Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

[moggie]

There's an article by Chris Mooney at Sciencegate looking at a forthcoming RW book, the 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Science' (don't you just hate that title)?:

http://scienceg8.com/science-liberalism/

Obviously there's not much to go on yet, other than the book blurb and the author's track record (creationist, global warming denialist). But look at the slogan which appears on the book's cover: "Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it's our turn". That's probably tongue in cheek, but this will be a book to watch when it's published (preferably without giving money to Regnery Publishing and the author, of course).

[Kipling]

1. Let's run through this.

The book claims the following are untrue.


* Most Christians used to think the earth was flat.
+++I'm sorry, what? Of course they did! So did most atheists. Of course, it depends on the date.

* Darwinian evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence and is the natural ally of political conservatives.
+++Well, there's no evidence to contravene it and all evidence seen suggests it. Look at it this way: if you saw a man standing over a dead body with a knife screaming "You bastard! I'm glad I did it!" you might conclude he has just killed him. That corresponds to evolution. However, you might also conclude, with a bit of creative thinking, that the Invisible Man from the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen committed the crime, and then a swarm of magic ants took over the suspect's body, manipulated his brain to make him shout out the words, and made him pick up the knife. That would correspond to the current position of Intelligent Design.

* Capitalist countries are destroying the environment and causing global warming.
+++I'd say it's almost undisputed by even the craziest whackjob that the US and Friends damage the environment. It's a fact that rainforests are disappearing and a fact that more and more species are becoming extinct. I don't see how you can dispute it. As for global warming, well, Commies caused it too, to be fair. Can't argue with that.

* Religion is the enemy of science.
+++Well, it always has been. Science is all about logic, reason, and debate. Religion is all about faith, love, and heirachy. Neither backs the other up and historically there has always been an argument between the two. Scientific impartiality can only be maintained without the set rules of religion: religion's blind conviction can only exist if logical questions are left unanswered.

* Human cloning and embryonic stem cell research hold the key to our future health and happiness.
+++Human cloning I ain't happy with. Dolly's lifespan was halved. Stem cell research not the key to happiness? Tell it to someone dying an agonising death because they can't have it.

[rman]

2. so it's more like a scientifically incorrect guide to politics

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. A Political Guide to Incorrect Science? - nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. To hijack the topic slightly

the bit about the flat earth is interesting, though not particularly relevant to the subject of modern science (it's more about our views of history). It's about 1500 years since anyone in Europe put forward a serious argument that the earth is flat. It is worth noting that it was people who insisted that the Christian Bible must be taken literally who were the last hold-outs against the reasoning of the Greek philsophers.

Then, as we proceed into the medieval age, there's abundant evidence of spherical earth thinking. Examples include: St. Isidore of Seville (560-636 CE); the Venerable Bede (673-735 CE); St. Virgil of Salzburg (Vergilius), Bishop (745-784 CE). From here, there is an unending list spherical earth belief represented in the historical record.

It is interesting to note that some of the early spherical proponents during this time were cautious with their views, likely due to fear of repercussions from the Church. Some would simply refer to the ancient Greek teachings, quoting 'the philosophers' as teaching this or that, though without finding fault with them. Others would entirely sidestep the issue by saying we have no reason to ponder such thoughts because all we need to know is in the Bible. Examples of these two cautious approaches include: Saint Basil, Bishop of Caesarea (329-379 CE); St. Augustine (354-430 CE); and St. Isidore of Seville (560-636 CE).

In our view, the Venerable Bede (673-735 CE) represents a major turning point. He not only wrote of a spherical earth, but he did so without the cautious approach described above. This seems to indicate that a spherical view is widely held AND that the Church is not concerned about a scriptural conflict. Bede is also a major turning point because medieval writers who followed him quoted him frequently.

