Politicized Science

Absolute Certainty Is Scientific

But only because it’s necessary when dealing with a public taught to distrust science, and read scholarly uncertainty as a vulnerability to be exploited for political gain, not for further evidence-based research.

For the Wall Street Journal, Dan Botkin argues otherwise, claiming that when climate change activists (or scientists in support of the cause) claim a monopoly on the truth, they conspicuously demonstrate their misunderstanding of a process where no fact, truly, can ever be certain or free from the possibility of later amendment.

I felt nostalgic for those times when even the greatest scientific minds admitted limits to what they knew. And when they recognized well that the key to the scientific method is that it is a way of knowing in which you can never completely prove that something is absolutely true. Instead, the important idea about the method is that any statement, to be scientific, must be open to disproof, and a way of knowing how to disprove it exists.

Therefore, “Period, end of story” is something a scientist can say—but it isn’t science.

Granted. But when scientists speak of “certainty” — which they do, sometimes — they’re not speaking in their role as scientists, but in an ex cathedra sense, in which they’ve conspicuously put down the lab notebook, and picked up the microphone to use their particular expertise to influence policy. This is a necessary function in the modern world, but it’s one that’s jeopardized, not enriched, by acknowledging the limits of the scientific method. Policymakers and the voters who elect them crave certainty, which scientists should offer cautiously, and only when a conclusion is sufficiently certain to merit public attention, and require public action. It’s up to wise policymakers to ask the right questions, and wise citizens to understand that science that’s “certain” is only “certain” to a point.

Perhaps this is less than optimal; maybe it would be a better world, and dispel the ivory tower view of the academy, if scientists laid all their cards on the table even when summarizing evolving findings to the public. But scientists have learned the hard way that anything less than a monolithic, unanimous consensus on every point invites suspicion, not curiosity, and actually undermines trust in the process.

Take, for example, evolution, where the use of the word “theory” lets religious demagogues manipulate the public into disregarding empiricism altogether; or where the debate about how evolution occurs — whether gradually, or in puncuated equilibria — balloons, in the hands of creationists, into a debate about whether evolution happens at all. Or, most obviously, “ClimateGate,” where industry-backed hacks took emails evidencing honest scientific dialogue about how to reconcile data with an old model, and twisted them to make it look like global warming science was all some huge conspiracy foisted on America by… evil British scientists, I guess? Because all conservative tropes have to collapse into foreign- or liberal-backed conspiracies? Who knows.

In a world so dominated by special interests, where well-funded corporations sell distorted science to an unsophisticated audience with ads that sound for all the world like parody (YouTube: one, two), the effect of acknowledging scientific doubt in the public eye is hardly salutary. We either need an efficient capital marketplace of ideas — where the truth wins, rather than the best-funded viewpoint — or an approach to scientific messaging that retains its skepticism internally, and remains capable of introspection, but that consistently presents a unified front when dealing with the public. If that means arguing for unscientific notions of “certainty” in the public eye, so be it.

Today’s Thin Excuses for Scientific Denialism

No-one is more surprised than me by the vocal, negative reaction we’re seeing among conservatives actually offended by the charge that their candidates, especially Rick Perry, are “anti-science.” I rather thought this would be a point of pride; isn’t “mainstream science” an “elitist” liberal construct? In any event, the counter-offensive, supplied by the National Review‘s Rich Lowry, goes amiss:

Perry’s offenses against science consist of his statements on evolution and global warming, areas where “the science” is routinely used to try to force assent to far-reaching philosophical or policy judgments unsupported by the evidence.

Apparently, the right bristles at the science of evolution only in an attempt to avoid these philosophical judgments, and “preserve a role for God in creation.” But this desire stems from a misunderstanding of what evolution actually *is* — a misunderstanding of the right’s own creation. Evolution makes no claims about the actual event of creation in the first instance. To the extent that Lowry correctly divines Perry’s basis for distrusting evolutionary science, then, Perry is erroneously conflating evolution with abiogenesis, compounding the ignorance of his actions with a foundational ignorance in his premises. I’m not sure how we should take any comfort from that.

And, regardless of whether the nation could  ”survive” another anti-science president, the error is in Perry’s case far from harmless. As he proudly proclaims, Texas teaches evolution and creationism in its public schools, and creationism does, by its very existence, “criticize[] the scientific method.” It undermines it by drawing the Scientific Revolution’s most basic premises into doubt, meaning whatever scientific good is done in Texas through grants like the Emerging Technology Fund occur despite – not because of — Texas’ educational policy.

