- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Feature
Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy
“We will restore science to its rightful
place…”
—Barack Obama
Unpacked, this sentence means: “Under my administration, Americans will have fewer choices about how they live, and fewer choices as voters because, rightfully, those choices should be made by officials who rule by the authority of science.”
Thus our new president intends to accelerate a trend a half-century old in America but older and further advanced in the rest of the world. There is nothing new or scientific about rulers pretending to execute the will of a god or of an oracle. It’s a tool to preempt opposition. The ruler need not make a case for what he is doing. He need only reaffirm his status as the priest of a knowledge to which the people cannot accede. The argument “Do what we say because we are certified to know better” is a slight variant of “Do what we say because we are us.”
An Old Story
THE FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY INTELLECTUALS and merchants who founded the modern state spoke of political equality. But they knew that if the masses governed, they might well have guillotined them rather than nobles and priests. And so they set up, and Napoleon perfected, a system of government that consisted of bureaucracies. In practice and in theory, the bureaucracies defined the modern state in terms of efficient administration, which they called scientific. In 19th-century France, Prussia, and their imitators, the state set standards for schools, professions, and localities. While elected assemblies might debate abstractions, they did not deal with the rules by which people lived. Political equality and self-rule were purely theoretical, while personal latitude was at the discretion of the bureaucracies. This is the continental model of the state, best explained by G. W. F. Hegel in The Philosophy of History and by Max Weber in his description of the Rechtsstaat, the “rational-legal state.” Access to this ruling class is theoretically equal, typically through competitive exams, and its rules should apply equally. Just as in the ancient Chinese imperial bureaucracy, decisions should be made by those who know and care best: the examination-qualified bureaucrats. In modern governance, in addition to embodying the state, the bureaucrats are supposed to be the carriers of the developing human spirit, of progress. Only in Switzerland and America did the theory and practice of popular government survive into the modern world. But note: they survived because they were planted on older, hybrid pre-Enlightenment roots.
Because the pretense of rare knowledge is the source of the modern administrative state’s intellectual and moral authority, its political essence is rule of the few, by their own authority, over the many. Ancient political theory was familiar with this category, distinguishing within it the rule of the moneymakers for the purpose of wealth, of the soldiers for glory, or of the virtuous for goodness. But modern thought has reduced government by the few to the rule of the experts. Expert in what? In bringing all good things, it seems. This was so when Mexico’s dictator Porfirio Diaz (1876–1911) justified his rule by claiming that he was just following the impartial advice of “los cientificos,” the scientists, about economics and public administration. Never forget that the one and only intellectual basis for Communist rule over billions of people since 1917 is the claim that Karl Marx had learned the secret formula for overcoming mankind’s “contradictions,” especially about economics. How many millions genuflected before the priests of “dialectical materialism”! To a lesser degree, the “brain trust” and “the best and the brightest” were important sources for the authority of the Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy administrations, respectively.
The scientific subject matter to which the rulers claim privileged access matters little. Three generations ago it was economics, in our time it includes everything from environmentalism to child rearing. But whether the objective be rainmaking, the avoidance of plague or falling skies, the fulfillment of fond wishes, or the affirmation of identity, the ruler’s incantations establish the presumption that he and his class know things that others do not or cannot know; that hence he and his class have the right to rule, while the rest must accept whatever explanations come from on high. In our time, such knowledge is called science, and claiming ownership of it practically negates political equality, if not human equality altogether. Claiming it is a political, not a scientific, act.
Knowledge and Equality
THE CLAIM THAT PUBLIC AFFAIRS (and as well many matters heretofore deemed private) are beyond the capacity of citizens to understand and too complex for them to administer, and hence that only certified experts may deal with them, must be cynical, at least to the extent to which those who make it realize that only theoretically does it transfer power to “the experts.” In practice, the power passes to those who certify the experts as experts. Surely, however, the polity’s ordinary members cease to be citizens.
