-
The Book We Still Can’t Spare
May 21, 2013 | 53 comments
-
History Channel Gets Vikings Precisely Wrong
March 12, 2013 | 52 comments
-
Salvation Alley
October 23, 2012 | 3 comments
-
Marriage: Looking Outward or Inward?
August 9, 2012 | 106 comments
-
Coexisting With Our Forefathers
August 2, 2012 | 25 comments
A Further Perspective
Political Non-Science
One can almost prove scientifically that science and politics don’t mix.
“Science is better than faith,” the scientist told me. “Faith is about opinions and beliefs that have no rational foundation. There’s no way to prove one is better than another, so everybody just ends up yelling. And when the argument gets heated enough, they start killing each other.
“In science, on the other hand, we can prove or disprove things. Feelings don’t come into it. If a theory doesn’t work under laboratory conditions, if the results aren’t reproducible, then it falls to the ground and that’s the end of it.”
“It’s a good point,” I conceded, “though you must admit it hasn’t always worked that way. Lysenko in Russia did peer review by firing squad.”
“Which proves my point,” said the scientist. “That wasn’t science.”
“I could argue that killing people for religion isn’t faith either.”
“Prove it.”
Touché.
In the modern world an appeal to science generally trumps appeals to faith or authority, and although I’m a Christian evangelical, I think that’s largely a good thing. Science, historically the fruit of a theistic world view that saw the universe as a rational artifact, works. It works wonderfully. It brings genuine results from which we all benefit. It’s been misused from time to time, but taken as a whole it’s been an overwhelming blessing to mankind.
The problem comes when we try to apply science to areas that aren’t subject to the microscope, the telescope, or the mass spectrometer.
Like politics.
It’s a tragedy of history that Karl Marx chose to dress his theories in the clothing of scientific analysis. Ever since his time, Marxists have built systems on his theories in the settled faith that their daring new policies must bear fruit, because they’re based on “irrefutable science.”
And yet, time and again, those policies have failed.
Science isn’t supposed to work that way. So the Marxists are forced to ask, “What can explain such an anomaly? How can science be wrong?”
The answer is always the same – “Wreckers have been at work. Saboteurs, ungrateful for the blessings of socialism, are conspiring to destroy the fruits of the people’s labor.”
Obviously these wreckers are enemies of humanity, and must be hunted down and eradicated. Any scapegoat will do. It might be the Jews. It might be the intellectuals. It might be the 1%, or anybody else the Supreme Leader happens to be miffed at today.
About the Author
Lars Walker is the author of several published fantasy novels, the latest of which is an e-book, Hailstone Mountain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lars Walker
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/02/political-non-science
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Back in the Fray
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- There’s Something About Cambridge
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Henry22| 10.2.12 @ 6:43AM
Agreed. And neither does religion and science mix.
Appleby| 10.2.12 @ 6:49AM
Much like motherhood and a full time career as a combat pilot, a nun or a travelling salesman, some things just don't mix.
And conversely, some things are not either-or. It is possible to be both a scientist and a deeply religious person.
RCV| 10.2.12 @ 3:01PM
Indeed it is. Read Paul Davies' wonderful book "The Mind of God" for an exposition by a leading scientist who is also a believer. He explains cogently why the discoveries of modern science have only strengthened his faith, and mine.
Butch| 10.2.12 @ 3:51PM
The man who married my mother after my father died (I was a grown young man when my father died, so I don't call him my stepfather) was an MD and a lecturer at the nearby med school. He was also deeply religious. After commenting to me that some physical relationship between interacting body parts (I forget which ones) conformed perfectly to a mathematical function, he said "the more I study the human body, the more I believe in God." He believed the human body was designed by a supremely "intelligent" designer.
Von Mises Jr| 10.2.12 @ 7:51AM
Much of the problem is that politicians and crony capitalist do not use science for good governance, but to confound and exploit the people.
Economics is part of the Social Sciences, and while not subject to experimentation in isolated circumstances such as mathematics, logic and the physical sciences; it is a scientific study.
The Austrian School of thinkers such as Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Bastiat, and Jevons provided much insight into how economies function and of "Human Action." Von Mises "Socialism" explodes Marxism, but other than Michelle Bachmann, I have not heard of any politicians that tout an understanding of this great tome.
