Comments on Tragos: The Factinista

Brad -- Thank you for your interesting and lengt...

2006-10-13T15:35:00.000-07:00

Brad --

Thank you for your interesting and lengthy comment. Of course, I agree with you that "blaming the idiots" is not the best way, or even an interesting or informative way, to explain the government's ability to ignore good evidence and arguments at little or no political cost. On the other hand, I think that it is true that American culture is in many ways deeply anti-intellectual (Cf. Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life"), and I think that much of Bush's appeal, as well as a widespread tendency to dismiss scientific claims as ideological politicking, is usefully explained by this feature of American culture.

I think I can say this without pointing an accusing finger at anyone in particular -- that is, without labeling anyone as "an idiot" -- even if your presentation of my view suggests otherwise. So even if I think that there is a strong sense in which we inhabit an "idiot culture," I agree with you that "what Americans need are tools to penetrate, or undercut the motives for producing, the ideological haze." I can say this because even if I think that we inhabit an "idiot culture," I don't think that any particular person is beyond the reach of rational discourse. (I think our culture encourages "idiotic" behavior along the lines of what Colbert describes, but I would never accuse anyone in particular of being an "idiot" in this sense.)

But despite the agreement I mention above, I disagree with you that this means that Americans do not need "a reminder about what makes science credible." On the contrary, I think that such reminders, including better information about how science works, are indispensable to providing precisely the critical tools whose absence you lament. For instance, when the vast majority of scientists treat evolutionary theory as a paradigm of scientific achievement and regard global warming as a well-established phenomenon, yet the "average American" thinks these issues are genuinely open to dispute, I think we clearly have a cultural problem that can be traced in part to a lack of sound education in science and its practice.

I agree we should be skeptical about any claims to...

2006-10-13T14:48:00.000-07:00

I agree we should be skeptical about any claims to know what "the average American" thinks or knows about. But I also agree with JPL's central point, which is that a big, fat, ugly number is like a picture, and speaks much louder than words to those (whoever and however many they may be) who may not have been as engaged or outraged otherwise.

Regardless of the actual number -- for me, the 60,000 estimate was surely horrifying and damning enough -- the publicity for this study can only be bad for an already rapidly sinking Republican ship. The President's dismissal of the study shows more than his hostility to sound scientific research -- it shows, once again, his callousness to the real human costs of his exciting little war in Iraq.

In other good news, Chris Shays is apparently trailing Diane Farrell by TEN POINTS in the Connecticut Congressional race. Looks like he hitched his wagon to the wrong set of horses.

I share your dismay at the Government's failure to...

2006-10-13T13:43:00.000-07:00

I share your dismay at the Government's failure to respect good evidence and arguments, but I am not sure we should adopt your pessimistic suggestion about how to explain the government's ability to do that at little or no political cost.

You write:"What underlies this is perhaps the equally astonishing fact that Americans at large are tremendously suspicious of science."

But perhaps it is, instead, a suspicion that *for all they can tell* any "expert" report is actually the expression of ideologically spun information. If I can't tell the doctors from the snake oil salesmen, I am, quite sensibly, suspicious of both. I bet that, rightly or wrongly, most americans doubt they are in a position (or want to take the time to get into position) to tell the experts from the hacks, and, given that assumption, their apathy makes some sense.

My suggestion is, of course, more chartiable to the "average american" and also seems to receive some support from the report, recently cited in the Atlantic, showing that there is growing distrust of news reports *from any and all sources*, among Democrats and Republicans like (of course for all I can tell, not having looked up the report yet, that report is actually ideologically spun data - luckily I have, and know I have, the skills and access to get and assess the report myself; I've been too busy to do so though)

The anti-science animus may well exist, but I think we should also be suspicious of blaming "the idiots" for the lack of political repurcussions; thinking of it that way insults our fellows and is, frankly, suspiciously self-serving.

I think that what Americans need are tools to penetrate, or undercut the motives for producing, the ideological haze, not a reminder about what makes science credible.

That task would be more difficult to accomplish; it is difficult to even adequately and accurately comprehend, because, for example, it requires us to think through the connections between our capitalistic econcomy and our education, media, and marketing systems.