Aristotle teaches that political relationships— that is, relationships among equals—depend on persuasion. Conversely, persuasion is the currency of politics only insofar as persons are equal. Whereas equals must persuade their fellows about the substance of the business at hand, despots, kings, or aristocrats exercise power over lesser beings by pointing to their status. But do those who rule on behalf of superior knowledge really know things that endow them with the right to rule? What might such things be? What subjects, what judgments, qualify as “science,” meaning matters so far beyond the horizon of ordinary human beings as to disqualify commonsense judgment about them? What can any humans know that the knowledge of it rightly places them in the saddle and others under it? What are the matters on which the public may have legitimate opinions, and on what matters are their opinions illegitimate, except when expressed by leave of certified experts? Moreover, how does one accede to the rank of expert? Must one possess a degree? But neither Galileo nor Isaac Newton had any, never mind Thomas Edison. Moreover, possessors of degrees do differ among themselves. Must one be accepted by other experts? By which ones? Note also that scientists are not immune to groupthink, to interest, to dishonesty, to mutual deference or antagonism, never mind to error.
The problem is patent: Because it is as plain in our America as in all places and at all times that some men do know the public business far better than others, it follows that the people in charge should be the ones who best know what they are doing. Hence, inequality of capacity argues for political inequality. To the extent that the matters to be decided rest on expertise, any nonexperts who claim a civil or natural right to refuse to follow the experts in fact abuse those rights. At most, nonexperts may choose among competing teams of experts.
But on what basis may they choose? If the questions that the experts debate among themselves are fundamentally comprehensible by attentive laymen, “science” would be about mere detail and citizens would be able to decide the big questions on the basis of equality. But if the “science” by which the polity is ruled disposes of essential questions, then citizenship in the sense of Aristotle and of the American Founders is impossible, and the masses should be mere faithful subjects. And if some voters dig in their heels or place their faith in scientists who are out of step with “what science says”—quacks, by definition— then they undermine the very basis of government that rests on expertise. Such inequality is compatible with some conceptions of citizenship, but not with the American or democratic versions thereof. Because Americans believe that “all men are created equal,” they tend to identify the concept of citizenship with that of self-government; the American commitment to equality means equality in the making of laws. Even more, it presumes laws under which persons may live as they wish, that the people have the final say on any restriction of that freedom, and that even popular assent—never mind scientific decision-making—cannot alienate the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Unlike Hegel and Napoleon, who saw nations as organisms to be organized scientifically, Americans view public life as an arena of clashing interests that must be adjusted to their general satisfaction. Hence from the American perspective, removing the polity’s business from the arena of politics to the cloisters of science just restricts the competition among the polity’s factions and changes its rules. Whereas previously the parties had to address the citizenry with substantive cases for their positions and interests, now translating those positions into scientific terms expressed by certified persons means that the factions must fight one another by marshaling contrasting scientific retinues, by validating their own and discrediting their opponents’ experts. It follows then that the modern struggle is over control of the process of accreditation, and that the arguments the masses hear must be mostly ad hominem, seldom ad valorem— not least because the experts deem the masses incapable and unworthy of hearing anything else.
Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” revolutionized the relationship between ordinary Americans and their government by introducing a new kind of legislation: thenceforth, the people’s elected representatives would delegate to “independent” executive agencies the “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” power to invent and administer the rules in their field by which people would live. The citizen’s recourses against these powers are mostly theoretical. The notion that they are “independent” and rule by impartial expertise is on the level of stories about tooth fairies.
Scientific Pretense Comes to America
Comments
Leave a Comment
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- Advent Is Coming
- Losing It
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Peter Skurkiss| 4.14.09 @ 7:12AM
Excellent article on how the elites are assuming control of America, certified 'expert' by certified 'expert.'
The take away lesson Prof. Codevilla provides is this: "Human nature rebel especially violently against those who pretend to special knowledge but who then prove inept, whose prescriptions bring misery."
Know this and you now know one of the main reasons why the liberals and leftists are desperate to read the Second Amendment out of the U.S. Constitution by judicial decree.
The Left want the freedom to experiment with Republic and the lives of all therein without any consequences to themselves for failures.
Dave| 4.14.09 @ 9:15AM
Way back in the bad old days of bulletin boards we had a term for people who produced screeds like Mr. Mathews: "flame bait."