We hear the "Broken Window Fallacy" daily from politicians who are determined NOT to understand or tell the truth. Bastiat in 1850 also gave us "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen," yet in 2012 we still have politicians only describe the benefit that is seen without regard to the cost that is often not seen.
Keynesian Economics (demand-side) has been disproven by Carter's stagflation and is being proved false again right in front of our eyes with real U3 at 11.5% and real inflation pushing towards 10% when including food and fuel. But BLS tells us unemployment is 8% and Core Inflation 2%. We cannot follow science if we lie about the results of the experiments!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.2.12 @ 8:27AM
“All lies in jest, ‘til a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.
Science is a useful but limited tool in helping us deal with the world, and until everyone understands its rules and terms, it is less useful and more limited.
Byron| 10.2.12 @ 8:49AM
Politics, religion, science all fall under the bigger set called "information". There are very scientific things to be said about aspects of religion and very dogmatic and absurd things that are taught as scientific truth. Most of the time science gives us a fact and its implications are the source of wonder. I think its wrong to make broad catagories like politics, religion and science when it is the quality of the information that is important.
JD| 10.2.12 @ 11:45AM
Politics, religion, and science are three different words that can be applied to exactly the same ideas, but which one is used depends on the speaker's feelings towards that idea. He calls it "science" if he likes it and wants everyone to accept it without question. He calls it "religion" if he wants to mock it. He calls it "politics" if he wants to avoid talking about it entirely.
These words do great harm to our society, by preventing reasoned conversation on a host of issues through their misuse.
Peppermint Tea | 10.2.12 @ 9:42AM
"You can generally tell when a true believer is posing as a scientist. He throws a fit and calls you a Nazi when you question his findings."
So true. As a scientist I have attended seminars where the higher up the scientist is in the hierarchy, the less tolerant he is of any "crank" who dares question the methodology or implications of his study. A REAL scientist would take criticism with the attitude, "You may be right--let's devise an experiment to test it."
Fortunately for the "climate scientists" they see no experiment that might test the null hypothesis that AGW does not exist. Ditto evolution. Bring that up and you are called a Nazi.
JD| 10.2.12 @ 11:46AM
The labels "science" and "religion" are applied entirely arbitrarily, depending on whether a person supports or hates an idea.
pomdter| 10.2.12 @ 1:00PM
The key missing phase is "scientific method". As long as that is followed and verifiable, then it is real science, and that is why global warming is not.
Bill8472| 10.2.12 @ 1:59PM
When your friend tells you to "prove it" when you make the claim that killing people in the name of religion faith, tell him right that he's looking for materially-based proof for a spiritually-based issue, and you can't provide the kind of proof that he's looking for.
Tell him that one must judge killing in the name of religion on the overall message that the religion is expounding, that's about as rational one can get about a spiritual concern.
For example, Islam demands killing in the name of Allah; Judaism and Christianity are far less sanguine and far more oriented toward forgiving and tolerance. That's one way to judge killing in the name of Christianity as outside that faith.
PolishKnight| 10.2.12 @ 3:21PM
That's largely because Judaism and Christianity have evolved and kind of shoved uncomfortable passages about killing adulterers and punishing women who wear pants out of the way. In my adult years, I actually started listening to prayers during mass and realized that the prayers were for beloved relatives to resurrect when Christ returned but in the meantime, as a child, I was told that my beloved grandparents had instantly gone to heaven at death. But that isn't what the faith means.
When we use the term "radical" Islam, what that maybe means is that these are simply people who actually live up to the belief as written AND taught by the prophets at the time the religion was written. In other words, "moderate" treat Judaism and Christianity like the left treats the Constitution.
Regarding Marxism and Science: there's a joke that goes that if Lenin was a scientist, he would have tested Marxism on rats first. Why is it that climate "scientists" and luddites afraid of eating an ear of genetically engineered corn and want to live like hippies (with their iPad and A/C, of course) so casually want to make social changes to customs and behaviors of humanity that have worked well for centuries?
Bill8472| 10.2.12 @ 4:34PM
Well, the Soviets could have faithfully followed Lysenko as the Red Chinese did during the Great Leap Forward and planted their rice "socialistically," i.e., plant all the rice shoots closely together so that they can use their group power as a collective to achieve their maximum growth potential.
Of course, the rice clumps died or failed to grow in a healthy way, dooming somewhere between 38 million and 45 million (depending on what historian you read) Chinese people to death from starvation.