The denigration of science - a conspiracy?

bonkey

George Monbiot is releasing a book this week entitled Heat. One aspect of this book is an examination of the funding being used to undermine action against global warning.

Right or wrong, Monbiot comes up with a really interesting tidbit. The first corporation to fund lobby groups to oppose Global Warming theories were none other than Phillip Morris - the tobacco company!!!

On the not-so-serious (for me, at least) front, we could postulate that PM were worried that cigarette smoke would be tied into global warming, and the combined one-two punch of being carcinogenic and a serious contributor to global warming would have finally spelled the end of PM's industry.

Monbiot, however, paints a far more sinister picture. At the time they began all of this, PM wanted to undermine science itself, in order to remove credibility from scientific studies linking smoking and lung cancer. They understood that it wouldn't look so convincing if only lung cancer research was undermined, so they mounted a broader attack, om issues such as global warming, nuclear waste disposal, and biotechnology amongst others.

In each case, the aim was simple - to undermine the credibility of the scientific community, particularly when it came to the use of same for the formation of government policy. This isn't to say that none of the criticism was meritless, but much of it followed the (by now well-established) path of carefully selecting individual studies and using them to drive entire campaigns, repeating the message of doubt again and again and again.

This tactic was ultimately unsuccessful in terms of its desired goals (smoking was accepted to be associated with lung cancer), but the efficacity of their program lives on today. PM were the trailblazers whom many follow.

Today, the tactic of denigrating the strengths of science, scientific mwthodology and scientific findings is almost commonplace. The oil industry and US Administration both use it to cast doubt on global warming. Some Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates use it to cast doubt on evolutionary theory. The afore-mentioned nuclear waste disposal and biotechnology fields still suffer from from the ongoing campaign that PM started up.

It would seem to me that over recent years, various interested parties have been actively propagating a meme in the public consciousness - that the scientific community should not be trusted.

The tactics are many.

Supporters of Creationism or Intelligent Design will often present their growing list of scientists who have supported the following statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The list indeed appears impressive, but when we consider the level of qualification required to get on to the list, the number of names on the list, and the proportion they form of the sample-space they cmoe frmo, we discover that they represent approximately 0% of the scientific community. So yes, tehre's a growing list, but no, it does not indicate any serious discontent in the scientific community. You're just supposed to believe it does.

Also note that its a scientist's job to be skeptical, and there is no excuse for a scentist to ever engage in less than careful examination of the evidence. So one can be in agreement with this statement whilst still believing in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.....which makes you wonder why the document is then published under the title "A Dissent from Darwinism". What possible reason do the proponents of this document have for havnig a title which does not accureately reflect the contents?

Similarly, the Bush Administration have their own tactics. They have done all in their power to ensure that government researchers and experts cannot talk to the press unless they toe the line with respect to the Administration's stance. They hand-pick "scientific advisors" based on smiilar criteria - agreement with pre-formed opinions - rather than for objectivity, ability, or any other trait valued in scientific fields.

Bush has even managed to publically claim that a theory is "just an idea" - a meme that has unfortunately taken root in teh public consciousness.

Meanwhile, the likes of Eccon are funding their pundits to convince us all that global warming really is just hokum, and if it isn't then it certainly can't be definitively laid at mankinds feet, and even if it can then there's just no way we can actually do anything about it.

I saw an article on slahdot today about a new theory that "manmade" volcanoes could put enough sulpher-based pollution into the air to exxagerate global cooling, which would offset the warming...so the cynic in me is wondering whether or not the coal industry are getting tehir hands in, and will attempt to convince us that the solution to global warming will be to build hundreds of new coal-burning stations, notably without expensive sulphur scrubbers. Maybe they'll even suggest we shoudl remove s-scrubbers from existing stations too.

Everywhere we look, there are people trying to drag down science. They cast it as uncertain when they can. When they can't. they bill it as some sort of elitist plutocracy trying to rule the world by proxy...which is clearly anathema to any and all democracy-loving Joe Q Public types. One way or another, the message is increasingly clear...scientists can't be trusted when they speak.