But the truth is, when you sit back and relax, polemics like this are quite humorous. Especially when an ignoramus such as Mathews claims the intellectual high ground.
So please, Mr. Mathews, keep up the good work. It is becoming so depressing watching powerless while you and your liberal buddies are destroying the country I love that I need a good laugh now and then to relieve the pressure.
Michael L. Hauschild| 4.14.09 @ 9:59AM
Now before some disjointed site pest accuses me of “conservative, Christian, fundamentalism” please take into consideration the fact that I have spent much of my latter academic career monitoring lysimeters (thousands of hours), learning the mathematics and instrument packages needed to document water vapor, CO2, and temperature fluxes, and traveling all over the world monitoring benchmark species. A meaningless but absolutely factual statement would be that I have forgotten more about historical and contemporary climatology in the last five minutes than the sum total of knowledge spewed by the last one hundred posters.
From the lofty twin pinnacle of working within academia and numerous election campaigns let me pass on to you some insight; the beltway and the ivory tower are identical in both form and function. Both exist in a self-preservation environment, fueled by funding and the most devious word in the English language “grant.” Whether it is an earmark or academic funding, a verb or a noun, the powers that be “award” those who dangle from the attached strings.
The scientific community is sequestered in this “global warming” rush to judgment, not based on the principles of causation, but the preservation and empowerment of standing and status.
Most of my colleagues were uncomfortably aware of the lack of validity being promoted in the climatological assessment of “global warming.” Re-election, tenure, and funding, however, are synonyms common to cadre and legislature. My favorite quote, given to me as I embarked as a “candidate” (how pathetic that term), “Do something with global warming or we won’t be able to fund it.”
My skepticism placed me in the “potentially outspoken embarrassment” category so I actually ended up contributing by doing experimentation to create an early detection capability for potential bio-terrorist pathogens.
Bottom line? The truth will set you free, but it will take several millenniums for confirmation, and till then you will have to follow the money.
El Rey| 4.14.09 @ 10:17AM
To the editors of American Spectator:
Take a lesson from Gresham's law -- "Bad money drives out good."
When you do not edit or control your web site and you allow the likes of this "David Mathews" come in and stink up the place with her ignorance and even irrational hate, you drive many of the 'good' away.
IMHO, TAS had a much higher quality when it posted responses to article the next day.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 11:00AM
Michael -- I think you make some relevant points. However, there is a difference between scientific fact and hypotheses. For example, a few centuries ago you'd be called a heretic for believing the world was round. You might also get excommunicated for believing the world was more than 6000 or so years old.
Then there is global warming. If you are truly objective, you'd say that the data is not totally conclusive. Certainly, you could make a relatively strong argument that, over the longer period of time, we are in a cycle of global warming. However, the evidence of man's contribution to that or whether this is an historical cycle that will reverse is rather weak.
That said, we need to take each scientific argument and ask how strong the supporting data is. How can you disagree with that? It isn't that we shouldn't base our opinions on science, it is that we should make our best efforts to look at the data objectively and separate strong data from weak data.
This has an overhang in the way we analyze economic data. Rather than look at conclusive data, people would rather use political beliefs to determine things like the effectiveness of tax cuts. You can't look at the data and come to the conclusion, for example, that tax cuts increase federal revenues. Not looking at the data is extremely dangerous as that point of view will lead us down the wrong path.
El Rey -- so you believe in censorship? That is one of the reasons the Republican party is hurting right now.
Marc Jeric| 4.14.09 @ 12:00PM
Well, I am a scientists- what with a PhD degree from UCLA. But the science in the hands of government is a different matter - does anyone remember the "science" of Dialectical Materialism where the history stops while the avantgarde of Communist Party leads us all into the world of equality and riches? Or the science of "Mein Kampf" under the leadership of the superior race? And now we have the "science" of anthropogenic global warming hoax; try to get a government grant for a study disputing that scam by the far left.