Finally, teaching creationism in public schools is illegal. Perry’s beliefs will either cause his state to continue to break the law, or cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation. Let’s assume supporting creationism is somehow not anti-science. It’s still illegal, and a damn expensive way to make a point. Isn’t that enough?

[About the picture: hipsters on dinosaurs. No, I could not resist. Could you?]

The Federal Duty to Standardize Reality

I’m not really surprised to hear Michele Bachmann (R-MN) insisting that schools should follow local policy when designing curricula, even and especially when that means teaching intelligent design. She’s obviously wrong — schools should teach science, not clever P.R. schemes –and it’s not like we don’t expect anti-intellectual pandering from her, as she flits from one hilarious conspiracy theory to another. But her motivating theory, that local government can decide what science to teach and why, seems both wrong and dangerous.

Local control properly handles local problems, and matters where local sensibilities and morality are relevant. Social studies, maybe. But from where I sit, 2+2=4 in Manhattan, and in the depths of the Bible Belt, too. Science and math are addressed to universal truths, and we cannot have students learning one form of reality in one part of the country, and another elsewhere. Unless we can avoid that, we’ll end up with a country even more polarized than it is today, where representatives from one state cannot even speak to those from another, because their basic preconceptions about life will diverge so substantially.

Something like this is already happening. When one state can whitewash our founding to avoid any mention of deism, we’re already at risk of forcibly creating a culture where rejecting uncomfortable truths is more important than relating to each other as Americans. That’s not patriotism, and it’s not presidential.

Science and the Public: the Prevalence of Discredited Mythology

Observers on the modern era will agree that one of the greatest weaknesses of democracy is the public’s inability to responsibly discuss science. As an example, this week saw the release of a study conclusively refuting the alleged “link” between vaccines and autism, and revealing England’s Dr. Wakefield, the originator of this pernicious lie, as a paid, deliberately mendacious hack.

But, look at the poll attached to the Daily News’ article. Immediately after reading an article revealing the “link’s” fraudulent origin, a staggering 12% still say they believe that vaccines cause autism, and 19% want to see more studies.  This despite the absence of any non-fraudulent study, ever, linking vaccines to autism. Compensating for the unscientific nature of internet polls, this is still a substantial delusion. Why?

Two theories (and I welcome more). First, we as a country are deeply distrustful of certainty. This is a consequence of the country’s foundational anti-elitist spirit, which proves to be our greatest strength at the best of times, but our greatest weakness during the rest. Despite a basis in earned knowledge, and the best of intentions, scientific advice is still a statement that you know better than someone. We bristle at such proclamations.

Second, we believe in fairness, again a noble sentiment perverted to evil ends. A great deal of life takes place in shades of gray. President Bartlet (ah, the quotable West Wing):

Every once in a while, there’s a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts.

Unfortunately, we forget this lesson when we need it most, and remember it at all the wrong times. Science is not subject to fairness review. Except on the cutting edge — the debates the scientific community largely conducts in private — as applied to policy construction, there’s a right answer and a wrong answer. Like 2+2=4, natural selection explains life on earth, and “creationism” does not. And yet science reporting tends to insist on a second side of the story, because only two things make news: controversy, or hysteria.

There’s no real solution to this problem. Education, as always, is the silver bullet, but that’s a whole other thing.

A Scientific Explanation for Creationists

And global warming deniers, and other adherent to those pernicious scientific minority views, that curiously become political plurality views. From a commentator on the study:

The authors [of a new study] favor a model, called the cultural cognition of risk, which “refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values.” This wouldn’t apply directly to evolution, but would to climate change: if your cultural values make you less likely to accept the policy implications of our current scientific understanding, then you’ll be less likely to accept the science.

More sophisticated players then cherry-pick science that, out of context, supports their cultural instincts. The assertion that this wouldn’t apply to creationists feels wrong. Fundamentalists of all religions are as likely, if not more likely, to build “cultural values” resistant to objective truths uncovered by modernity. It also explains the scientific sleight of hand noted in my article on Gonzales v. Carhart, where a parade of minority-view scientists built enough of a sham record to convince Justice Kennedy into signing off on an unconstitutional law.