Science can be trusted, apparently, when its been vetted. We will let advances in science give us better, more fuel-efficient cars. We'll trust scientists to imrpove modelling techniques so they can build aircraft, buildings and bridges without expensive tests. New materials, advances in medicine....you name it, and as long as its coming from the scientists through a corporation or government and on to us, then its absolutely fine. But when those scientists open their mouth to tell you that someone is distorting the picture.....they're a bunch of shysters who should be first against the wall. Hell, lets not even wait for the revolution, lets just dust off (in a spacecraft they designed) and nuke the earth from orbit (using weapons they designed). Damned science types.

Science isn't easy. There's a lot of subtlety involved, and its true that scientists are far from perfect and don't always get it right. It also true that they're still the best game in town when it comes to getting the right answer to a scientific question. Its even more true that if they don't get the right answer first time round, ti will be spotted and ultimately corrected - due to the built-in checks and balances of reproducability, falsifiability, peer-review etc.

One last thought before I finish. Its easy to speculate how the Government, Big Industry, and so on are all in cahoots to undermine science in they eyes of the public. It is to their advantage, after all. One could even go a step further and see some over-arching hand directing all the various players, but thats just not scientific enough for me. I'd more likely to believe that various groups of intelligent (but morally bankrupt) people are copying a proven strategy thats to their own benefit, because it dupes eough people into believing them. There's a reason for this. There's one group I haven't mentioned who also want to discredit science, who want to ignore its inconvenient findings, the merits of its checks and balances, and in general treat it (when it suits them) as something about as trustworthy as the opinion that drunk you ended up beside in teh bar one evening offered you.

They are commonly called Conspiracy Theorists.

What possible reason does a Conspiracy Theorist have for denigrating science? Surely (good) science is the best weapon in their arsenal? What possible logical reason do they have for discounting any scientific work, except on scientific grounds? Why would they seek to dow discontent about scientific findings using every technique imaginable except the ones that have validity in the scientific community, when the integrity of the scientific community should be what gives them their decisive edge.

I see a number of possibilities. I will leave you to decide which it is you choose to believe in:

1) The CTs are in on it. They are under the direction of the Illuminati or whichever Seerit Power you choose to believe is behind it all (do names really matter).

2) The CTs are unwitting dupes of the very people (Government, Big Business, Seekrit World-Ruling Organisation) they claim to be trying to expose.

3) Various groups of intelligent (but morally bankrupt) people are copying a proven strategy thats to their own benefit, because it dupes eough people into believing them.

mike65

We are in a somewhat anti-science era at the moment, quite why is hard to pin down but I think it may have its roots in the "failure" of chaps in white coats to fix the world as promised throughout the 50 and 60s. For a while science and technology was going to make our lives ever easier and costs ever cheaper, Nuclear power was going to be free as I recall. So many promises were made and so many broken by dint of reality getting in the mix that popular acclaim turned to into mix of contempt and disinterest on our part.

If the public not longer 'belive' then they could turned by vested interests.

There are a lot of vested interests in the anti-climate change movement just as there was in the industry campiagn to suggest smoking was not only not bad it was actually good for you (hard to belive that could be used in marketing looking back). However I get the feeling the high water mark for the carbon lobby has just passed.

Are Creationists conspiritors? I'd say they are genuine belivers who's significant numbers (in the United States) are useful to some.

In short I don't feel science is being undermined in a planned fashion rather its that we were promised the stars and got Teflon.

Mike.

oscarBravo

Don't dis Teflon.

Part of the process seems to be to be a result of the ever-increasing dumbing-down effect of television. Effectively, TV has become a labour-saving device: it does your thinking for you.

An example is evident in this forum, where certain bizarre notions are accepted as gospel fact for the simple reason that there is, to coin a phrase, film at 11. To try to present evidence in the form of the written word, or - worse - in any sort of logically structured format, is somehow obsolete.

In true old fart mode, I despair of what the world is coming to.

mike65

With impeccible timing the Royal Society points the finger at ExxonMobile

Mike.