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 12:32PM
Marc, I'd try to go back to UCLA and get a refund for that PhD. It seems they didn't teach you the difference between science and philosophy and you continue to conflate the two. Clearly, there are instances where the overwhelming abundance of real data would prove a point. And clearly, there are instances where supporting data is weak. When you have an abundance of data supporting a premise and then decide that the conclusion is wrong because your religious beliefs are not consistent with the results, that is a matter of a severe lack of intelligence. I can just see you in grad school telling a professor that gravity is just a belief -- it doesn't really exist.
It is not science that is the problem, it is people like you confusing science with philosophy. It is also the extremists who believe that there is no middle ground in science -- that something is either right or wrong. There is much in science where we must answer that question with, "We don't know" because the data is not overwhelmingly strong. That's why we do scientific research.
You should know better...
Ellis Wyatt| 4.14.09 @ 2:24PM
The money quote: Mooney worries: “If the American people come to believe they can find a scientist willing to say anything, they will grow increasingly disillusioned with science itself.”
This is precisley why more nd more people are seeing "global warming" as a joke and a scam and Al Gore a cartoon. dismissing legitamite debate the alarmists have damaged their cause. Paul Chesser's article on the main page today is a perfect example of "science" not wishing to debate even the most basic questions that are unanswered in regards to climate policy. if you have not read it yet I think you should.
Mike Harding| 4.14.09 @ 2:57PM
Dave Mathews wrote:
Angelo M. Codevilla demonstrates conclusively that conservatives are opponents of science, scientifically illiterate and fundamentalists more inclined to believe in racial segregation and religious fairy tales rather than scientific reality.
Thank God that conservatives have become a politically irrelevant extremist minority!
Response:
Mr. Mathews should find out what the difference between 'ad hominem' and 'ad velorum' is. He unwittingly demonstrates the author's very point.
JJ| 4.14.09 @ 3:05PM
So you really believe mr. mathews that science has proven, beyond ALL doubt, life to be meaningless. ergo, if I blow your meaningless head off, it ain't no big deal. What an intriguing proposition.
Vietnam Vet in Communist MA| 4.14.09 @ 3:26PM
IGNORE THIS "PROGRAM WRITER" DAVE MATTHEWS. THE SOONER YOU IGNORE HIM THE SOONER HE WILL GO AWAY. HE SHOULD BE BLOCKED FROM COMMENTING
NIck| 4.14.09 @ 4:58PM
Bob,
You should really stick to your "economics" smoke and mirrors, and refrain from posting on subjects like science. Did you read Mr. Codevilla's article? He was writting about you Bob. Someone who cherry picks "data" to fit your preconceived notions and ideology and then says to everybody else "this is settled" or "what are your credentials?"
Hence your repetition of the old canards of heresy and excommunication for scientists like Galileo (who didn't get the math right, by the way). You should ask for a refund from wherever you got your under-grad degree. Try educating yourself. Or try stating a specific case of excommunication rather than tired old cliches. Your knowledge of Christian history stinks.
Mr. Jeric was spot on. The communists and nazis both claimed they had "science" to back up their assertions. The fact is "science" has been corrupted for about 200 years now. And when have you EVER said "we don't know" to any question, Bob?
Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 5:04PM
brave new world starts here ->
you are here->
Bob| 4.14.09 @ 5:16PM
Nick, and you're saying that religion has not been corrupted for an even longer period of time? "Science" has not been corrupted. However, your knowledge of true science does not seem to exist. There is a difference between claims and proof.
With regard to "we don't know", I've said it a number of times on this board regarding global warming. My position is that the data does not strongly support either side and thus spending a bunch of money on it makes little sense. But then again, comprehension does not seem like a particular strength of you and your ilk.
Nick| 4.14.09 @ 6:27PM
Bob,
Your post just proves Mr. Codevilla's point. You are the one who knows "true science". And because I disagree with you and throw facts in your face, I'm dismissed as someone who's "knowledge of true science does not seem to exist." But you provide no refutation or rebuttal, like the good little propagandist and demagogue you are.
"...thus spending a bunch of money on it makes little sense." That is the other side, Bob. All we say is that there is no proof, that it is a scam. It is the Climate Science Deniers that manipulate the data and assert "the sky is falling". But it sounds to me like you want to believe in AGW but haven't found the evidence yet.