Deaf as Adders

Caleb Howe of RedState, a downright decent guy writing for a den of vipers, was shocked and appalled that I wasn’t shocked and appalled by his Saturday post on global warming, here. Unfortunately, I was too sick on Saturday to read much of anything, and thus had to miss it. Thankfully for Caleb, this also proves that his post wasn’t the cause of my illness…

Simply put, Caleb doesn’t like global warming. And that’s fine. But it’s not fine to take as a reason not to like it the fact that it’s “politicized,” it’s not fine to read the science as “uncertain,” and it’s not fine to read any stated uncertainty as a reason to do nothing. Let’s explore.

First, calling a scientific topic “politicized” is a handy way to bootstrap one’s way to an argument. Especially when your side is the one doing the politicizing. In the modern era, lots of scientific topics break along political lines. A few years back, a majority of Republicans did not “believe” in evolution, and there’s no reason to think the numbers have gotten better. Similarly, a Republican congressional majority managed to parade enough non-subject matter specialists in front of the Supreme Court to convince five Justices, but none of the trial courts that heard the matter, that intact dilation & extraction abortions were inherently dangerous to women (see my published works…). Despite the fact that there is no serious debate among people knowledgeable on the subjects that the “liberal” positions on each issue are, in fact, correct, these subjects are “politicized.” But that does not entitle one approaching the issue to disregard either position on the strength of that alone. Always be alert for politicians attempting to create a controversy, and then use a controversy to prove its own existence. As Mad Eye Moody would say: CONSTANT. VIGILANCE.

Next, there is no serious debate within the scientific community about anthropogenic global warming’s existence, or its danger. As facts haven’t yet persuaded a soul among our honourable friends opposite, I see no reason to rehash that debate (Gore handles it pretty well, too). Suffice it to say that, setting aside a few bad people, whose misdeeds have been wrongly imputed to the entire community, a healthy degree of dissent is what we expect when the scientific community is functioning normally. Scientists question themselves, and each other, as a way to push the community forwards to the next breakthrough, but while such questions illume the way forwards, they don’t necessarily question the foundational principles of the field. Remaining unanswered questions need not — and cannot — foreclose action on matters of importance, as a matter of common sense, and society cannot vest a heckler’s veto in a straggling minority. 10% shouldn’t be able to hold the remaining 90% hostage to their version of reality. There does exist a level of uncertainty at which action becomes unwise. But uncertainty, pleaded but not proved, is never enough to f0reclose a previously well-supported scientific theory, which global warming emphatically is, as a basis for legislation.

Especially when the stakes are this high. We can reduce the danger of global warming to a simple thought experiment. Being generous to our honourable friends opposite, the science behind global warming has raised a 60% chance of utter ruin; 40% of continued survival in the long term. Draw up the equation, with (x) as the harm of inaction, and (y) as the harm of taking corrective action. To justify inaction, both sides of the equation must balance:

.6(x)=.4(y)

Now, assign a value to the harm of inaction (x) — on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the worst, Armageddon is probably a 10. No? Now assign a value to the harm from action (y) — on the same scale, spending lots of money and facing inconvenience might get you to 4. So:

.6(10) [?] .4(4);

6.0 > 1.6

Even if you discount the possible harm by the value of time — namely, it won’t happen for a while — you have to be pretty selfish to not be persuaded. Add in the plausible side benefits of cleaning up the environment — better air, water, etc. — and under what twisted logic will this equation balance?

time(6.0) + benefit < 1.6

Despite the fact that they were suspiciously quiet about the subject for eight long years, we hear a lot from the far right today about how out-of-control debt is mortgaging our children’s futures. This is the same issue, but with a much higher certainty of harm. Keynesian economics has pulled us out of worse, and at the very least, our spending is informed by an expectation, hitherto borne out, that it will be paid back. On the other hand, there’s no rational basis for taking a bet on inaction in the context of global warming. Let’s throw in a Jefferson quote:

Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully, and in their own right. [. . . .] For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it’s own existence.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, the HBO John Adams clean-up:

I am increasingly persuaded that the Earth belongs exclusively to the living, and that one generation has no more right to bind another to its laws and judgements, than one independent nation has the right to command another.

