On Jun 12, 5:28 pm, "V for Vendicar"
m wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote

In KKKommunist politics the truth is decided by party members

And that is why Bush appointed RepubliKKKans to NASA and the EPA to alter
the findings of the nations Scientists so that they were in line with
RepubliKKKan party Liedeology.


"Steve Thomas" clucked.
k00k-a-d00dle-d0000!


The Republican War on Science
Chances are, if you follow science policy debates at all, you are aware of
Chris Mooney's recently published book, The Republican War on Science.

Not surprisingly, it has generated a lot of controversy. You can find a good
sample of the arguments in some recent discussions involving Mooney and two
critics, Lawrence Krauss and Roger Pielke, at TPM Cafe. The comments from
others there are very interesting as well.

Although Pielke has good credentials, his style of argumentation seems
sophistical and even, perhaps, deliberately deceptive. There is, for
instance, in this article a real howler.
A central part of Mooney's thesis is that "bad scientific information
leads, inexorably, to bad policy" (p. 4). But scholars who study the
relationship of knowledge and action paint a far more complicated picture of
the relation of knowledge and decision making than is implied by this
overly-simplistic, linear formula.
OK so far. But then he uses as his first example studies of needle exchange
programs. Such programs were rejected by both Clinton and Bush
administrations. But while the former didn't dispute the scientific studies
(which supported exchange programs), the latter claimed, falsely, that the
evidence for the efficacy of exchange programs is shaky.

Pielke notes, appropriately, that "Science appears to have been mostly
irrelevant in either case." But that does not in the least contradict
Mooney's assertion. Because what we have here is an instance where good
science did not lead to good policy, because it was either ignored or
disputed. That does not address at all the very plausible assumption that
bad (i. e. inadequate, inept, disproven, distorted, or dishonest) science
may very well lead to bad policy -- especially if it is relied upon instead
of simply ignored. So Pielke's whole argument begins with poor logic.

On a related note, there's an especially harsh review of the book from Keay
Davidson, orgininaly published in the Washington Post, and also posted at
Amazon. Davidson is a science journalist who sometimes takes a critical view
of science.

Davidson asserts, reasonably enough, that "Historically, debates over U.S.
science policy have at least two broad features. First, there are the
scientific/technical details of the debates," and "Then there are the
broader, quasi-philosophical questions that loom beyond the technical
details." All well and good, but Mooney is taken to task because his book
doesn't involve much of either.

Well, duh, just looking at the book's title shows neither of these was the
purpose, because the book -- whether it's mainly right or wrong -- is
obviously about politics. It's a work of political journalism. Nothing wrong
with that. Mooney is much more concerned with how science is misused and/or
abused by politicians and government officials rather than with how it can
be used legitimately and effectively.

Mooney's a fine writer, and on his own blog he points to other problems with
Davidson's review. In particular, he disputes Davidson's allegation that the
book fails to address the difficult problem of discriminating between "good"
and "bad" science. One must admit that though the book mentions the problem
in passing, it doesn't deal head-on with the issue. But again, the book
isn't intended as either philosophy or sociology of science. It's about the
politics of science. And questions about what makes science "bad" (i. e.
inadequate, inept, disproven, distorted, or dishonest) deserve (and have
many) book-length treatments.

Further response from Mooney is here.

Interestingly enough, Davidson works as a science writer for the Chronicle.
But the review of Mooney's book that the Chronicle actually published (Bush
and company blinded by pseudoscience), by David Appell, is a lot more
favorable.

Update, October 15: Pielke and Mooney go another round here and here.
Pielke's contribution is mostly a complaint about the "war" metaphor, but he
continues to avoid specifics. His position is that science shouldn't be
"politicized", and that at worst the various sides in a given issue mostly
just cherry-pick the science that supports their case. Mooney continues to
respond (with good basis) that the Republican actions are worse than that,
when they ignore the scientific consensus altogether (global warming), pack
advisory committees with people favorable to their side, and even apply
political loyalty tests to as many professional civil service positions as
possible (when the purpose of the civil service in the first place was to
avoid that).

Pielke's quibble with the word "war" is this: "When you declare "war on"
something this means that you are trying to get rid of it." That's one
possibility, but not entirely correct. The U. S. went to war against Iraq
(most recently) not to get rid of it but merely to change its government to
one that is more favorable to the interests of the regime in the U. S. That
seems like an apt description of the Republican war on science -- not
eliminate science, just make it favorable to the party's goals.