To my mind at least, the op-ed in a major national newspaper aims at a general audience–including if not composed entirely of people whose views differ from that of the writer. The point, in fact, in writing one of these pieces is to convince people who disagree with you of the strength of your view. Some writers, like E.J.Dionne (sorry I keep saying this–but it's true) don't seem to have a view to advocate. Others, like Paul Krugman, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Michael Gerson (to name a few) most definitely do. Gerson, after all, worked as a speech writer for the current President. That's the very definition of political advocacy.
Should this political hack write for the Washington Post op-ed page? I'm inclined to say no, because the current administration has enough paid advocates and media access (Fox news anyone?); it's hard to see in other words what Gerson, as a political hack, brings to the discussion that can't be found elsewhere–besides, his words have been driving the discussion ("axis of evil" etc.) for years now.
So when he oils up and engages the "liberal view" one can only shake one's head at the inanity. Today he writes:
There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a "war on science."
Few things, really? This would mean that the current administration does not disregard scientists or punish those whose views disagree with their own, cultivate skepticism about widely understood phenomena, and so forth. The documentary evidence for those things is too overwhelming to be disregarded as faith-based (which, by the way, is a silly twist of a twist of a phrase probably excogitated by Gerson himself). Since Gerson seems to know that claim is false, he switches his focus ever so slightly to the political debate:
For the most part, these accusations are a political ploy — actually an attempt to shut down political debate. Any practical concern about the content of government sex-education curricula is labeled "anti-science." Any ethical question about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells is dismissed as "theological" and thus illegitimate.
Liberal views are "objective" while traditional moral convictions are "biased." Public scrutiny of scientific practices is "politicizing" important decisions.
These arguments are seriously made, but they are not to be taken seriously. Does anyone really believe in a science without moral and legal limits? In harvesting organs from prisoners? In systematically getting rid of the disabled?
Harvesting organs from prisoners. Hm. I think Gerson is talking here about moral questions relating to science. No one has advocated that that debate be shut down. Nor has anyone (by "anyone" I mean the minimally reasonable but informed person) suggested that there be no debate about the practical recommendations of scientific "conclusions."
What to do about global warming? Well, it's happening–that's what scientists say–so now it's time for a political discussion about what to do. That's a rather different thing from denying that it's happening–which is what the "war on science" is all about. And Gerson cannot possibly claim that there isn't a strong global warming denier movement in the Republican party.
It turns out, however, that Gerson means to claim that because liberals embrace scientific questions of fact, that they therefore embrace scientific definitions of value. I can't think of what the justification for this claim would be, other than that Gerson has no understanding of that distinction. He writes:
This last question, alas, does not answer itself. In America, the lives of about nine of 10 children with Down syndrome are ended before birth. In Europe, about 40 percent of unborn children with major congenital disorders are aborted.
All of which highlights a real conflict, a war within liberalism between the idea of unrestricted science in the cause of health and the principle that all men are created equal — between humanitarianism and egalitarianism.
In "Science and the Left," his insightful article in the latest issue of the New Atlantis, Yuval Levin argues that a belief in the power of science is central to the development of liberalism — based on the assertion that objective facts and rational planning can replace tradition and religious authority in the organization of society. Levin summarizes the liberal promise this way: "The past was rooted in error and prejudice while the future would have at its disposal a new oracle of genuine truth."
But the oracle of science is silent on certain essential topics. "Science, simply put," says Levin, "cannot account for human equality, and does not offer reasons to believe we are all equal. Science measures our material and animal qualities, and it finds them to be patently unequal."
Since there is distinction between fact and value–and a vigorous discussion over those terms in the scientific (broadly speaking) community, I can't figure who Gerson is talking about. Besides, the alternative to the strictly "scientist" point of view is not religious or traditional authority (whose grasp, by the way, of human rights, equality, and so forth, seems tenuous at best).
But as Gerson seems little interested in the actual objection to the administration's handling of matters of scientific fact, one can see that he has little use for logic as well.
I’m not sure that religion is really the place to look for provisions of equality, either.
Maybe we should look to philosophy…
Depends on what you mean by “philosophy”…
“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.” GK Chesterton
“Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance.”
Which sounds like an sophistical justification for enlightened bigotry.
bigotry? wow … where did you get that? … Come on, Phil … chill out, man.
Not sure where you got bigotry from that either, Phil. I think the Chesterton quote is more interested in making clear implicit bias in certain claims to impartiality. Now, I’m not sure if indifference follows from impartiality, and is linked with ignorance. Ignorance can be a result of people not caring enough to learn about differences, I suppose. In any case, its a decent aphorism, and nothing more, but I’m not sure how applicable it is to the article under review. By the impartiality of science here, we’re really talking about the impartiality of matters of fact, and value-neutral technologies. Its an open question whether technology is value-neutral, but the point jcasey is making here is that Gerson is conflating fact/value distinctions. Gerson makes no argument to the effect that certain scientific or technologies facts necessarily entail certain values. Further, he (incomprehensibly) assumes that society’s embrace of scientific methods entails the belief that science should dictate theories of justice. To my knowledge, NO ONE has made that argument. Gerson is a charlatan.
One, impartiality does not cash out to indifference.
Second, indifference does not cash out to ignorance.
Third, I find that most criticisms of impartiality function as weak apologetics for one’s own biases, i.e. I don’t have to justify my own biases, I just have to make the arguments against them look silly. Perhaps bigotry was a bit strong, but I wanted to drive home that Chesterton’s words are a sophistry, a clever bit a verbal maneuvering that avoids having to justify one’s positions. Sure we all have biases, but impartiality is an attempt to recognize and mitigate them, rather than the position which Chesterton seems to advocate, which might elevate one’s biases to a position of orthodoxy.