The nature of the global warming debate — an extreme harm, substantially proven at the very least — requires our opponents to be absolutely certain that inaction is the responsible choice. That they cannot be.

Climate Change: “Facts are Stubborn Things…”

With the recent rash of climate change “scandals” — none of which actually altered the overwhelming scientific consensus in favor of anthropogenic global warming’s existence — conservatives have been, lately, chipping away at the public perception of this issue’s fierce immediacy. Texas Governor Rick Perry’s attempt to litigate the matter, however — a quixotic quest shared by several other states — could switch the momentum back in our favor. Here’s why.

Perry and his fellow travelers seek to use these recent “scandals” to question and then displace, by means of a “petition of review” to the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agency’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. Agencies enjoy wide discretion in these matters — no citation necessary — so this is, at least, an uphill battle for Perry. In fact, it’s probably impossible. The issue of greenhouse gases’ danger, and thus the EPA’s discretion on the matter, has already been litigated and decided in our favor — by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachussets v. E.P.A.,  549 U.S. 497 (2007). If a greenhouse gas contributes to global warming, the EPA must control the substance:

Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. Ibid. To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to pursue other priorities of the Administrator or the President, this is the congressional design.

Further, scientific uncertainty is no excuse, unless the uncertainty is profound, and verifiably so:

Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether green- house gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.

Much mischief could be worked, politically, with the phrase “uncertainty.” A renegade head of the EPA could, much like Congress did when banning D&X abortions, cherry-pick the scientific record, emphasizing some facts while ignoring others, to fabricate the uncertainty necessary to confer some discretion on the matter. Because our current EPA is not willing to do so, however, Perry and his friends can only displace the EPA’s scientific judgment judicially, by proving, in court, that anthropogenic climate change is simply false.

This they cannot do — but we should let them try. American law provides a vast body of law for weighing conflicting scientific testimony, keyed to the very indicia that the scientific community itself uses when evaluating theories, like peer review. Accordingly, American courts will, with proper lawyering, reach the same conclusion as the scientific community nine times out of ten. Perry’s action will take some time to wend its way to the federal courts, if it ever does (I expect Bill White to win the Texas governor’s seat).  But when it does, we can count on the climate change denial crowd being swiftly, and visibly, laughed out of court. As Democrats, we can’t always manage our spin. But, when the facts are at issue, we can expect to win. Game on, Perry.

Who Speaks for Science? Salon’s Critique of Science in Popular Culture Goes Too Far

Here and elsewhere, progressive commentators have noted the downfall of America’s respect for science — all the more troubling because of the central role scientific leadership played in establishing and maintaining American hegemony throughout the twentieth century.

In blaming popular culture in general, however, rather than a few bad apples, Salon, and the authors of Unscientific America, go too far. Their thesis:

[Science] is simultaneously admired and yet viewed as dangerously powerful and slightly malevolent — an uneasiness that comes across repeatedly in Hollywood depictions. As science-fiction film director James Cameron (“Aliens,” “Terminator,” “Titanic”) has observed, the movies tend to depict scientists “as idiosyncratic nerds or actively the villains.” That’s not only unfair to scientists: It’s unhealthy for the place of science in our culture.

As examples of Hollywood’s distortions of the scientific record, Salon gives us “Angels & Demons” (for misstating the actual potentcy of antimatter); Michael Crichton (for casting environmentalists as villains, and global warming denialists as heroes, in several of his books); and Jim Carrey/Jenna McCarthy (for lending their credibility to the autism/vaccine lie).

I won’t deny the virulence of the last two. Crichton mortgaged his fame to, essentially, become an anti-science polemicist, while people like Carrey and McCarthy openly deceive & exploit concerned parents. They’re embarrassments, all of them, and don’t get me started on creation “scientists.”

But it’s wrong to lump willful shills like these in with movies (or shows) whose only failing is stating science inaccurately. Yes, “Angels & Demons” explains particle physics poorly, and even goes so far as to twist it, deliberately, to fit the storyline. For that matter, so does “Star Trek” (what the Hell is subspace?!). In each, however, twisting science works to serve a beneficial purpose. In “Angels & Demons,” Dan Brown (per Tom Hanks) builds up science as a dangerous, malevolent presence — for the first half of the movie — before exposing the true villains as those who, for nakedly ideological purposes, twist it to evil ends. In the world of “Angels & Demons,” science is an innocent bystander, and fundamentalism is the true evil. Similarly, perhaps “Star Trek” could be criticized for raising an entire generation to that think faster-than-light travel is just around the corner, but the same generation grew up convinced that science and reason are forces for profound good, capable of bringing humanity together and eliminating the barriers of prejudice that divide us. A few extra minutes in science class is probably worth that lesson.

