Skip to main content

Science as a candle in the dark


OK so the State of Delaware may not have elected a Witch ("I'm not a Witch, I'm not a Witch..." WHATEVER).

However the United States has elected an awful lot of people whose opinions do not vary a whole lot from such simple superstition. Evidence gathered from peer reviewed papers is not the way that the US Congress conducts its business. Over 95% of the members of Congress- both new and old- have no Scientific background whatsoever.

There are more people in American politics who say that they believe in the "literal truth" of the Bible than those who acknowledge the demonstrable truth of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

If you can not base your political ideas on the Scientific method of sceptical empiricism then you might as well believe in witchcraft and spells to put things right. It is through such methods that we have been able to start to catch the merest glimpse of the spectacular wonders of the Universe, and our place within it. It is not superstition that is providing answers to our most deeply felt questions, but the steady progress of research based on looking for provable truth.

Once, an Astronaut, Jack Schmitt of the Apollo 17 Mission to the Moon, graced the benches of the US Senate. Now it is an array of trial lawyers and social workers. These politicians have a facility with words even while they lack a facility with ideas. Now, whether Democrat or Republican, American politicians are suppose to respond to the feeling of inchoate rage that is said to be the feeling of the American people.

I don't think they can.

I think the whole basis of American politics is now more Superstition than Science, and that is pretty bad for everyone. Ignorance is not bliss, it is fear and misunderstanding. The inchoate, primal fear of the mob may end up burning witches, but it is unlikely to find too many solutions to their problems.

Now America's leaders, from the President and the new leaders of Congress down, have a responsibility to inform their people about the realities that they face, and the price of dealing with the crises.

It is going to be a very difficult task.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Whilst I agree with you in principle, the scientific method nowadays has been so highly politicised (=corrupted) that you can find peer-reviewed science to agree with anything the government wishes to fund, as long as the result is "right" and there is enough "consensus", E.G. AGW. At least the new crowd will start investigating that "science" properly, so there may some hope that real, sceptical science may return.
8:54 am
Newmania said…
Not really ,not all knowledge is available to any individual some of it is diffuse. We see this in markets and institutions evolved over time.
Often this is encoded in traditions even superstitions and even were this not the case science is not hard top understand and scientists are not especially honest
12:54 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...
1 comment
Read more

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...
20 comments
Read more