Dano| 4.14.09 @ 7:09PM
We needn't ban little Davie Mathews. Rather, let him post the following:
David Mathews| 4.14.09 @ 9:26AM
Hello Dave,
blah blah blah ...
So you lost. Get over it!
(over and over and over)
/that's all he ever says anyways...
Alan Brooks| 4.14.09 @ 7:18PM
Bob,
you mean well, but don't understand what sort of a dystopia we're building NOW.
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 8:13PM
Grant Writing Classes The American Spectator : Scientific Pretense vs. Democracy « links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 11:54PM
The Paradigm Shift
I believe this to be the most chilling aspect regarding all of the squabbles in the name of “science” today.
Acceptance of the Paradigm Shift, I believe, facilitates a more highly centralized guidance, or influence, of the direction by which scientific investigation and technological development will proceed.
I believe that the politicization of “science” in the past 15 years or so, the constant, and the emergence of bickering over “science,” steadily increasing, and a ‘dumbing down’ effect of perfectly intelligent young Americans, are among the bad consequences.
Kuhn’s thesis of what he named a “Paradigm Shift,” from his essay, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” grew out of his doctoral dissertation in history (about 1959, as I recall).
It gained little acceptance from American scientists and engineers of his, and older, age group, but has now been taught to a full generation of young native Americans as being descriptive of the manner by which scientific investigation proceeds. At this
point-in-time, then The Paradigm Shift has displaced the Scientific Method taught to their predecessors. Probably every native-American, at least 35 years old and younger, has been taught this in school. All young native American scientists and engineers, and
all educated in American universities, since the higher education reforms of 1987-91 will probably be thoroughly comfortable with it. It was popularized via work and information media to the majority of those now 36-70 years old.
This constitutes a major discontinuity in how previous generations of Americans understood the way in which scientific investigation proceeds from how it is viewed today.
Kuhn’s essay was first published in 1962. The second edition, enlarged, was republished in 1970. The theme of the Paradigm Shift was popularized, in the mid 1980s, and began to be taught in History departments at the university level of public colleges, at least 1987-91.
The period of about 1987-92 was the time that major curriculum and standards restructuring took place in American universities and that the last of the older generation of American scientists and engineers, and science and engineering professors, were retiring in large numbers (the so-called “Greatest Generation” age group).
Until then, Kuhn’s assertion that what he dubbed the “Paradigm Shift” was a closer approximation to the actual method by which scientific investigation proceeds than that described by the Scientific Method (a discovery he asserted, was “To my complete
surprise”), had never received wide acceptance. To the contrary, it had received a distinctly cool reception, and rejection, from the majority of scientists and engineers in this age group.
I understand why it works, and why good results continue to be produced, but I don’t like it. In practice, the Scientific Method, is a far sounder description of how scientific investigation proceeds, at workaday level, including within the so-called “Paradigm Shift,”explanation that denies that this is so.
Good data, and sound results, continue to be produced in like manner to those of (now extinct) phrenology in the early -to-mid 19th century, German science in Germany in the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, and Soviet science, in Russia in the second half of the 20th century.
Acceptance of the Paradigm Shift, I believe, facilitates a more highly centralized guidance, or influence, of the direction by which scientific investigation and technological development will proceed.
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 12:15AM
=>“true science".
[This is not directed to any particular comment here, but only a general observation].
Always remember the cultural subversive’s observation that:
“People like to think that it’s their idea.”
And, Always Watch the Addition of Adjectives.
‘Nine times out of ten’ whenever an adjective has been added to (what until then has been) a commonly understood term, in something being popularly propagandized, then a Same-Name-Different-Meaning redefinition of some kind is probably taking place.
“True science”
“Authentic Love.”
“Genuine Freedom.”
“Real Liberty.”
“Elective Democracy.”
Whatever. . . .
It’s a common-as-dirt technique for instruction especially via the technique “Vitriol & Instruction,” where environment is factored in).
Within a just a few years of propagandizing via the Mass-communications Media then millions of us peons Are Taught to speak this way and use these miserable terms, and the (usually) more miserable redefinition’s of ideas and concepts that they facilitate.
