutiny under rules of evidence and cross-examination, where the vacuity of their "ideas" become fully exposed, and their actual agenda cannot be hidden.)

 

[crimresearch]

Which is why they seem to have hung their hat on the legislative process, public opinion, and civil lawsuits, where rhetoric has a better chance of ramming their agenda through.

 

[Orwell]

The Bush administration's dislike for science doesn't come out uniquely in the ID debate:

Here's a summary from the New Yorker:

They reflect an attitude toward science that has infected every corner of his Administration. From the beginning, the Bush White House has treated science as a nuisance and scientists as an interest group—one that, because it lies outside the governing conservative coalition, need not be indulged. That's why the White House-sometimes in the service of political Christianism or ideological fetishism, more often in obeisance to baser interests like the petroleum, pharmaceutical, and defense industries-has altered, suppressed, or overriden scientific findings on global warming; missile defense; H.I.V./ AIDS; pollution from industrial farming and oil drilling; forest management and endangered species; environmental health, including lead and mercury poisoning in children and safety standards for drinking water; and non-abstinence methods of birth control and sexually-transmitted-disease prevention. It has grossly misled the public on the number of stem-cell lines available for research. It has appointed unqualified ideologues to scientific advisory committees and has forced out scientists who persist in pointing out inconvenient facts. All this and more has been amply documented in reports from congressional Democrats and the Union of Concerned Scientists, in such leading scientific publications as Nature, Scientific American, Science, and The Lancet, and in a new book, “The Republican War on Science,” by the science journalist Chris Mooney.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050822ta_talk_hertzberg

 

[RandFan]

Well, some voices on the right are dissing ID and Bush's remarks about it. Charles Krauthammer has, and more recently National Review published a withering put-down by John Derbyshire here: http://nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200508300823.asp

I so like Krauthammer. There is hope for us yet.

 

[Mona]

Which is why they seem to have hung their hat on the legislative process, public opinion, and civil lawsuits, where rhetoric has a better chance of ramming their agenda through.

Actually, they are not happy about lawsuits. Dembski and others at the DI pulled out as "expert" witnesses in the Dover case, and the publisher of the latest ID textbook (not yet released) tried to intervene to "protect" it when it became obvious that everything a DI member or text-book publisher agent have said in any email, public utterance or internal documents, were about to be scrutinized by smart ACLU lawyers and a smart federal district court judge. They are not ready for this -- they know they have NO THEORY, and that they have not well-hidden their religious motives. Too many have made explicitly religious defenses of ID and have not had time for sufficient damage control. The Dover, PA school board, on its own, brought this matter of ID to a head there, and DI is not happy about it.

But the Dover case is going forward (to trial this month), and will likely be their Waterloo. If ID in public school classrooms -- the essential controversy of the Dover case -- is found to violate the Establishment Clause, they are dead in the water. They are not ready for ID to climb to the Supreme Court, but it may well do so.

Lawsuits -- with document discovery procedures and cross-examination -- are not ID's friend.

 

[crimresearch]

Thanks for that extra information about Dover, I didn't know that.

Let's hope that they don't learn from their mistakes, and that they get a big slapdown at a high judicial level.