Science Junkie-October 30, 2011
Hello, and Happy Halloween. Today you get two columns for
the price of one.
I didn’t plan it that way. The original plan was to title
this column “What’s Wrong With Science?” But as I was going back through my
notes and earlier columns to see what I had already written on the subject, I
kept coming across recurring themes and dire warnings that seem to have held up
and, I think, deserve a second look. So this seems as good a time as any to begin
to reprise some previous observations and reassess or update them in the light
of what has transpired in our great nation in the past three years.
But first, a look ahead. Thus far I have barely scratched
the surface of what I intend to say about science versus its poorly informed,
unscrupulous opposition in the modern world, chiefly the political and cultural
assassins known as right-wing Americans. I will pick up on that subject in
future columns; for now, here’s the spoiler.
The answer to “What’s wrong with science?” depends on
whether we’re talking about ideal science or science as now practiced in the
early Twenty-First Century. I see very little wrong with ideal science –
scientific best practice – which keeps improving, keeps expanding our
knowledge and understanding and growing more refined and effective. But I do
see a great deal that is wrong with everyday science as it is now conducted and
as it reaches us through the distorted lens of an incompetent, negligent, and
corrupt media (a recurring theme of mine).
Many or even most of the problems of contemporary science
are caused by one underlying weakness: human nature. Despite its great power
and unlimited promise, science is a human activity that is carried out in a
human cultural and political context. Anywhere and any time humans are involved
– and especially when the stakes are high – the manifold flaws of
human nature assert themselves and are quite likely to royally screw up the
process. As in U.S. politics, or medicine, or business, or virtually any other
institution.
Bring on the
Libertarians
Still, despite our well-documented and persistent proclivity
for screwing up everything, there are those who call for an even longer leash,
less regulation – or, in the case of wacko libertarians, no leash at all.
These ideologues claim the answer to our problems is to implement their
grandiose thought experiment and allow human nature to run amok in an
unregulated environment where everyone does pretty much as he or she pleases.
That deranged philosophy allows for such abominations as denying service in
restaurants to members of minority groups the owners don’t like. That’s right,
that’s what they say they want – impunity for racists and bigots who
inflict the vilest forms of discrimination on fellow citizens. I’m not
surprised to hear such retrograde callousness from a group of ideologues who
pride themselves on their doctrinaire consistency. As Lewis J. Perelman wrote,
"Dogma is the sacrifice of wisdom to consistency."
But as libertarians become less marginalized and inch ever
closer to being widely electable, they may back off that stance, a la
Republicans like McCain, Romney, Perry, et al. Amazing how readily the prospect
of getting elected turns latent into blatant hypocrisy in political types such as
the erstwhile “maverick” (more on that guy shortly). To quote Thomas Jefferson,
“Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his
conduct.”
As for the libertarian wet dream in which everyone is
gloriously free to succeed or fail beyond their wildest imaginings, I say bring
it on (okay, not really, that’s rhetorical mockery). Oh the brave new world
that awaits us once Ron and Rand and their right-wing allies take over and
complete the destruction of our badly frayed safety net. Assassins on steroids.
In the meantime, which is fast running out, it’s hard to miss the irony of
libertarians like Rand Paul joining forces with the socially
regressive/repressive Republicans. Evidently, the right of an adult to control
her own body will not be included among those precious personal freedoms
supported by one of Ayn Rand’s best-known disciples – he’s named after
her! Just let a teenage girl make a mistake, or get raped, and she’ll pay for
it for years to come, maybe for the rest of her life (serves the slut right). I
wonder if anti-choice libertarians really get all misty-eyed over those
precious, single-digit clumps of cells with their darling little cherubic souls
implanted by God at the moment of conception? Or does it have more to do with
being electable? Never mind that their great hero, the sophomoric philosopher
and dreadful novelist Ayn Rand, was an atheist who detested Christianity. She
would surely have contemptuously dismissed the religious-righteous meme,
“ensoulment occurs at conception.” But not her namesake, Senator Rand Paul. Of
course Ayn Rand never ran for public office. Even if she had, I don’t think she
would have stooped so low as to feign concern for the souls of zygotes. Not
that I think Rand Paul is lying about his position on abortion. I can’t read
the man’s mind, but it does seems like a strange position for a libertarian who
admires one of the previous century’s most outspoken atheists.
Now – finally! – back to science and human
nature. I have made the point more than once that there is a potential cure for
the default tendency to go with the flow of our human nature. Instead of
allowing our thoughts, preferences and actions to be driven by the short-term
dictates of “selfish replicators” – our genes and cultural memes –
we can choose our goals by learning and implementing a process of rational
self-examination. It comes down to teaching young people critical thinking
skills modeled on scientific method. It also comes down to more science: These
are exciting times in the realm of the cognitive sciences, and we are finally
beginning to get a firm handle on some of the key facets of human nature. I
have already discussed a few of these findings, and there will be many more to
come in future columns. But the take-home message is this:
We are evolved creatures, fashioned by the gradual process of
evolution through natural selection to cope with the demands of a primitive,
natural environment. Technology and science played no role in the evolution of
our biological and emotional characteristics; nor did logic, mathematics,
philosophy, or science. We became what we are before we knew anything about
ourselves – indeed, before we understood anything.