[Mass-communications Media (“mainstream” and otherwise: Print, broadcast, closed-circuit, satellite, Education, Entertainment, Work, . . .)]
Ray| 4.15.09 @ 12:31PM
""Science" has not been corrupted."
It hasn't? So, you're telling us that the science of genetics, for example, wasn't corrupted into the pseudo-science of Eugenics, and that this never occurred right here in America back in the 30's? Wow, who knew?
Are you also telling us that science wasn't corrupted in government programs like the study of syphilis, the study of mind control, the study of radioactivity, and the study of bio warfare, once again, right here in America over the last 70 years? Wow! Who knew?
Well, I think it's obvious that it's really YOU who didn't know.
Paul Crowley| 4.15.09 @ 6:36PM
=>" ‘ ‘Science’ has not been corrupted.’
It hasn't? So, you're telling us that the science of genetics, for example, wasn't corrupted into the pseudo-science of Eugenics, and that this never occurred right here in America back in the 30's? Wow, who knew?
Are you also telling us that science wasn't corrupted in government programs like the study of syphilis, the study of mind control, the study of radioactivity, and the study of bio warfare, once again, right here in America over the last 70 years? Wow! Who knew?
Well, I think it's obvious that it's really YOU who didn't know.” [Ray|]
Hi Ray:
Very good.
I would also add the so-called Tuskagee Experiment (never secret, its results were published in medical journals over the course of course of time that it was conducted), publicized in 1971, in the midst of the ongoing public chaos of the Vietnam war issue, and used to implement “Right To Know” legislation during the crises of 1978-81. The fundamental question was never asked: Is it ever right to experiment on a human being?). ‘We’re all guinea pigs now.’
Then the advent of the new definition of “brain dead” (first introduced in the medical journals in 1988, as I recall), concurrent to the spread of ‘hospices’ in our re-formed medical system, during the crises, 1988-93.
Actually, I could add a good bit more, but that’s enough to add to your examples.
The scientific data, individual “health” (medical & psychological) records, of the “American Experiment of 1969-2005,” and those before it, will be "digitalized,” transcribed, over the next five years. To be used for the good of mankind, only, no doubt.
concerned| 4.15.09 @ 8:52PM
"There is nothing new or scientific about rulers pretending to execute the will of a god or of an oracle."
Old as religion would be my guess.
concerned| 4.15.09 @ 9:06PM
Paul, Ray
Fatman & Little Boy are great examples too.
Paul Crowly| 4.16.09 @ 12:10PM
=>"Fatman & Little Boy are great examples too." [concerned|]
Hi concerned:
Ray mentioned the "study of radioactivity."
I took that to include the later atomic & then the thermonuclear weapons projects, including such as the atomic bomb tests that used American troops in Nevada and the atomic and thermonuclear tests using native islanders in the Marianas UN Trust Territory
(now republic). Maybe I read in too much.
The Japanese seemed to have led the way on bbiological weapons development (pre and during WWII). Since the Soviets occupied Manchuria, and America occupied Japan, the two got most of the foundation work, and then ran with it. The Japanese were the first to discover the jet stream during the war. They studied the direction of the currents by
floating balloons with explosives our way. I don’t know how close they were with their biological weapons development (it was all kept secret), but I’m glad they seem to have not been quite ready to use them effectively. They used human beings in their experiments.
Europe led the way in science in the 19th century.
Americans were clever about applying European science (the old “American Know How;” at least mostly for purposes that could benefit human beings).
Development of steel production processes, Anglo and French, (1859 on) was largely driven by military applications, and made modern steel warships and the first massive weapons, used in WWI possible.
The Brits have had a psychotic pre-occupation with Population Control, beginning with behavior modification, since the 18th century, over a century before the term "social sciences" was coined, and gave birth to the Birth Control element, by the end of the century. I’d argue that the Brits did more to form and advance eugenics than probably any other government, including “naturalist” expeditions (The
Royal Navy’s Beagle expedition with Darwin aboard is an example).