As we mentioned before, we cannot say precisely that, "At time X, people no longer believed the earth was flat." We cannot even say that "The Church believed..." without being clear about which Church is in question and who precisely in that Church. Even today there are a tiny few who still believe the earth is flat, as crazy as this is, so it's true that we can't say, at a distance of 1000 or 500 years, that no one in 500 AD or 1500 A.D. believed the earth was flat. However, an important point using reason is that we do NOT find numerous strident defenses of the idea of a round earth being presented in the face of theological or scientific opposition. We may be able to deduce from this that it was not really even a 'hot topic'. This lends credence to the argument that it was probably a minority position and a relatively minor controversy.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch2.html

[BurtWorm]

3. I HATE that title.

:puke:

I'm sure I'd love the book even more.

"Darwinian evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence and is the natural ally of political conservatives."

I'd like to see them elaborate on this one. I don't think I've ever heard the myth about evolution being a natural ally of political conservatives. :eyes:

[Pepperbelly]

6. perhaps your political education should be evaluated.

It was the craze at the end of the 19th through the first third of the 20th. Have you not heard of political, social, and economic Darwinism?

It was used by the cons to justify pretty much any economic or social injustice. That very concept is one of the things that made me despise cons from a very early age.

on edit, I did not intend to sound snippy or flip. Check out this link for a good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

[BurtWorm]

7. That's not a scientific myth. It's a political myth about science.

Spencer's "Social Darwinism" actually preceded Darwinism. The wikipedia entry acknowledges as much:

Herbert Spencer's ideas, like that of evolutionary 'progressivism' stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However Spencer's major work in the field of social darwinism, "Progress: Its Law and Cause" was released two years before the publication Darwin's "Origin", and his second, "First Principles", was printed in 1860, only a year after, and thus it is unlikely that these works were shaped to any large extent by Spencer's knowledge of Darwin's theory.

Darwin's discussion of species evolution in biology was distinct in several ways from these previous works. Darwin argued that humans were shaped by laws of nature (rather than divine intervention) in the same way as other animals, and particularly by the pressure put on lineages by population growth. Unlike Thomas Hobbes he believed that this pressure allowed individuals with certain physical and mental traits to suceed more than others, and that these traits accumulated over time to allow the emergence of a new species.

It seems clear that Darwin felt that 'social instincts' such as 'sympathy' and 'moral sentiments' evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that "at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." (Descent of Man, ch. 6). Thus Darwin did believe that social phenomena were shaped by natural selection, although exactly how evolutionary pressure on individuals led to collective benefits is something that Darwin never clearly explicated. At the same time, Darwin did not hold the political views that many of those inspired by him would eventually affect.

[Pepperbelly]

8. like I said ...

that's how they use Darwinism to attempt to justify all manner of horrors. Basically, it's a philosophy of throwing the weak to the wolves. You can hear the current of that running through the blah-blah from of the major pubbies, if not overtly then certainly a big part of the sub-text.

And that was what you were intially skeptical of, how they could use evolution as a conservative principle but right or wrong, distorted or tightly focused, there it is. They've used it for some time.

on edit, perhaps this goober intends to deny the historical reliance of the more rabid right wingers in his Regenery tome. They do not mind outright lying, you know.

[tocqueville]

9. it's survival of the FITTEST not the strongest

that's why the small hairy rodents are the ancestors of man and not the tyranosauruses

[Pepperbelly]

10. and?

I am unsure of your point, whether it is how the cons may have distorted it to suit their purposes or denying that they have so argued.

[tocqueville]

13. I meant that sizes doesn't matter

"Basically, it's a philosophy of throwing the weak to the wolves"

Social-Darwinism try to find a "scientific" explanation in Darwin
with the allegory of "the Jungle" where there is no place for the "weak"...

But Darwin showed that it's the ability to adapt that decides the survival, not the mere strength even if you are at the top of the pyramid.

Sheehan is more adapted than Bush. Even if she is killed Bush won't win, because they are others that will replace her. That's why she will in the end prevail and not Bush. May take a generation, or two... but that's evolution...

that's why the fundies hate it

[onager]

12. Good analysis of the neocon hypocrisy on evolution...

This appeared in the conservative rag Reason way back in 1997. The author correctly ties the neocon assaults on Darwin to pure, cynical politics.