Following our natural impulses – the dictates of our
genes – enabled us to survive in the ancient environment of evolutionary
adaptation; but continuing along that course now is a prescription for
disaster. It bears repeating to point out that it is in our nature to focus on
short-term, first-order, gene-driven gratifications at the expense of
enlightened self-interest, or our long-term welfare, which now includes our
very survival.
Both individually and collectively we can and must overcome
our tribal prejudices and wanton traits and begin to lead examined lives,
basing our choices and decisions on the knowledge, understanding, and tools of
critical thinking that have been bequeathed to us by science and reason.
To the extent that I have begun to do it justice, all of the
above is explained in compelling detail by the cognitive psychologist, Keith
Stanovich (here and here) in his profound
and challenging 2007 book, The
Robot’s Rebellion. You can listen to an audio
discussion between Prof. Stanovich and D.J. Groethe at the Point of Inquiry website (just click
on “Download MP3”). This is my favorite book of the past decade.
〮〮〮〮〮〮〮〮〮〮〮〮
Speaking of Tribal
Prejudices, How About Those Republicans?
My first TPJmagazine column appeared in September, 2008,
under a former pseudonym, “Reluctant Junkie.” The title of that column – Did He Just Say “The fundamentals of Our
Economy are Strong?” – was a direct quote from the 2008 Republican
presidential nominee, who made that egregiously ridiculous assertion in the
face of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. Phil Graham,
the McCain campaign’s “chief financial advisor,” received a ton of richly
deserved media opprobrium when he doubled down with this typical Republican
reaction: “You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. . . .
We have sort of become a nation of whiners.”
Sheesh, that was really
harsh and sounded more like an effort to deflect responsibility than a reasoned
assessment of a devastating crisis. So after consulting my economic advisor,
Paul Krugman, via his column in the New York Times, I was moved to write about
“the spiraling financial crisis and the misery it will inevitably inflict on so
many of us.” And I had this to say about Graham’s cavalier indifference:
A callous statement like that by now has a familiar ring
– it sounds so . . . Republican. And Republicans, long bereft of good ideas,
will continue to do what they do, cater to the special interests and pretend to
have solutions to problems they caused – either deliberately or through
incompetence – or else don't really care about. It's no surprise that
people who hate government are so stunningly inept at governing. The criminal
cabal of political, corporate, and religious ideologues who dominate the
Republican Party have long since forfeited their right to the trust and
confidence of the American people. Yet despite their horrendous record, two of
the least qualified of that ilk may win this election.
Mercifully, they did not
win; but now they’re back, weirder and nastier than ever, all worked up for
another shot at the ultimate prize. And you know what? Far too often I feel as
if we didn’t even win the last time.
Anyway, in that
same initial column I went on to excoriate McCain for his vice-presidential
selection:
By the way, is there anyone else out there who thinks that
McCain's selection of Palin may very well be the single most irresponsible act
ever by a major presidential candidate? Last night, on Real Time With Bill
Maher, I heard conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan say just that; then he
added that with that cynical decision McCain had disqualified himself. Andrew
was definitely in a state. And why not? We're talking about handing over
management of the Executive Branch and giving the nuclear-arsenal code to a
person who knows nothing and believes the rapture is imminent.
The selection of Sarah
Palin was one of the major low points in McCain’s up and down political career
– another cynical capitulation to the Republican base, just like his
earlier, craven flip-flops regarding prominent leaders of the odious religious
right. Remember how he did the voter-math and recanted his earlier depiction of
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance”? Or how he rejected
the endorsement of weird John Hagee after the evangelical, Christian Zionist
leader’s anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, and other bigoted statements were made
public? Hagee’s the asshole who said that Hurricane Katrina was God’s
punishment for the level of sin in New Orleans. I read that McCain worked for a
year to secure his endorsement.
Now we are dealing with
a new generation of Republicans-cum-Tea Partiers that our esteemed editor,
Steve Jonas, is fond of calling the GOTP. I like that. What I don’t like is
President Obama’s stubborn, irrational persistence in pursuing the chimera of
bipartisanship – a fool’s errand if there ever was one. It should have
been clear to Obama long before he took office that those people on the right
don’t cooperate or compromise. They see themselves as a lockstep political army
determined to destroy the opposition – that would be us – and to
secure power through any and all means, regardless of the damage to the country
and its people. That’s who they are; and, to our everlasting disgrace, they
have a good shot at winning it all this time around.