However, it’s not fair to blame them for everything. Truth to tell, I was somewhat surprised to find what great copiers they were. Plenty else was contributed by plenty of Europeans funded, one way or another, by European governments, as well. The Germans certainly picked up eugenics.
There were American “fellow travelers” in the eugenics camp by the turn of the century, usually anglophiles (President McKinley, a real ‘beaut’ in other ways too, is an example).
They probably led up until the first world war, then the various “joint” enterprises between the wars. Politically, the upper-crust New England WASP-Rockefeller Liberal branch of the Republican Party ‘picked up the ball,’ so to speak, and carried it up until it shifted to the Democratic Party, between 1964-72, and onward.
Actually, for examples of applications of science with less than impressive credentials, then the Dutch were great naturalists as far back as the 17th century, much of it driven by cultivation of their slave-powered plantations in their colonies. early Anglo, Dutch and French science probably drove slavery more than any other factor (with their propagandists shifting the blame to Spain while doing so).
The first modern “economics” was French, 18th century, land, rather than currency, based. All a major part of what’s dubbed the Enlightenment. Te Brits then gave us the gold standard. Modern botanical gardens and zoological gardens, all have their origins in the colonial plantations.
Sugar is probably one of the most bitter substances, humanly speaking, in history.
Sorry, I get ‘yappy.’
Paul Crowley| 4.16.09 @ 1:34PM
“. . . a self-preservation environment, fueled by funding and the most devious word in the English language ‘grant.’ ” [Michael L. Hauschild| 4.14.09 @ 9:59AM]
Hi Michael:
Very good.
Although, I’d say the Grant and the environment are more means, than cause.
One could substitute "paycheck," or "bonus," for "grant," and describe the situation outside acadamia.
Or in a different system, chits, whatever. . .
I’ve pointed this out in other strings:
Scientific research and technology advance in the direction in which one directs his resources colloquially: “where the money is spent”) (“one” in this instance can be on a national or international scale).
That’s not an original observation.
But, I do add, because its too important, I believe, that where one directs his resources is DETERMINED by his system of ethics. From what I see, your observation is an example. The Grants applied within a fundamentally amoral ethical system (“whatever is expedient” To Get It Done).
Facilitated by the fallen human nature of the peon ‘worker bees’ (especially if formed in an amoral ethic themselves): Influenced by any one, or combination, of the groups of temptations that fall under 6 of the 7 Deadly Sins (Anger, Avarice, Envy, Pride, Gluttony Pride or Sloth), and so fear isn’t surprising as a result (“a self-preservation environment,” as you say).
Or, for some, maybe temptation to the better nature, genuinely believing the work to be for the good of others (at least in the beginning).
My thoughts on the replacement of the Scientific Method by the Paradigm Shift [Paul Crowley| 4.14.09 @ 11:54PM], falls into the “means” category, rather than the cause also. I don’t like it, because the adoption of the Paradigm Shift, I think, especially with in such an environment, provides for easier central direction while facilitating the anonymity of the authority setting the directon (but it wouldn’t prevent it).
If it’s a sham, then the ethics of who or whatever is directing the effort are clearly amoral as well.
Then it’s the “To Get It Done,” the goal that remains unanswered by the mere observation of the means of the Grant, the environment, and the stated problem now “The Paradigm,” all are chasing, rather than the hypothesis to be studied), that drives the effort.
In short, it begs the question, why?
The direction can be seen, the means to drive it, the grants and environment, but who set the direction and why?
Or, now, who set the “Paradigm,” and why?
“Disjointed Site Pest”
I probably qualify by now as a “disjointed site pest,” at least to some, but I won’t accuse you of “conservative, Christian, fundamentalism” (whatever exactly that actually means, and whether or not it’s something to actually be ashamed of if you were).
Alan Brooks| 4.16.09 @ 9:49PM
Paul Crowley,
actually, Authentic Love does exist distinct from inauthentic love.
Authentic Love is the love you get from your current wife.
inauthentic love is the love you got from your ex-wife.
Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:48PM
sexy lingerie lingerie
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 1:54AM
I just bought this bag from whichWedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
located in New York city, it’s wonderful.
groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 2:28AM
Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.