And he's great at pointing out how the Kristol-Himmerfarb family of right-wing gasbags are apparently a bunch of atheists, when they're at home:

Origin of the Specious: Why do neoconservatives doubt Darwin?

By Ronald Bailey

...It is increasingly obvious that social systems, from commerce to language, evolve and adapt without the need for top-down planning and organization. Order in markets is generated through processes analogous to Darwinian natural selection in biology. In other words, we can indeed have apparent design without a designer; the world is demonstrably brimming with just such phenomena.

But the neocon assault on Darwinism may not be based on either science or spirituality so much as on politics and political philosophy...

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

[htuttle]

5. I'd like to see them build a cell phone with that sort of logic

You know on the bright side, bad science usually doesn't stick around too long, because it doesn't work.

On the other hand, humanity is running out of time to be screwing around like this.

[Pepperbelly]

11. wtf cares about cell phones?

It would not hurt my feelings if every one of them went ((p o o f)) and disappeared.

[really annoyed]

14. Just saw the book at Amazon...

I made the mistake of buying the "politically incorrect" guide to American history... Then I find out the author thinks that all the different races living together is "immoral." I plan on selling my copy of the book and then donating the money to a liberal cause.

Oh, I can't wait for this book....

[dwckabal]

16. Digby has a great take on ID vs. Darwin(ism)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_08_28_digbysblog_archive.html#112542403166582297

But as I read some of the recent discussion of Intelligent Design, it struck me that we are seeing a clash of the pseudo-sciences coming on the right that could be very fun to watch.

You see, the racist Bell Curve people are ardent adherents of evolution; one of their primary wingnut funded institutions is called The Charles Darwin Research Institute. When you go to the site, you will see that it opens with a stirring defense of the theory of evolution and natural selection. As you read down you see its true agenda:

Based on his readings and his personal experiences of exploring Southwest Africa, Galton concluded that the average mental ability of Africans was low, whether they were observed in Africa or in the Americas. In Descent, Darwin acknowledged Galton's work and also accepted the importance of the brain-size differences reported between Africans and Europeans by Paul Broca and other nineteenth- century scientists.

Modern studies confirm Darwin and Galton. The races do differ in average brain size and intelligence. The racial gradient in average intelligence and brain size increases from Africans to Europeans to East Asians.

This institute is run by J. Philippe Rushton, who is best known for his hypothesis that men with bigger penises and women with big breasts and buttocks have smaller brains and are therefore biologically inferior. He is famous for saying in an interview: "It's a trade-off: More brain or more penis. You can't have everything."

<snip>

Unsurprisingly, Bell Curve authors Murray and Hernstein (and contributor Lynn) all pretty much agree with Rushton that large black dicks are a very serious threat to western civilization. Because of their large dicks and big tits, you see, blacks are more promiscuous and therefore have a different "reproductive strategy" that undermines our culture by overpopulating it with more big dicks and more big tits rather than the small dicks of white men like Murray, Hernstein, Rushton and Lynn.

They fail to explain why such a reproductive strategy would actually be inferior in their Disney version of Darwin's big adventure, but they do set forth a very novel explanation as to why having a very small dick is a good thing. (I wonder if any woman (or man) has ever bought that line.)

Anyway, none of these dummies for Darwin, many of whom have followers in the white supremacist creationist crowd (as well as the long standing approbation of such cultural icons of dick as Andrew Sullivan) can sign on to the new fundamentalist chic of the moment --- ID. Without evolution, a tiny tiparillo is just a tiny tiparillo.

So what happens when the Bell Curve meets up with the Discovery Institute? Will the racist Darwinians have the nerve to ask why the "Intelligent Designer" came up with the really, really fucked up idea that the big brained white guys like them got the tiny penises and the small brained, big dicked blacks got all the big-titted, hot assed women? Will the Discovery Institute fellows feel compelled to drop their pants to prove that the IDer in chief knew what he was doing?