In the alternative, then, to Salon‘s theory, here’s a general rule of thumb. A show ought not be exposed to criticism for getting the science wrong, even deliberately, so long as misstating science is neither (1) the goal of the show, nor (2) in the service of some other pernicious purpose (think Ben Stein), especially if the show’s message is on the whole profoundly positive. In the war to rebuild science’s shattered image, we should pick our battles, or at least avoid shooting our allies.

Full Fourth Circuit Upholds Virginia Late-Term Abortion Ban

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, relying on pure emotion and hopelessly flawed science to conclude that late-term abortions were never necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Today, in Richmond Med. Ctr. v. Herring, the Fourth Circuit compounds this mistake by upholding a mirror Virginia act that tacks on criminal penalties for doctors who may, without knowledge, accidentally perform the forbidden procedure.

Recall – as the dissent points out – that the Supreme Court in Gonzales punted on the scientific issue, resolving a 2% doubt as to the necessity of the procedure against the majority and against the affected women:

[T]he [Supreme] Court considered whether the Federal Act imposed a substantial obstacle to late-term, pre-viability abortions by failing to include an exception to preserve the health of the woman. Id. at 161-67. The Federal Act contains a life exception, 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a), but not a health exception. The Court noted that “whether the Act creates significant health risks for women [was] a contested factual question.” Id. at 161. As a result, the Court held, “[t]he [Federal] Act is not invalid on its face” for lack of a health exception because “there is uncertainty over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman’s health, given the availability of other abortion procedures,” such as the standard D&E, “that are considered to be safe alternatives.” Id. at 167. In the face of this medical uncertainty, only as-applied challenges to the Federal Act’s lack of a health exception may be pursued. Id. at 167-68. (Michaels, J., dissenting – see p. 44 of slip PDF.)

My argument to this effect is fairly extensive and currently unlinkable: I’ll link when my article on it is published (soon).

Obviously, the failure to correct this error can’t be blamed on the Fourth Circuit. It’s not their job to overturn bad Supreme Court decisions, and the issue wasn’t squarely presented in this case in the first place. But the Fourth Circuit was not obligated to expand upon shaky precedent by allowing criminal liability at a lower standard. Decisions such as this make it all the more essential that the U.S. Congress quickly amend the Partial Birth Abortion Act to add a necessary exception for the “health of the mother,” even if this won’t help Virginia doctors. Some day.

Quite apart from its outcome, the current Fourth Circuit panel is (or should be) well known for wrapping important decisions in genial, philosophical discourses on the nature of law and fundamental liberties (read their Al Marri opinion for an example), and this case is no exception. Even if you disagree with the outcome, as I do, the full set of opinions is well-worth a read.

Judge Wilkinson, a brilliant and very conservative jurist, couches his concurrence in explicitly moral and emotional terms. Because of his eloquence, I’ll forgive him the obvious inconsistency of an originalist looking to emotions (“empathy”?) for guidance: Continue reading »

Top GOP Contenters for 2012 Still Mostly Creationists

Back in February, we reported that the potential frontrunners for the nomination in 2012 – Jindal, Palin, Pawlenty, Sanford – were all creationists. Well, good news/bad news time: while the field has changed, slightly, the supermajority are still creationists.

Huckabee,  Palin, and Pawlenty are obvious, on the record, and proud of their ignorance. Potential dark horses Gingrich and Jeb Bush are right there with them. Romney, on the other hand, has actualy offered a pretty spot-on defense of “non-overlapping magisteria,” the idea that philosophy is and should be taught to be severable from religion, and at a point when he was trying to woo conservatives. Though otherwise crazy, he’s safe on this point.

So what’s it say about a political party, when 5/6 of its pool of potential presidents put religion (or pandering) ahead of reality? Surely nothing good: I keep hearing about these moderate Republicans, with good ideas and honest talking points, who’re set to reinvigorate the party. Well, moderate GOP – it’s time to wake up. Or don’t. Sixteen years of Democratic Presidents could work.