On a side note,
BN–
Since we’re on a first name basis, I’m sure you’d like to tell us yours….
My name is Ben, and the quote’s purpose was to make the point that true impartiality it’s hard to find. Most people think they are impartial, including me; however, sometimes we’re blind to our own biases and presuppositions. The problem comes when we use our biases and presuppositions as part of a contra-argument.
Jem, you’re right, impartiality does not lead to indifference. Chesterton was just arguing the reverse: ignorance leads to indifference, which in return acts as being impartial. Here is a better link on Chesterton’s explanation on the issue: http://www.chesterton.org/qmeister2/impartiality.htm
I don’t know, Ben. It seems that Chesterton is making a claim not too far removed from Gerson’s. It’s the age old argument against skepticism: skepticism is at best silly, and at worst responsible for all the world’s ills. Like I said, it’s a clever way of not arguing for one’s own positions while making the opposite position look ridiculous.
Chesterton:
And what applies to the family applies to the nation. A nation with a root religion will be tolerant. A nation with no religion will be bigoted.
Gerson:
All of which highlights a real conflict, a war within liberalism between the idea of unrestricted science in the cause of health and the principle that all men are created equal — between humanitarianism and egalitarianism.
In “Science and the Left,” his insightful article in the latest issue of the New Atlantis, Yuval Levin argues that a belief in the power of science is central to the development of liberalism — based on the assertion that objective facts and rational planning can replace tradition and religious authority in the organization of society. Levin summarizes the liberal promise this way: “The past was rooted in error and prejudice while the future would have at its disposal a new oracle of genuine truth.”
Perhaps Gerson should have read up on his Chesterton. He’d have found a much more elegant way to make his point.
Good points Phil. My point was not to defend Gerson. My point was to suggest that when one makes a contra-argument, he/she should be aware of their own biases and presuppositions.
In my opinion, truth should be our goal. And both science, theology, philosophy are trying to discover the truth. Now, call me crazy, but I believe that truth has to be objective to be the truth. And here lies our problem, we’re all more or less subjective when it comes to all these hot issues.
As for Chesterton, I will respectfully disagree with you. He loved skeptics, what he hated was close-minded people, people that twist truth in order to make them look right. Here’s a quote from Orthodoxy:
“The strongest saints and the strongest skeptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”
It’s denying the cat, that’s the problem. For example, in our case, denying that global warming exists. That’s a ridiculous position to have. However, to claim that the whole Republican party is at war with science it’s a big of a hasty generalization, don’t you think? I mean, after all, he did name his book: “The Republican War on science”.
Do you agree with this statement?
“That liberal democracy, as a system, is incapable of dealing with the crisis of climate change and ought therefore to be abandoned in favor of an authoritarian regime guided by the consensus of scientists.” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6878
In the meantime, however, we live in a democracy, where like it or not, our leaders are there to represent us. If they don’t we change them. So, is John arguing here for some new political system: scientists + authority – democracy? I guess, more plainly, the question is who is stopping the progress? Is is the politician that makes the decision in Washington? Or the people that they represent? Or the system?
BN,
Two things. The proper response to the book about the Republican war on science is to consider what it says. To claim as a response that the title is a “hasty generalization” (which it isn’t–because it’s not an argument) because some Republicans are not at war with science (if this is what you mean) just misses the point of generalizations in the first place. Is it the position and platform of the current Republican administration and many of its supporters to challenge the truth of scientific theories, etc.? Obviously yes. Does everyone Republican agree with this strategy, obviously not. Does that latter fact vitiate the former? No.
Second. I read that article and couldn’t make sense of the quote you offer (couldn’t find it). And who is John? But besides, isn’t what to do about global warming really a completely different (however completely legitimate) question from the one we’re discussing here? Everyone has agreed that policy questions are different from scientific findings of fact.
jcasey, if I understand you correctly, the war on science is a denial of scientific truth. If I believe that legalizing abortion will lead to crime rate going down (this is a scientific fact proved by a well known professor at University of Chicago), but I don’t want to support legalizing abortion, does that make me a denier of scientific truth? If I believe that stem-cell research will bring tons of benefits (scientific fact), but I’m against it, does that make me a denier of scientific truth?
While I agree with you that sometimes the denial is there, I would argue that people usually can’t understand the distinction between scientific fact and policies.
Take embryonic stem cell research for example; are most people against it because they deny a scientific truth in relation with this type of research?
No BN. Read the post again. There is a distinction between fact and value. I think we agree on that.
In other matters, I don’t think the abortion claim quite amounts to fact. But anyway, say it is, it doesn’t mean that should be policy. There are other ways to bring down the crime rate.
jcasey, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough … your post does not mixes fact and value. And we both agree on that distinction. It seems to me that sometimes people see the policies and assume that the only explanation for it is a denial of some facts, when in reality it might be just a difference of values. Embryonic stem cell research is a perfect example of that. My guess is that even the book you mention does that plenty. I don’t understand what facts are there that republicans are denying when it comes to this issue. I do see your point when it comes to global warming, however, I see that as more of an exception rather than the rule.
BN,
Some people confuse factual claims and value claims. Gerson is one of them. He’s also guilty of misrepresenting the “republican war on science” issue in so doing. As for that book, no reason to guess anything. You can read it or at least an excerpt of it before you claim it’s guilty of a basic error of logic.
You are right on both points, jcasey. Gerson definetly makes that mistake. It will also be unfair for me to “guess” that the book makes the same mistake. You do use the book as part of your contra-argument, so I assume you read it. And if you say that the author is not making the same mistake, I take your word on it.